Noteworthy Speed 

Management Practices

Source: Getty Images
Technical Report Documentation 

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE (FORM DOT F 1700.7)

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-20-047

2. Government 

Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

5. Report Date August 2020

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) Neal Hawkins, Shauna Hallmark 8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Institute of Transportation Engineers

1617 Eye Street NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20006

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH6116D00055L

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Safety

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 2059

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Task Order Manager: Guan Xu; ITE Project Manager: Lisa Fontana Tierney; ITE 

Technical Programs Associate: Niloo Parvinasahtiani; ITE Technical Publications Manager: Deborah Rouse

16. Abstract

Speeding contributes to over a quarter of all road trauma and is a persistent driving behavior that brings harm 

both to the vehicle occupants as well as other more vulnerable road users. In 2018, speeding related crashes 

resulted in 9,378 deaths which is a staggering 26 percent of all crash fatalities. 

Agencies who want to address speeding are often faced with a lack of resources in setting appropriate speeds 

for conditions, pushback on changing speed limits, a lack of resources for countermeasures or enforcement, and 

restrictions or opposition to alternate long-lasting enforcement options such as safety cameras.

This report provides another avenue of information for practitioners in that it summarizes eight case studies 

which highlight noteworthy practices over a range of speed management issues. 

17. Key Words Speed Management, Safety 18. Distribution Statement

19. Security Classif.

(of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif,

(of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 41 22. Price
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 4

Background 4

Summary of Case Studies 5

STRATEGIC SPEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 6

Background 6

The Challenges 7

Developing a Speed Management Program 7

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned 8

SELF-ENFORCING ROADWAYS 10

Background 10

The Challenge 11

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned 12

SETTING CREDIBLE SPEED LIMITS 13

Background 13

The Challenge 13

Working with Communities 14

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned 15

HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 16

Background 16

The Challenge 16

Enforcement Actions 17

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned 17

SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES FOR ADOPTION OF SAFETY CAMERAS 18

Background 18

Strategies for Success 18

Implementation of Safety Cameras 19

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned 19

TARGETED REPORTING OF SPEEDING-RELATED CRASHES 21

Background 21

The Problem 21

Redefining “Speeding-Related” 22

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned 23

CONSISTENT SPEED LIMITS FOR VULNERABLE ROAD USERS 24

Background 24

Setting Consistent Speed Limits 24

Examples of Successful Applications 24

Charlotte, North Carolina 24

Portland, Oregon 25

Seattle, Washington 25

New York City, New York 26

Boston, Massachusetts 27

Other Examples 27

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned 28

NETWORK APPROACH TO SETTING SPEED LIMITS 30

Background 30

The Problem 30

Developing Consistent and Evidence Based Speed Limits 30

What Happened Next 32

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned 32

APPENDIX A: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 33

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES 34

APPENDIX C: SPEED MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 36
4

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Introduction

Background

Speeding contributes to approximately one-third of all road 

trauma and is a persistent driving behavior that brings harm 

both to the vehicle occupants as well as other more vulnerable 

road users. In 2018, speeding-related crashes resulted in 9,378 

deaths which is a staggering 26 percent of all crash fatalities1. 

Speeding is often also accompanied by distracted driving and 

driving under the influence. For example, between midnight 

and 3 a.m., 68 percent of speeding drivers involved in fatal 

crashes had been drinking2. Some suggest that progress on 

the issue of speeding is limited at best.

Agencies who want to address speeding are often faced with a 

lack of resources in setting appropriate speeds for conditions, 

pushback on changing speed limits, a lack of resources 

for countermeasures or enforcement, and restrictions or 

opposition to automated enforcement.

Several recent documents have supported understanding 

speeding issues and offering well thought-out ways agencies 

can advance the state of speed management addressing 

enforcement, education, engineering, and cultural realities3. 

In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

offers a Speed Management Program course to State and 

local jurisdictions, the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) offers a course on Speed Management through 

the National Highway Institute, and FHWA and the Institute 

of Transportation Engineers (ITE) have a number of Speed 

Management resources for practitioners4.

The report provides another avenue of information for 

practitioners in that it summarizes eight case studies which 

highlight noteworthy practices from across the U.S. over a 

range of speed management issues. 

