[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29855-29861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13721]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Discretionary Cooperative Agreements To Support the Demonstration
and Evaluation of Setting and Enforcing Rational Speed Limits
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Announcement of discretionary cooperative agreements to support
the demonstration and evaluation of setting and enforcing rational
speed limits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Speed Management Team of the U.S. Department of
Transportation (U.S. DOT), a multi-modal body including members from
FHWA and NHTSA, will fund a number
[[Page 29856]]
of cooperative agreements with states or localities to field test the
impact of setting and enforcing rational speed limits. The goal of the
project is to evaluate a cooperative program in which engineering,
enforcement, and education are undertaken in a coordinated manner to
manage traffic speeds. Rational speed limits promote public safety by
providing drivers with information to help them choose a reasonable and
prudent speed that is appropriate for the normal traffic, weather, and
roadway conditions. Speed limits are set with the objective of
achieving a balance between safety and efficiency. Rational speed
limits are determined through a formal review that uses the 85th
percentile speed of free-flowing traffic combined with information on
roadway geometry, crash characteristics and land use. This procedure
results in a speed limit that appears reasonable to most drivers and
thereby results in more uniform speeds. Previous research has suggested
that speed uniformity is associated with lower crash risk and that the
85th percentile falls within the speed range of lower crash risk.
Consequently, strict enforcement of rational speed limits, focused on
flagrant speed limit violators and designed to minimize speed variance,
may help in promoting safer travel. In addition, an effective public
information and education campaign will help citizens understand how
the speed limits were determined and the reason for their strict
enforcement. Such a combined approach is expected to result in strong
support from the public, the police, and the judiciary.
Cooperative agreements will be awarded to support a number of
communities in developing and evaluating innovative speed management
projects that adopt such a rational speed limit approach. The approach
will incorporate the following steps:
An engineering and traffic investigation of existing speed
limits.
Revision of speed limits where appropriate.
Education of the public on reasons for revising speed
limits.
Enforcement of the rational speed limits fairly and
strictly.
Identification of a separate community for comparison
purposes.
This notice solicits applications from State and local governments
and their agencies. Two to four cooperative agreement awards for
demonstration and evaluation projects are anticipated under this
announcement. Interested applicants must submit an application package
as further described in the Application Procedures section of this
notice. Applications will be evaluated on the basis of the criteria
identified in the Evaluation Criteria section of this notice.
DATES: Applications must be received at the office designated below on
or before 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Contracts and Procurement
(NAD-30), ATTN: Maxine Ware, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 5301,
Washington, DC 20590. All applications submitted must include a
reference to NHTSA Cooperative Agreement Program No. DTNH22-01-H-05221.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General administrative questions may
be directed to Maxine Ware, Office of Contracts and Procurement at
(202) 366-4843. Technical questions relating to this Cooperative
Agreement Program may be directed to Paul J. Tremont, Ph.D., Office of
Research and Traffic Records (NTS-31), NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, or by e-mail at [email protected], or by
phone (202) 366-5587. Interested applicants are advised that no
separate application package exists beyond the contents of this
announcement.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Introduction
Speed limits promote public safety by informing drivers of the
maximum reasonable and prudent speed for each road segment. The speed
limit should represent a concerted attempt to balance safety and travel
efficiency. As such, it establishes a rational basis for enforcement to
target violators traveling at unsafe speeds. Posted speed limits seek
to confine speeds beneath an upper bound and produce a relatively
uniform speed distribution. Previous research has suggested that speed
uniformity among vehicles on a roadway is associated with lower crash
risk. Rational speed limits are primarily based on existing traffic
speed data and often take into account adjustments for roadway
conditions, crashes, and land use.
General Principles
A guiding principle for setting rational speed limits is that they
should provide a high level of compliance and consequently be largely
self-enforcing. This requires that drivers understand the basis for the
limit and that it appears to be reasonable. Such rational speed limits
help to establish a reasonable standard for enforcement and permit
authorities to concentrate enforcement efforts on those more flagrant
speed limit violators and high-risk drivers who are likely to create
unsafe situations. Achieving high compliance will require an effective
combination of Public Information and Education (PI&E) and dedicated
enforcement. For this cooperative agreement program, the recipient will
be required to determine rational speed limits using the engineering
study procedure described in ``Guidelines for Setting Safe and
Reasonable Speed Limits''. (Appendix A).
