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
5FEED WATCH <br /> <br /> The Neighborhood Speed Watch P.rogram, <br /> which borrows some of the Neighborhood <br /> Crime Watch concepts, relies on neighborhood <br /> participation to create aw'areness and thus <br /> help control speeds in neighborhoods. A per- <br /> sonal letter may be s.ent .to local residents as- <br /> king for their cooperation and personal visits <br /> by neighborhood committee members may in- <br /> clude an appeal for cooperation ff a self con- <br /> rained subdivision is involved. Signs may be <br /> erected. Radar observations by transportation <br /> personnel or neighborhood residents trained <br /> in the use of a radar unit are then made. One <br /> runs the unit and one records vehicle and <br /> speed information. Speeders are sent letters <br /> by the Traffic or Police Department pointing <br /> out the inconsistent speeds relative to stand- <br /> ards adopted by their friends and neighbors. <br /> In many cases, the speeders turn out to be local <br /> residents. When neighborhood residents run <br /> the unit, they learn first hand about the prob- <br /> lem or lack thereof. This techniqde could be a <br /> part 6f a Iow cost in~tiaI phase attempt to slow <br /> speeders. Later phases could involve physical <br /> design or other changes ff this technique fails <br /> to produce lasting speed reductions. <br /> <br /> Effects <br />Volumes. Essentially no change since traffic is <br />I$cal. <br />Speed. In two Georgia s~bdivisions, 8Sth per- <br />centile speeds were reduced from 45 to 3S mph <br />and the total number of vehicles exceeding $0 <br />mph was reduced from 56 to 13 vehicles daily. <br /> <br /> SPEEO <br />WATC <br /> <br /> In others, the speed reduc~0ns were evidently <br /> not significant. Speeds typically go down <br /> during the watch, but may not remain down <br /> later. Data is needed. <br /> <br /> Traffic Noise, Air Quality a.nd Energy Con- <br /> sumpfion. Little or no effect. <br /> <br /> Traffic Safety. Possibility of improved safety <br /> through reduced speed. <br /> <br />Commn.niiy Reaction. This program has been <br />perceived positively by the neighborhoods - <br />even in areas where significant speed reduc- <br />tions were not measurable. Residential speed <br />complaints virtually ceased in the Georgia <br />case. In many cases, the neighborhood resi- <br />dents may find that no significant problem <br />exists. <br /> <br /> Cost <br /> <br />This technique can typically be fairly Iow in <br />cost requiring a radar g-tm and some data <br />15rocessing and training (staff time). <br /> <br />Neighborhood Traffic Control <br /> <br />January 1994 <br /> <br />3-1 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.