Source: Getty Images
5

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Introduction

Summary of Case Studies

This document highlights eight noteworthy speed management practices across a range of areas from advocacy to 

countermeasures. A brief summary of the noteworthy practices is provided in the table below.

Title Noteworthy Practice Takeaways

Strategic 

Speed 

Management 

Program

The City of Austin, TX identified speeding as 

a key factor in 24% of fatal crashes. The area 

population is expected to double in 30 years 

and vulnerable road users are overrepresented 

in fatal crash statistics.

• Integrated Vision Zero

• Developed a speed management program

• Established key indicators and targeted achievement metrics

• Integrated approach including enforcement

Self-Enforcing 

Roadways

The City of Golden, CO was faced with rebuilding 

a critical urban arterial where the 85th percentile 

speeds were 48 mph and the posted speed limit 

was 35 mph. They also had to address a high 

number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes and 

selected a self-enforcing roadway design which 

includes roundabouts and a center median.

• Self-enforcing speeds through new design

• Resulting lower speeds

• Improved safety for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists

• Improved public spaces and positive impact on businesses

Setting 

Credible 

Speed Limits

New Hampshire DOT is working to promote 

“reasonable and safe” speeds for conditions and in 

a number of instances found that raising the existing 

speed limit was the appropriate solution.

• Setting credible speed limits through alignment with roadway context

• Working together with enforcement

• Support for local agencies

High Visibility 

Enforcement 

The Oro Valley Police Department created a 

High Visibility Enforcement program designed 

to target intersections that have high crash rates. 

The program is conducted as an educational 

initiative for motorists in contrast to a traditional 

enforcement detail.

• Enforcement through transparency and using an “educational” 

initiative rather than a strict enforcement detail

• Publishing future deployment dates through television, print, 

radio, and social media

• 27% crash reduction for two urban intersections

Successful 

Strategies 

for Adoption 

of Safety 

Cameras

Adoption of safety cameras is often difficult due 

to legislative and public concerns. New York City 

used a data-driven and comprehensive approach 

to implement safety cameras in school zones.

• Use of a data-driven approach demonstrated their focus on safety 

• Safety cameras were one of many solutions to address the safety 

of pedestrians and other road users

• Advocacy groups played a significant role

Targeted 

Reporting of 

SpeedingRelated 

Crashes

Arizona updated crash form coding instructions 

to distinguish between speeding-related 

violations and those more appropriately defined 

as impaired.

• Focused on addressing crashes by identifying contributing factors

• Countermeasures can be targeted to the cause of crash

(speeding versus impairment) allowing better allocation of resources

• Changing coding instructions provided consistency

Consistent 

Speed Limits 

for Vulnerable 

Road Users

Provides an overview of how six agencies set 

consistent speed limits to address vulnerable 

road users.

• All agencies used a data-driven approach to setting speed limits

• Advocacy was a successful strategy for several agencies

• Agencies addressed safety using a comprehensive approach 

which included other countermeasures

• Consistent speed limits address driver expectancy

Network 

Approach to 

Setting Speed 

Limits

Discusses New Zealand’s network-wide 

approach to developing speed limits which 

assigns speed limits based on characteristics 

such as roadway type, alignment, roadside 

hazards, land use, etc.

• Developed network based speed limits that were evidencebased and nationally consistent

• Uses a measure of safety risk which can be communicated to 

stakeholders and the public

• Used outreach and education

1 Speed. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. www.iihs.org/topics/speed. Accessed April 2020.

2 Stop Speeding Before It Stops You. Traffic Safety Marketing. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. US Department of Transportation. 

www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/get-materials/speed-prevention/stop-speeding-it-stops-you. Accessed April 2020.

3 Speeding Away from Zero: Rethinking a Forgotten Traffic Safety Challenge. Governors Highway Safety Association. January 2019.