Elements of Speed Management
Managing speeds depends on the integration of three key elements:
engineering, enforcement, and education. The prevailing speed
engineering study is frequently cited as the desired way to achieve
high compliance with what drivers choose as reasonable speed limits.
For this approach, the 85th percentile of the distribution of free-
flowing vehicle speeds is used as the starting point for setting the
rational speed limit. To establish credibility of the rational speed
limits program, a rigorous enforcement program must be developed and
systematically applied. Finally, in order to gain full compliance of
rational speed limits, the public must understand the basis for their
setting and realize that they will be rigorously enforced. To achieve
this, the community must also develop an effective PI&E program.
Additional Resources
The following is a list of resources for information on setting and
enforcing rational speed limits. Copies are available upon request from
Paul Tremont, the designated technical point of contact.
Committee for Guidance on Setting and Enforcing Speed
Limits. (1998) Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting
and Enforcing Speed Limits. Special Report 254. Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington,
D.C.
Institute for Transportation Engineers. (1993) Speed Zone
Guidelines: A Proposed Recommended Practice. Institute of
Transportation Engineers: Washington DC.
Objective
The objective of these demonstration and evaluation projects is to
determine the extent to which rationally established, well-publicized,
and rigorously enforced speed limits lead to
[[Page 29857]]
higher compliance and improved traffic flow, without reducing highway
safety.
Description of Program Effort
General Requirements. This cooperative agreement program requires
each recipient to conduct a carefully planned demonstration of setting
and enforcing rational speed limits. The recipient shall designate a
specific demonstration community (or group of communities). A
demonstration community is the geopolitical area where the rational
speed limit demonstration will take place. This could be a State, a
county, a city, a township, a borough, or any defined geographic entity
or group of geographic entities within the United States with a clear
governing body. The recipient will conduct an engineering study of
selected road segments and revise the speed limits on those road
segments using a rational speed limits approach to manage speeds. The
recipient will implement and maintain a speed enforcement program and
provide public information in the demonstration community to fully
inform drivers of both the speed management program's rationale and the
planned enforcement program. The recipient will collect data on speeds
as well as on public outreach and enforcement throughout the
demonstration period.
The recipient shall also designate, or at least suggest, a similar
community with comparable road segments that could be used as a
comparison site during this demonstration. These two communities must
be separated geographically so that the demonstration community's speed
management program does not influence driver behavior in the comparison
community. Below is a listing and description of specific requirements.
Planning Phase
Task 1. Kickoff Meeting
Within two weeks of award, a one-day meeting will be held at U.S.
DOT headquarters in Washington, DC, during which the recipient will
conduct an informal briefing of its demonstration plan, including a
discussion of the preliminary list of demonstration streets and
highways.
Task 2. Prepare Work Plan
Based on comments from U.S. DOT at the meeting, the recipient will
prepare and submit a final work plan and project schedule in accordance
with the schedule of deliverables. The work plan shall specify type and
amount of data to be collected, procedures and equipment to be used,
and plans for engineering, enforcement and PI&E. The work plan shall
also include the final list of demonstration streets and highways along
with the name or route number, start and end point, mileage, existing
posted speed(s), functional class of road and area type. The
demonstration roads may include a mix of existing road types, including
arterials, collectors, and local roads. Interstates and other
controlled access roads are excluded from this effort.
Task 3. Conduct Engineering Studies
Conduct an engineering and traffic investigation on the
demonstration roads using the engineering analysis described in
Appendix A and/or other U.S. DOT approved methods. Speeds should be
collected continuously for at least 24 hours using automated equipment
capable of recording individual vehicle speeds and identifying free
flowing vehicles (i.e. headway or gap greater than 3-5 seconds). Based
on the findings from the engineering study, prepare a speed-zoning plan
and obtain necessary approvals for the speed zoning changes. A copy of
the speed zoning plan will be submitted to the U.S. DOT in accordance
with the schedule of deliverables.
