My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 11/12/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1996
>
Agenda - Council - 11/12/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 3:37:58 PM
Creation date
9/24/2003 3:02:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
11/12/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
184
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
INCREASED ENFORCEMENT <br /> <br />CHAPTER. <br /> <br /> Increased enforcemer/t involves the effective <br /> use of public safety/lbo[ice personnel to en- <br /> courage reduced speeds in residential' areas. <br /> The enforcement procedure usually involves <br /> the use of radar to identify speeders and sub-' <br /> sequent ticketing of sl~eed violators. <br /> <br /> Effects <br /> Volumes. Little or no effect. On higher <br /> volumb streets used a~ "bypasses," there may <br /> be a slight reduction. <br /> <br /> Speed. Studies have shown that enforcement <br /> operations result in appreciable speed reduc- <br /> tions. However, speeds are usual/y reduced <br /> only as long as the ent?orcement is maintained. <br /> <br /> Traffic Noise, Air Q~ality and Energy Con- <br /> sumption. Little effect in most cases. How- <br /> ever, in areas with higher volumes, especially <br /> larger percentages of!heavy commercial and <br /> truck traffic, there may be some reductions. <br /> <br /> Traffic Safety. The number of accidents is <br /> generally reduced and overall safety is im- <br /> proved while speeds are reduced. May have <br /> significant J_mpact if sustained enforcement is <br /> present. <br /> <br />Community Reaction- Residents support <br />and encourage bnforcement on "the/r" street. <br />Th. ere is often a negative reaction if enforce- <br />ment results in citation to local residents. Th.is <br />results in reduced'pohce interest in enforce- <br />ment. Neighbors should be encouraged to <br />view enforcement as a system wide proce- <br />dure. <br /> <br /> Additional Considerations <br /> <br /> 1. Impacts of enforcement can have a longer <br /> lasting effect when enforcement is repetitive <br /> on a non-routine basis and this is communi- <br /> cated to the neighborhood and. the driving <br /> public through signing and/or brochures. <br /> <br />2. Budget and manpower constraints. Use of <br />personnel for speed enforcement is typically <br />not a high priority for police departments. <br />Manpower time and wages can be costly for <br />th.is type of speed reduction technique. <br /> <br />3. "Photo-Radar" has been implemented in <br />some cities. This can be more cost-effective <br />and safer method of enforcement on higher <br />volume streets. <br /> <br /> Case Study <br /> <br />No specific case study is provided for this <br />report. However, surveys have shown that <br />police enforcement for speed reduction is a <br />widely accepted and effective method nation- <br />wide. It is also accepted positively by the <br />general public. However, as previously <br />stated, the negative aspects of this method are <br />the following: priority and expense concerns <br />of law enforcement agenctes, and enforcement <br />must be administered continuously for long <br />term to be effective. <br /> <br />Studies have generaily shown that people <br />speeding in 'neighborhoods tend to be local <br />residents. <br /> <br />Neighborhood Traffic Copt:roi January 1994 <br /> [ <br /> <br />2-1 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.