4 Speed Management for Safety. Institute for Transportation Engineers. www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/speed-management-for-safety. Accessed April 2020.
6

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Strategic Speed Management Program

CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS

ISSUE STRATEGIES TAKEAWAYS

➤ Speeding is the top contributing 

factor in fatal crashes

➤ Vulnerable road users are 

overrepresented in severe crashes

➤ Austin is experiencing significant 

population growth

➤ Adopted a citywide vision zero goal

➤ Identified leading causes of fatal 

and serious injuries

➤ Defined High Injury Network

➤ Engaged community 

➤ Established speed management 

program

➤ Comprehensive speed 

management activities

➤ Developed key indicators and 

targeted achievement metrics

➤ Integrated effort including 

enforcement 

Background

The City of Austin became a Vision Zero city in 2015 with 

the goal of zero traffic-related fatalities for this rapidly 

growing, diverse, and active community. Identifying a High 

Injury Network (HIN) exposed that the majority of fatal and 

serious injury crashes were occurring on collector and arterial 

streets. This perspective helped focus their program beyond 

neighborhoods and onto the more complex roadways which 

made up their HIN1.

Addressing speed limits on the HIN required consideration

of the Texas Transportation Code which emphasizes an 85th

percentile method be used for setting speed limits with

allowances for other considerations, such as crash history and

high driveway desnsity. The city determined that these

considerations should be applied to roadways on the HIN based 

on their urban settings and operations; therefore, the city will be 

using USLIMITS2 extensively to support setting new speed limits 

on collector and arterial roadways. This moment represents 

a paradigm shift in how the city approaches transportation 

planning, codifying in city policy the preservation of human life 

as the paramount priority for Austin’s transportation network. 

Citizens are asking for their transportation network to be safe, 

accessible, and inclusive for all members of the community. 

The city is determined to achieve this by promoting a culture of 

safety education, focusing on behaviors that cause traffic injuries 

and fatalities, and through integrating safe design principles 

across their multimodal infrastructure1.

In addition, the Austin Police Department is using a datadriven approach towards enforcement strategies. This includes 

participating in a Fatality Review Board, which meets monthly 

to review all fatal crashes, and then meets quarterly to review 

overall crash statistics and serious injury crashes2.

Interior of speeding vehicle. Source: Getty Images
7

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Strategic Speed Management Program

Austin’s busy multimodal roadways. Image Source: Neal Hawkins

The Challenges

Speeding – In Austin, speeding was recorded as the primary 

contributing factor in 24 percent of traffic crashes resulting in 

death from 2013 to 2017. Speeding is the leading contributor 

to fatal crashes with the top four being speeding, failure to 

yield, distraction, and driving while intoxicated. On average, 

more than 70 people lose their lives on Austin area streets 

each year, another 450 suffer life-altering injuries, and 

countless other crashes and near-misses are unreported.

Vulnerable Road Users – The city found that vulnerable 

road users make up a disproportionate share of severe 

crashes. The proportion of all serious injury and fatal crashes 

by mode are 61 percent motor vehicle, 17 percent pedestrian, 

16 percent motorcycle, and 6 percent bicycle. Austin’s AfricanAmerican population is also overrepresented given that their 

7 percent share of the population makes up 16 percent of the 

serious injury and fatal crashes1. 

Significant Growth – Since the last transportation plan 

was adopted in 1995, Austin has added more than 450,000 

people and the region’s population is slated to double in the 

next 30 years.

Developing a Speed

Management Program

The objective of the Austin Transportation Department (ATD) 

speed management program is to improve safety and enhance 

the livability of Austin streets through context-appropriate 

speed reduction strategies2. ATD developed a framework 

for their new Speed Management Program through several 

actions including a workshop with ITE and the Vision Zero 

Network in February 2019 and in researching best practices 

from national studies and other leading cities. This framework 

relies on objective criteria, informed by community and policy 

objectives, to prioritize streets with the most serious speeding 

problems for targeted speed mitigation strategies3. The seven 

key Speed Management Program elements are as follows:

1. Data and information

2. A toolkit of engineering countermeasures

3. Methods for setting speed limits

4. Holistic approach with education and enforcement

5. Coordination with other programs

6. Equity

7. Evaluation
8

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Strategic Speed Management Program

This approach provides different tools and strategies by roadway 

contextual factors applied to street levels including the following:

• Street Levels 1 & 2 (neighborhood and collector streets)

• Street Levels 3 & 4 (minor and major arterial roadways)

Images of several physical engineering countermeasures used are shown above: Rain Garden Bulb Out (top 

left), Median and Speed Cushions (top right), and Mountable Traffic Circles (bottom). Source: City of Austin
9

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Strategic Speed Management Program

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned

• Community Engagement – The final measures and 

criteria used for the new speed management program 

framework included community conversations from three 

open houses, seven public meetings, and an online survey 

that received more than 1,100 responses.