Task 4. Collect Other Baseline Data
Collect enforcement and other data to help establish baseline
measures, including:
Citations for speeding on selected road segments,
Crashes for the previous 3-5 years, including details of
crash types, contributing factors, and citations issued,
Average daily traffic volume corresponding to same years
as the crash data, and
Public attitudes and perceptions toward speed limits and
enforcement.
A letter report will be prepared documenting the results this
activity. The letter report will be submitted in accordance with the
schedule of deliverables.
Implementation Phase
Task 5. Develop and Implement Public Information and Education (PI&E)
Activities
Each demonstration community will be required to develop and
implement a PI&E campaign intended to inform the public of the program,
heighten awareness of the expected benefits, and encourage compliance
with the new speed limits. The expectation is that with a more
comprehensive understanding of the rational basis for the speed limits,
drivers will be more likely to comply with them and less overall
opposition will be encountered from the community. Accomplishing the
PI&E objective requires that key public agencies and public figures
support the program and implement it in an effective manner. The PI&E
campaign for the demonstration community will include those elements
outlined in ``Guidelines for Public Information and Education Programs
for Rational Speed Limits'' (Appendix B). The recipient is required to
prepare a calendar schedule of PI&E activities (i.e., press
conferences, media materials, etc.) in accordance with the schedule of
deliverables. All PI&E materials and products should be presented to
the U.S. DOT for review and comments in accordance with the schedule of
deliverables.
Task 6. Post Rational Speed Limits
Based on the results of Task 3 above, the recipient will post
revised speed limits as necessary.
Task 7. Enforce Rational Speed Limits
Prosecutors and judges need to be well informed of the basis for
rational speed limits and the need for swift and fair adjudication.
U.S. DOT will provide information for judges and prosecutors in the
demonstration community on speed management principles, the purpose of
the demonstration project, and the effects of speeding on traffic
safety. This training may include visits to the selected roadway
segments where rational speed limits are set and demonstrations of the
speed-measuring devices used. Enforcement on the demonstration roads
will include those elements outlined in ``Guidelines for Enforcement of
Safe and Rational Speed Limits'' (Appendix C).
Task 8. Collect Post Baseline Data (Ongoing)
The recipient will collect speed data, enforcement data, and PI&E
data at various times during the demonstration period. U.S. DOT will
assist the recipient in determining the exact data to be collected and
the schedule of collection. Because U.S. DOT intends to compare effects
of different communities, U.S. DOT will specify the acceptable data
elements and format. Data shall be provided in accordance with the
schedule of deliverables and shall include:
a. Speed Data. Appropriate speed data will be collected by the
recipient quarterly in at least 25% of the speed zones in a manner that
will reveal any changes in the speed. There will be at
[[Page 29858]]
least one measurement site on each demonstration road. Speed data will
be collected in every speed zone on the demonstration roads at or about
one year after the before data was collected. For long speed zones
(greater than 5 miles in rural areas or 1 mile in urban areas) multiple
locations for speed data collection may be required. Final
determination of all ``after'' speed data collection locations shall be
determined in conjunction with the U.S. DOT. The speed data shall
include:
Individual vehicle speed,
Individual vehicle headway or arrival time, and
Measurement location, dates, and times.
To ensure that the baseline data and post-intervention data are
comparable, recipients will be expected to collect the same types of
speed data, at the same locations, in the same manner as was used in
during the traffic and engineering investigation (see Task 3 above).
