In 1995 I accepted the position of ITE District 6 Technical Chair and decided to develop an annual means where ITE members in the west could share information regarding basic elements of our profession. The objective was to provide a platform of information whereby transportation engineers and planners could quickly check what others are doing in the field. A simple "check the box" format was selected with the key element of the surveys being a list of contact names with phone and fax numbers for professionals to follow up and further exchange information. Two simple surveys were developed in the fall of 1995 for Neighborhood Traffic Management and Traffic Signal Maintenance and Design. The surveys were distributed to ITE District 6 Section Presidents for distribution to their membership. Additionally, in early 1996 Nazir Lalani included the surveys in a nationwide mailing from the ITE Technical Council to agency staff. This paper summarizes the results of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Survey. Results of the Traffic Signal Maintenance and Design Survey will be presented at the Fresno ITE District 6 Annual Meeting. The results from both surveys will be placed on the ITE District 6 Internet home page for members to review and use as they wish. The record file is a simple Excel spreadsheet which will be updated as information (updates, new entries and corrections) come in. At the Fresno meeting I will be polling members for topics of next years survey and would appreciate input from members.

This survey provides an overview of the types of neighborhood traffic management actions that agencies have utilized in the United States. Twelve traffic management measures were listed for agency staff to indicate whether they had used them in their community and if written standards or criteria existed for their application. The survey form is attached. Fax responses were received by 165 agencies, representing 38 states in the USA and six provinces in Canada. The attached table provides a summary of the responses. A few observations can be made in reviewing the responses:

• Western states are clearly making greater attempts to utilize a wide range of neighborhood traffic control measures than states east of District 6.

• Undulations/humps/bumps are the most common measure where criteria/standards exist in communities (50 communities with standards).

• Throughout North America, selective traffic enforcement is the most commonly used Neighborhood Traffic Management measure.

• Many cities (particularly in the east) referenced stop signs as neighborhood traffic management measures, even though MUTCD clearly states that "STOP signs should not be used for speed control" (section 2B-5).

Speed wagons/trailers are commonly used by agencies throughout North America. While this may not seem to many people to be a Neighborhood Traffic Management measure, the wagons do impact vehicle speeds on roadways. Based upon project work performed in Milwaukie, Oregon I was able to compare multiple days of vehicle speed data at a similar location with and without a speed wagon. The 85th percentile speeds on the roadway were 5 MPH lower with the speed wagon than without the speed wagon (34 MPH compared to 29 MPH).

Some cities are testing photo radar, a technique where the device that looks like a speed wagon is equipped with a photo device that records vehicle license number and driver for issuing tickets. This is being tested in Oregon by the Cities of Portland and Beaverton in school areas and neighborhood zones. The performance studies are being conducted this year.

Many cities in the west are testing use of narrower local street designs to preserve lower vehicle speeds. The most common width used was 28 feet for this measure.

The City of Portland gets the award for the most Neighborhood Traffic Management measures used in a community. They indicated they have used them all (except Woonerfs, a European concept of local street design). I also did greatly appreciate the responses from agencies who do not use any measures (indicated by the na - not applicable - entries). It is important to know the number of cities who do not address Neighborhood Traffic Management as well as those that are active in the area.

Beyond the basic comparisons between communities, the summary provides transportation engineers a prototype of what other agencies are able to accomplish within their budgets to meet neighborhood needs. While many cities are very aggressive in creatively serving neighborhood traffic management needs, other cities (particularly eastern cites) are not. All cities face increasing budget pressures and the survey shows that many agencies are clearly very innovative in addressing the public’s needs within their budgets.

To follow up this survey, a second Neighborhood Traffic Management survey focusing on performance of measures for communities that have done before and after studies will be performed in 1996/97. This survey will also poll information regarding cities with standards on how they are used. I greatly appreciate everyone’s participation in this survey and look forward to your help in the follow up survey next year.

Ransford McCourt, P.E.
DKS Associates
921 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 612
Portland, OR 97205-2824
(503)243-3500