• High Injury Network – While all streets should function 

with safe speeds, some streets have egregious and more 

persistent speeding problems than others. Given limited 

resources, ATD will prioritize how and where to apply 

speed management strategies.

• Behavior – Crash locations change but driver behaviors 

are constant. The city identified the top four behaviors 

contributing to serious injury and fatal crash and is 

focused on coordinating education and enforcement 

strategies to influence change. City policy seeks to 

advance innovative approaches toward enforcing traffic 

regulations and aligning penalties for traffic violations with 

the severity of the offense.

• Target Speeds – Austin’s approach to speed management 

begins with selecting safe target speeds for all streets 

based on their context. Target speed refers to the speed at 

which the city want cars to drive on the street. Surrounding 

land uses, street width, traffic volumes, and alternate 

transportation activity all affect the appropriate target 

speed. Target speed informs the design speed which 

is specific to geometric features or the elements of a 

roadway necessary to achieve the target speed. Staff uses 

design criteria that are at or below the target speed of a 

given roadway. The posted speed limits are set to help 

communicate and reinforce target speeds. After setting 

the target speed, and implementing design speeds, staff 

analyze operating speed, which refers to the observed 

speed of motorists using the roadway. Using target instead 

of operating speeds to influence the design speed allows 

the community to prioritize safety and the agency to design 

for safety in support of the goal to reduce the likelihood 

that any crash will result in a fatal or serious injury.

• Indicators and Targets – The city has established 

specific measures to gauge achievement. For example, 

the indicator to “Reduce serious injury and fatal crashes 

at locations where major capital improvement projects 

have been implemented” is matched with a target to 

“Achieve at least 40% reduction over a five-year period, 

on average.”

• Enforcement – Speeding is likely substantially 

underreported as a contributing factor given the difficulty 

in determining the actual travel speed of a vehicle after 

a crash has occurred. Austin seeks to promote driver 

adherence to posted speed limits through coordinated 

education campaigns, targeted enforcement, and policy 

reforms around use of automated enforcement tools. 

In addition, police officers can assign one or more 

contributing factors to a crash in their crash report. This 

information provides valuable insights into some of the 

human behaviors that most frequently contribute to 

crashes. As an example, the rise in the use of alternative 

transportation modes, such as electric scooters, creates a 

new data demand for traditional crash forms. Austin Police 

are working with TxDOT to consider adding “scooter” 

as a vehicle type on their crash form to quantify crash 

experience, target enforcement, and to support selection 

of potential safety improvements3.

9

1 Austin Strategic Mobility Plan. [Report]. Retrieved December 28, 2019 from http://app.box.com/s/7aiksxmwwgymalsty0lm21wingk0slug

2 Miesse, Eric (July 21, 2019). Speed Management: Law Enforcement Perspective [Presentation]. Noteworthy Speed Management Practices,

ITE Annual Meeting, Austin, TX.

3 Spillar, Robert (June 24, 2019). Speed Management Program - Draft Framework [Memorandum]. City of Austin, TX.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio/document.cfm?id=322565
10

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Self-Enforcing Roadways

CITY OF GOLDEN, CO

ISSUE STRATEGIES TAKEAWAYS

➤ Major community corridor with 

speeding and safety issues

➤ Safety concerns for pedestrian and 

bicycles

➤ Businesses were concerned with 

the impact of road modifications 

especially with roundabouts

➤ Strategic approach with specific 

goals for all road users

➤ Self-enforcing design including 

roundabouts and center median

➤ Reduced speeding

➤ Improved safety for vehicles, 

pedestrians, and bicyclists

➤ Improved public spaces and 

positive impact on businesses

Background

A self-enforcing road is a roadway that is planned and designed 

to encourage drivers to select operating speeds in harmony 

with the posted speed limit. Properly designed self-enforcing 

roadways can be effective in producing speed compliance and 

may contribute to less severe crash outcomes1.

The City of Golden, Colorado is located west of Denver at the 

base of the Rocky Mountains. It is both a residential community 

as well as home to the Coors Brewery and Colorado School of 

Mines. South Golden Road is one of the major arterials in town 

with a long-standing history of being a major thoroughfare2. 