These data shall be submitted to U.S. DOT on a schedule to be
determined.
b. Enforcement Data. Enforcement and safety-related measures are
needed to understand the impact of the level of enforcement on speeds
and safety. These data should be collected on a schedule that ensures
that the information accurately reflects police staffing assignments
and other time-sensitive information. The data need to be provided to
U.S. DOT quarterly with the delivery of the speed data. In accordance
with the schedule of deliverables, the recipient shall provide
enforcement data for the demonstration road segments on:
Traffic enforcement person hours,
Number of speed violation warnings, and speeding citations
(and cited speeds),
Adjudications, and
Crashes (by crash type).
c. Public Information and Education. Public attitudes and
perceptions prior to and following speed limit and enforcement changes
are linked to the success of the program, and must be measured to
determine how they may change. In the demonstration community, the
public attitudes and perceptions should be surveyed before and after
the program is implemented. PI&E data will be provided in accordance
with the schedule of deliverables.
Task 9. Prepare Quarterly Progress Reports
Progress reports will be provided quarterly and should include a
summary of the previous quarter's activities and accomplishments, as
well as the proposed activities for the upcoming quarter. Any decisions
and actions required in the upcoming quarter should be included in the
report. The recipient shall supply the progress reports to the U.S. DOT
in accordance with the schedule of deliverables.
Task 10. Prepare Final Report
The recipient will prepare a brief report (e.g., 25 pages or less),
initially in draft, and upon receipt of comments from U.S. DOT, submit
a final version, describing the procedures and outcomes associated with
the rational speed limit approach to speed management. The report
should be prepared according to the following format:
Introduction: Identify project objectives; and describe
the demonstration and comparison communities and participating
agencies;
Procedures: Describe what was done;
Findings: Present descriptive statistics of the findings
regarding speeds, safety, attitudes, etc.; and
Lessons Learned: Present any information that can be used
by other communities when implementing a similar program.
Task 11. Final Briefing
The recipient will present its findings to U.S. DOT in Washington,
D.C. This briefing will be presented in accordance with the schedule of
deliverables.
Availability of Funds and Period of Support
A total of $700,000 is available in Fiscal Year 2001 to fund from
two to four demonstration and evaluation projects for a performance
period of 20 months. It is anticipated that individual award amounts,
based upon demonstrated need, will range between $175,000-300,000. This
stated range does not establish minimum or maximum funding levels.
Given the amount of federal funds available for these efforts,
applicants are strongly urged to seek other funding opportunities to
supplement the federal funds.
U.S. DOT Involvement and Responsibilities in This Cooperative
Agreement Program
Provide a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative
(COTR) to participate in the planning and management of each
cooperative agreement and to coordinate activities between the
recipients and U.S. DOT.
Provide information and technical assistance as determined
appropriate by the COTR.
Provide for the collection and analysis of speed, crash,
and enforcement data from the comparison community.
Provide for supplemental analysis of speed, crash, and
enforcement data from the demonstration community.
Eligibility Requirements
Applications for this Cooperative Agreement Program are solicited
from State and local governments and their agencies. These
demonstration projects will require extensive collaboration among each
of the participating state/community organizations in order to achieve
the program objective.
Application Procedures
Each applicant must submit one original and two (2) copies of the
application package to: NHTSA, Office of Contracts and Procurement
(NAD-30), ATTN: Maxine Ware, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5301, Washington,
DC 20590. Submission of three additional copies will expedite the
evaluation process, but is not required. The application may be single
spaced, must be typed on one side of the page only, and must include a
reference to NHTSA Cooperative Agreement No. DTNH22-01-H-05221. Only
complete application packages received on or before 4:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, July 24, 2001 will be considered.
Application Contents
1. The application package must be submitted with OMB Standard Form
424 (Rev. 7-97, including 424B), Application for Federal Assistance,
with the required information filled in and certified assurances
signed. Because the available space on the 424A does not permit a level
of detail that is sufficient to provide for a meaningful evaluation of
the proposed total costs, a completed 424A is not required. A
supplemental budget must be provided which presents a summary of the
proposed costs, as well as a detailed breakdown for each of the ten
sections (tasks) enumerated in the Description of the Program Effort.
The task breakdown shall identify: direct labor costs for each labor
category, direct material and equipment costs, travel costs (explaining
the relationship to the project), and any overhead/indirect costs. The
applicant shall also identify any financial or in-kind commitment of
resources that will be contributed in support of the demonstration
project. The SF-424 and 424B may be obtained from the Office of
Management and Budget website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/index.html.