In 1999, plans for a new shopping center along South Golden 

Road elevated citizens’ concerns about traffic speeds as well 

as pedestrian and bicycle safety along the corridor (see South 

Golden Road photo). 

In response, the city rebuilt South Golden Road using design 

elements to address speeding, access, and overall safety. The 

self-enforcing design replaced traffic signals with roundabouts 

and addressed vulnerable road user safety3.

South Golden Road after improvements.

Source: Dan Hartman, City of Golden, CO.

South Golden Road before improvements.

Source: Dan Hartman, City of Golden, CO.
11

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Self-Enforcing Roadways

The Challenge

Prior to improvement - South Golden Road was a very wide (80 

foot) street to cross and consisted of four through lanes plus 

a center turn lane. The corridor was capable of handling the 

20,000 vehicles per day, however, the frequent points of access 

from business and side streets created operational and safety 

issues. The half-mile section of South Golden Road included 

two signalized intersections at Johnson Road and Ulysses 

Street and two stop-controlled intersections at Lunnonhaus 

Drive and Utah Street. The corridor was experiencing a 

number of issues including speeding between intersections, 

traffic conflicts at intersections for vehicles, pedestrians, and 

bicycles, and significant delays especially at Utah Street. Prior 

to improvement, the posted speed limit was 35 mph and the 

measured 85th percentile speed was 48 mph. The corridor 

experienced an average of four crashes per month with at least 

one of these involving an injury3.

Community Input - The city initiated a study that included 

community input to identify the most viable alternatives for 

improvement. The study established the following goals for 

South Golden Road:

• Reduce speed through the intersection

• Improve aesthetics

• Improve access for businesses and residential 

neighborhoods

• Improve safety

• Create a pedestrian-friendly environment 

Design Process – The city considered a range of improvement 

options, researched roundabout design opportunities, and then 

gained feedback from the community through public meetings, 

discussions with businesses, and at public hearings with City 

Council. The resulting two design options were the following:

• Option 1: Traditional traffic signals with center medians 

and restricted left turns. This option faced issues as it 

restricted access to several businesses. In addition, the 

large intersections were not advantageous for pedestrian 

and bike crossings.

• Option 2: Modern roundabout section with four 

roundabouts, narrower roads through using center 

medians, and restricted left turns. This option was shown 

to provide improved access for both businesses and 

vulnerable road users.

The city’s efforts led to the ultimate choice for Option 2 

(roundabouts) where the design supports speed compliance 

even with a 25 mph speed limit in addition to enhancing 

access, operations, and safety for all users. The roundabouts 

were constructed in 1998 - 1999 and were fully operational in 

late 1999 (see South Golden Road after improvements photo).

Golden, Colorado. Source: Getty Images
12

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Self-Enforcing Roadways

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned

Once constructed, the city was pleased to report that the new 

design was in fact supporting speed compliance as well as 

safety as noted by several metrics.

• Reduced Vehicle Speeds – Reduction of 85th percentile 

speed from 48 to 33 mph.

• Less Delay – Reduction in average delay—the time it 

takes to drive the half-mile—is lower even with a 15 mph 

speed reduction. The design also helped to eliminate the 

large queues experienced from adjacent parking lots.

• Reduction in Crashes – Both crash frequency and severity 

were lowered even with increased traffic from the new 

shopping center. The improvement reduced total crashes 

per month by 36 percent and injuries per month by 97 

percent (analysis included 36 months before and 42 

months after the improvement).

• Improved Pedestrian Access – Pedestrian safety was 

improved through reduced crossing times with few 

conflicts. Given that traffic only comes from one direction, 

smaller gaps are required due to reduced vehicle speeds, 

and the elimination of conflicts with turning traffic (see 

improved pedestrian access photo).

• Bicycle Safety – The corridor improvements did not include 

separate bike lanes; however, there was a significant reduction 

in bike related crashes going from 78 crashes over the 5 years 

before to just four crashes over 3.5 years after construction.

• Positive Impact on Businesses – The evaluation found 

that the new design positively impacted the adjacent 

business community in terms of fostering new development, 

redevelopment, and increased traffic volumes4.

• Enhanced Community Space – The project provided an 

opportunity to aesthetically enhance the corridor through 

the removal of the sea of asphalt. The roundabout 

design provides space for fountains, statues, landscaped 

medians, and community art.

• Important Educational Component – The city 

developed an educational brochure that was mailed 

to every resident and placed in racks within businesses 

stressing how to navigate a roundabout for both 

vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

The City of Golden established corridor goals that resulted 

in eliminating a very wide, high-speed roadway that was 

experiencing safety and mobility issues. Instead of adding 

more traffic signals and stepping up police enforcement due 

to increasing vehicle speeds, they chose a roadway redesign 

including roundabouts and medians which was found to not 

only improve both operations and safety but to also provide 

a showcase community space which is aesthetically pleasing 

and has continued to accommodate all users in terms of traffic 

growth and safety.

1 Donnell, Eric., Kersavage, Kristin., Fontana Tierney, Lisa. Self-Enforcing Roadways: A Guidance Report (Report No. FHWA-HRT-17-098).

McLean, VA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, January 2018.

2 City of Golden. South Golden Road Neighborhoods Plan. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC15-01, 2016.

https://www.cityofgolden.net/media/SouthGoldenRoadPlan.pdf

3 Hartman, Dan. Roundabouts – Safety, Business Impact and Growth [Presentation], June 2013.

4 Ariniello, A. J. Are Roundabouts Good for Business? In Transportation Research Board National Roundabout Conference, Vail Colorado, December 2004.
13

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Setting Credible Speed Limits

NEW HAMPSHIRE DOT

ISSUE STRATEGIES TAKEAWAYS

➤ Legacy speed limits

➤ Setting credible speed limits

➤ Supporting local agencies

➤ Coordination between DOT and 

local agencies

➤ Engineering, enforcement, and 

educational approach

➤ Team effort

➤ Alignment of speed limits with 

roadway context

➤ Working together with enforcement

➤ Support for local agencies

Background

New Hampshire DOT (NHDOT) is working to promote 

“reasonable and safe” speed limits for conditions and in a 

number of instances found that raising the existing speed limit 

was the appropriate solution. 

Establishing and managing credible speed limits impacts 

safety. Community safety often suffers when we reduce speed 

limits in reaction to an event without considering the context 

and operations of the roadway. Educating the public one 

town or one highway segment at a time takes a lot of effort 

and it is not always received well. However, when explaining 

why a speed limit should fit the character of the roadway, 

the NHDOT has been pleasantly surprised by the number of 

people that seem to “get it.” (B. Lambert, interview with the 

author, December 30, 2019).

The Challenge

There is a general consensus that where traffic speeds are a 

concern, lowering the speed limit is the perceived solution even 

if it is understood that the requested speed limit value is well 

below what is considered “reasonable and safe” for conditions. 

Decades of questionable speed limit practice have resulted 

in a network of speed limits that are not always credible with 

respect to actual conditions thus contributing to a culture that 

treats the speed limit as a minimum, not a maximum value. 

This culture is often reinforced through the actions of the 

courts where law enforcement is rumored to be forced to 

include a tolerance of as much as 10-15 mph over the posted 

speed limit to secure speeding convictions. (B. Lambert, letter 

to DOS/Chiefs of Police, November 5, 2019).

NHDOT has worked with a number of communities to address 

locations where posted speed limits were out of character 

for the conditions thus creating both safety and enforcement 

concerns. Table 1 shows the excessive speeds observed where 

posted speeds were ultimately increased.

Table 1. Spot speed study examples

Roadway

Speeds (mph)

Posted 85th Percentile Difference

US Route 3 at NH Route 28 40 58 18

Wakefield NH 153 35 49 14

Wakefield NH 153 35 46 11

Wakefield NH 153 35 47 12

Hancock, US Route 202 45 55 10

Hancock, US Route 202 40 56 16

Candia, NH Route 27 35 48 13
14

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Setting Credible Speed Limits

When NHDOT presents this information to communities, 

they also show how speed limits have a relationship with 

other traffic control devices. For example, required passing 

sight distance and curve warning signage are a function of 

the posted speed limit and mid-block crosswalks are not 

allowed where posted speed limits are greater than 40 mph 

(see Curve warning signage photo). 