[[Page 29859]]
2. The application shall include a program narrative statement that
describes the technical approach in 25 pages or less and addresses the
following information in separately labeled sections. Letters of
cooperation and intent, as well as personnel resumes, will not count
against the page limit.
a. Introduction: A brief overview of the applicant's capabilities
to organize and carry out the rational speed limit project in the
proposed demonstration community. All participating organizations
(e.g., traffic engineering, law enforcement, public information), the
principal investigator, and other key personnel shall be identified.
The proposed comparison community and, if possible, the key
coordinating personnel shall also be identified.
b. Description of Program Effort: The planned technical approach
for performing each of the efforts listed below shall be separately
described.
(1) Coordination with organizations within demonstration and
comparison communities. Describe how cooperation among the various
agencies will be obtained. Include:
(a) Letters of intent from the participating agencies in the
demonstration community
(b) Letters of intent from the cooperating agencies in the
comparison community permitting U.S. DOT to measure speeds and obtain
crash and enforcement data
(c) A letter of coordination from the Governor's Highway Safety
Representative and State Traffic Engineer.
(2) Identification of a preliminary list of demonstration streets/
highways for rational speed limits and basis for selection. Identify
the length, functional class, predominant land use of selected road
segments.
(3) Traffic and engineering investigations to establish rational
speed limits, including speed data collection procedures and equipment
and method of determining whether speed limits should be revised.
(4) Implementation of a community outreach and PI&E program to
obtain public and official support.
(5) Enforcement plan for the new speed limits.
(6) Collection of data.
c. Program Management and Staffing.
(1) A program organizational chart identifying proposed staff
members assigned to the project will be provided. The title and a brief
description of each position's responsibilities will be included, as
well as the proposed level of effort and allocation of time for each
position. One person must be identified as the Project Director. This
person will have full responsibility for managing the project's
technical progress, staffing and coordination of organizations, and
serving as the point of contact for U.S. DOT project staff.
(2) Brief resumes will be provided for the proposed Project
Director and other key personnel.
Application Review Process and Evaluation Criteria
Initially, all applications will be reviewed to confirm that the
applicant is an eligible recipient and to ensure that the application
contains all of the information required by the Application Contents
section of the notice. To be considered complete, applications from
eligible applicants must include the following information to be
considered: (1) The designation of a specific demonstration community,
as well as the designation, or at least suggestion, of a similar
community that will be used as a comparison site during the proposed
demonstration; (2) letters of intent showing that the designated
demonstration community agencies have the capabilities and are willing
to commit sufficient resources to properly conduct the proposed
demonstration, including participating highway engineering departments,
law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and judges, department of motor
vehicles, public information office, and community government; (3)
letters from the appropriate authorities within the comparison
community that the appropriate highway engineering department, law
enforcement officials, and department of motor vehicles present in the
comparison community will cooperate in the demonstration project, and
provide U.S. DOT access to the necessary data; and (4) a letter of
coordination for the proposed demonstration project from the Governor's
Highway Safety Representative and State Traffic Engineer. Each complete
application from an eligible recipient will be evaluated by an
evaluation panel.
The evaluation panel will be comprised of government personnel from
NHTSA and FHWA, as well as a representative from Westat, Inc. Westat,
Inc, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland, will serve as a
non-voting member of the evaluation panel and will be providing support
services to U.S. DOT for this demonstration project effort. Submission
of an application in response to this notice shall constitute an
authorization for a representative from Westat, Inc. to review it.
The applications will be evaluated using the following criteria:
1. Technical Approach (50 percent). The applicant's goals are
clearly stated and the objectives are time-phased, specific,
measurable, and achievable. The application reflects a high likelihood
that the applicant will achieve an outcome-oriented result that will
revise speed limits using a specific rational procedure, secure the
cooperation of the necessary organizations, inform the public, and
provide reliable data from which the impact of the program can be
assessed. The application clearly describes what the applicant proposes
to develop and implement, how this will be accomplished, and the major
tasks necessary for completion. This involves anticipating potential
technical problems and critical issues related to successful completion
of the project. The application clearly describes the planning,
scheduling, equipment, and procedures to be used to measure speed data
at selected road segments within the demonstration community. An
important determining factor shall be the extent and type of road
segments included in the demonstration community, the enforcement
proposed, the extent to which judicial acceptance is evidenced, and the
PI&E campaign planned.
2. Project Management and Staffing (30 percent). The applicant has
the capabilities to plan, implement, and evaluate the proposed project.
The proposed staff are clearly described, are appropriately assigned,
and have adequate skills and experience. Staff members with traffic
engineering, speed data collection, enforcement, PI&E, and data
management expertise have been appropriately allocated. The applicant's
staffing plan is reasonable for accomplishing the objectives of the
project within the established time frame.
3. Cost (20 percent). The budget is sufficiently detailed to allow
U.S. DOT to determine that the estimated costs are reasonable and
necessary to perform the proposed effort. The amount of financial or
in-kind commitment of resources by the applicant organization or other
organizations to support the project has been clearly identified. For
those applicants that are evaluated as meritorious for consideration
for award, preference may be given to those that have proposed cost-
sharing strategies and/or have other proposed funding sources in
addition to those in this announcement.
Terms and Conditions of Award
1. Prior to award, each recipient must comply with the
certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 20,
[[Page 29860]]
Department of Transportation New Restrictions on Lobbying, and 49 CFR
Part 29, Department of Transportation Government-wide Debarment and
Suspension (Non-Procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug
Free Workplace (Grants).
2. Performance Schedule of Deliverables and Milestones:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task Activity description Milestone/deliverable Due date after award
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Kickoff meeting........ Milestone.............. 2 weeks.
2................................... Work plan.............. Revised work plan...... 4 weeks.
3................................... Conduct Engineering Speed Zoning Plan...... 12 weeks.
Studies.
4................................... Data collection........ Data................... Quarterly.
5................................... PI&E................... Schedule............... 12 weeks.
5................................... PI&E................... PI&E materials......... As developed.
8a, 8b, 8c.......................... Speed, enforcement, and Data................... Every 3 months with full data provided 17 months after award.
PI&E data.
9................................... Submit quarterly Quarterly progress 10th day of every third month.
progress reports. reports.
10.................................. Submit draft of Final Draft final report..... 17 months.
Report.
10.................................. Submit final version of Final report........... 19 months.
Final Report.
11.................................. Final briefing at U.S. Briefing at U.S. DOT... 20 months.
DOT workshop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Four copies of each product will be submitted to the COTR.
3. During the effective performance period of the Cooperative
Agreements awarded as a result of this announcement, the agreement as
applicable to the recipient shall be subject to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's General Provisions for Assistance
Agreements, dated July 1995.
Issued on: May 25, 2001.
Marilena Amoni,
Acting Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs, NHTSA.
Frederick G. Wright, Jr.,
Program Manager, Safety, FHWA.
Appendix A--Guidelines for Setting Safe and Reasonable Speed Limits
I. Speed Zoning
The purpose of speed zoning is to establish a speed limit that
is the maximum reasonable and safe speed for a section of road.
There are many factors that affect driving speed and crash risk
including driver, vehicle, roadway, traffic and environmental
factors. The prevailing speed of traffic reflects the collective
judgement of the driving population on what appears reasonable and
safe on a given segment of roadway. The prevailing speed, therefore,
provides a measure that objectively accounts for most factors
affecting safe speed. Changing a speed limit on a road may, but does
not necessarily change the prevailing speed on the road.
Inconsistencies exist for how speed limits are determined for
speed zones, in part, because of the subjective nature of the
current practice. If the speed limit is too high it can lead to
driver error; if it is too low it may result in a lack of compliance
and misallocation of enforcement resources. Therefore, it is
critical that a standard method for determining the safe and
appropriate speed be identified and described.
II. 85th Percentile Speed
Section III below describes a method for establishing speed
limits based on the prevailing speed. Setting speeds using the 85th
percentile as a key guideline regulates against the higher speeds
that may be unsafe, but still includes a very large percentage of
the driving public. Drivers who travel at the 95th percentile speed
and above (i.e. fastest 5 percent) have significantly higher crash
rates than those who drive at or near the 85th percentile (and also
those whose speed is closer to the average speed. Since the purpose
of speed zoning is to facilitate safety by informing drivers of
maximum speeds for normal conditions, the posted speed limit should
reflect the upper limit of the safest speeds (i.e., those near the
85th percentile).
III. Engineering and Traffic Survey Considerations
A. Inventory Road Conditions
Review and document on a site diagram or speed survey sheet the
physical characteristics of the road (alignment, grade, roadway
width, number of lanes, median type, intersections, etc.), roadside
development, parking, and pedestrian activity should. Divide the
roadway of interest into homogeneous sections. A homogeneous section
is one where:
The roadside development is consistent (residential vs.
commercial; type and frequency of businesses and driveways, etc.)
The roadway features are consistent (lane widths,
medians, shoulders, surface roughness, curvature, intersection
spacing, etc.)
B. Select Measurement Sites
Within each section, select speed measurement sites. The
measurement sites should be representative of the entire section of
the roadway being zoned. This might require that the roadway be
divided into one or more zones and that measurement sites be
selected for each zone. In a non-rural area, select at least two
measurement sites per mile in each direction (i.e., sites spaced
approximately 2000 feet apart). Speed measurement sites should not
be located within 500 feet of a speed transition zone (intersection
approach, horizontal curve, etc.). If speed measurement sites are
needed between intersections and the 500-foot distance cannot be
met, use a mid-block location for the speed measurement station.
Sites for different directions on the same road do not necessarily
need to be in the same location.
C. Collect Speed Data
Using automated speed collection measurement techniques, collect
24 hours of speed data for all lanes at each speed measurement site.
Speed data must be collected in a manner that does not influence
drivers to change their vehicle's speed. The speed measurement
technique must also permit free flowing vehicles (i.e., more than 5
sec. of headway to be distinguished from non-free-flowing vehicles.
This is necessary to determine the 85th percentile of free-flowing
vehicles. Data should be collected during weekdays and should not be
collected during inclement weather.
D. Select Speed Limit
The following procedure is recommended by the Federal Highway
Administration and is based on procedures widely used for speed
zoning. Based on the speed data collected, determine the median
(50th percentile) and 85th percentile speed for free-flow vehicles
at each measurement site. Select the 85th percentile speed rounded
to the nearest 5 mph increment as first approximation for the speed
limit. Where there are mitigating factors (speed related crash
history, heavy non-motorized road user presence, extreme variance of
speeds) the selected speed may be reduced to a value not lower than
the median speed rounded up to the next highest 5 mph multiple. If
there is a difference of more than 5 mph between two measurement
sites, employ a separate speed zone. If potentially hazardous
conditions exist within the zone, the conditions should be
corrected, or appropriate warning signs should be installed with
advisory speed plaques based on the inferred design or ball bank
indicator.
[[Page 29861]]
For example, if a sharp curve exists within the zone, do not reduce
the speed limit in the entire zone--remove the sharp curve or add
the appropriate warning sign.
Appendix B--Guidelines for Public Information and Education (PI&E)
Programs for Rational Speed Limits
I. Introduction
Speeding--driving in excess of the posted speed limits or
driving too fast for conditions--is a contributing factor in
approximately 30 percent of all fatal traffic crashes. A
comprehensive Public Information and Education (PI&E) program is
essential to gain motorist compliance with rational speed limits.
All available means that can be used to effectively carry the
awareness message to the motoring public should be used.
II. Methods and Strategies
A plan should be developed that includes media analysis and
profiles of target audiences to determine optimum media mix and
timing for the campaign. This plan should be followed for the
duration of the PI&E program. It should primarily reflect methods
for monitoring the effectiveness of the PI&E program prior to its
initiation and as it progresses. Improvements in the PI&E program
should be made, as necessary, for maximum effectiveness.
All materials should be developed in appropriate languages that
reflect the demographics of the public within the target project
demonstration area. PI&E activities should be conducted, as
appropriate, prior to and during the speed management project.
PI&E strategies should be developed in the following areas:
An overall PI&E awareness program concerning the new
speed management techniques to ensure motorist acceptance and
compliance. This awareness program should reflect a unified approach
across media while maximizing the value and effectiveness of each
media program.
A PI&E event schedule, including special press
activities and press conferences.
Distributed Materials: Fact sheets, inserts, flyers,
posters, print ads, exhibits and displays.
News Media Materials: Press releases, public service
announcements, live-announcer scripts.
Press conferences should be used where appropriate.
These conferences should occur at the initiation of the
demonstration project (and at other key periods) in order to achieve
maximum press coverage. Press conferences, when practical, shall
include participation from all groups involved in the demonstration
project, (i.e., traffic engineers, law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, judges).
Appendix C--Guidelines for Enforcement of Safe and Rational Speed
Limits
Enforcement of traffic laws is successful primarily through the
principle of deterrence. The fundamental concept is that credible
threats of punishment deter unwanted behavior.
I. Elements of the Deterrence Process
A. Behavior Must Be Definable, Understandable and Detectable
The behavior that we want to stop, in this case, is traveling at
unsafe, unacceptable speeds over the newly established rational
speed limits. Enforcement operations shall take a top-down approach
for establishing the enforcement threshold. Speed measurements at
the selected road segments shall be used to determine the top 5
percent of speeds. This information will be used to establish the
enforcement threshold. The enforcement threshold should never be
less than 5 mph above the new posted speed limit. This top-down
strategy will not overwhelm the law enforcement officers, the
prosecutors, or the courts. This strategy promotes public and court
acceptance of enforcement by targeting only the most egregious
violators. The overall goal of the enforcement efforts is motorist
compliance, not issuance of citations.
B. Deterrence Depends Upon the Perceived Risk of Apprehension
The public must be aware that new speed limits will be strictly
enforced. Highly visible, highly publicized enforcement efforts
enhance this perception. The involved enforcement agencies shall
commit additional resources above the norm for speed enforcement
efforts at the selected roadway segments. This effort will provide a
consistent law enforcement presence without the appearance of a
``speed trap'' being in operation. The strategy should still allow
the enforcement officers to be available to respond to other law
enforcement activities as necessary.
C. Deterrence Depends on the Swiftness, Certainty, and Severity of
Punishment
Once caught, speeders must be adjudicated quickly with a high
likelihood of significant penalties.
II. Operational Considerations
A. Officers
Basic enforcement speed-measuring device (e.g., radar, lidar,
vascar, etc.) operator training programs developed by NHTSA will be
offered by the U.S. DOT for officers involved in speed enforcement.
In addition, officers involved in speed enforcement are encouraged
to comply with the enforcement and operational procedures
established by U.S. DOT. Traffic officers assigned to patrol the
demonstration roads should devote a significant portion of their
shift on speed enforcement.
B. Marked Police Vehicles
It is desirable that speed enforcement on the selected roadway
segments be highly visible. Marked police vehicles frequently
patrolling the roadway segments provide this visibility. The use of
unmarked vehicles for speed enforcement should be kept at a minimum.
Unmarked police vehicles tend to give the public the perception that
the roadway segment is a ``speed trap''. This perception should be
avoided.
C. Speed-Measuring Devices
All speed-measuring devices used in the speed enforcement
efforts should be listed on the International Association of Chiefs
of Police (IACP) Consumer Products List (CPL). In addition, selected
speed-measuring devices should comply with the testing for accuracy
and reliability procedures established by the IACP Speed-Measuring
Device Testing Program Administration Guide.
D. Speed Display Trailer
The applicant may use speed display trailers on the selected
roadway segments to inform the motoring public of their travel speed
on the selected roadway segments.
[FR Doc. 01-13721 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P