NHDOT also emphasizes to communities that speed limits 

need to be credible for the character of the road, including 

horizontal and vertical geometry, lane widths, on-street parking, 

roadside amenities, adjacent land uses, and all roadway users.

A credible speed limit should result in voluntary compliance 

by the majority of drivers based on these criteria. They note 

that if there is a desire to have lower speeds, it can only be 

achieved if the character of the road is also changed.

Working with Communities

One thing that NHDOT always points out to communities is 

that by recommending an increase in the speed limit, they 

are not advocating that traffic speeds be increased beyond 

existing conditions, they are advocating that speed limits 

reflect the true nature of the segment so they are more likely 

to be respected as a reasonable and safe maximum.

NHDOT has reviewed—and where appropriate—increased 

speed limits within a number of communities based on traffic 

and engineering investigations. For example, within the 

communities of Wakefield and Candia, the posted speeds 

were changed from 35 to 45 mph.

Specific to Candia, records indicated that the 35 mph speed 

limit was established at approximately the same time as when 

traffic signals were installed (roughly 1967). Current practice 

would not consider the presence of a traffic signal as a reason 

for reducing the speed limit. The Bureau of Traffic conducted 

an engineering and traffic investigation with the MUTCD 

practice for determining credible speed limits being that they 

are set within 5 mph of the measured 85th percentile speed. 

NHDOT also used a web-based program produced by FHWA, 

USLIMITS2, to compare the results. This considered several 

other factors, including traffic volume, road character, and crash 

history to determine a recommended speed limit.

On review of the engineering and traffic investigation with 

enforcement, there was agreement that increasing the posted 

speed limit through the traffic signal controlled intersection 

to 45 mph would be more credible, and therefore more 

enforceable, than the current 35 mph speed limit. The new 

45 mph posted speed required that the nearby traffic signals 

adjust for “dilemma zone” protection.

In Wakefield, the local police chief struggled to enforce the 

35 mph speed limit. If motorists were stopped and ticketed at 

45-50 mph, they were essentially penalized for traveling at a 

speed that was reasonable and safe for conditions; however, 

if they were stopped and ticketed at 60-65 mph, a speed 

that was considered marginally excessive, they were required 

to appear in court and faced a much stiffer penalty due to 

the fact that they were stopped at 25 mph over the posted 

speed limit. The DOT worked cooperatively with local police 

to complete an engineering and traffic investigation that 

supported increasing the speed limit to 45 mph.

Prior to replacing the speed limit signs, the DOT evaluated 

the horizontal alignment signing and passing zones based 

on the proposed speed limit and determined that an 

additional 200 horizontal alignment signs were added over 

approximately 12 miles, arguably providing additional safety 

information for the majority of drivers1. 

Curve warning signage in Wakefield, NH.

Image Source: Bill Lambert, NHDOT
15

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Setting Credible Speed Limits

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned

• Legacy Speed Limits –There is a lot of attention given 

to highway speed and related safety concerns. In some 

cases, agencies are faced with legacy speed limits 

which were lowered in reaction to a safety event without 

consideration of motorists’ compliance, the roadway 

setting, and multiple years of crash history. 

• Culture – The collective challenge is to develop a 

culture where the posted speed limit is recognized and 

respected as the maximum safe and reasonable speed for 

the subject highway segment, especially when there are 

examples of locations where that is not the case.

• Engineering – The effort begins with engineering as speed 

limits need to be credible for the character of the road, 

including horizontal and vertical geometry, lane widths, onstreet parking, roadside amenities, and adjacent land uses. 

Enforcement presents a different set of challenges. Speed 

studies completed by the Department of Transportation 

routinely demonstrate that the majority of motorists 

operate at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit. 

Education may be the broadest category and the least 

defined as there are a number of areas where education 

can be applied to address speed management.

• Team Effort – NHDOT recommends that effective speed 

management be a joint effort between the State DOT, 

Office of Highway Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles and 

Public Safety, and the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police 

with a focus on engineering, enforcement, and especially 

education. There may be additional highway safety 

advocates that could also be effective partners in this 

effort, many of whom are identified as stakeholders in the 

state Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

1 Lambert, William. Speed Limits and Setting State Speed Zones: Selectmen’s Meeting [Presentation]. Candia, NH, November 14, 2016.
16

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

High Visibility Enforcement

CITY OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA

ISSUE STRATEGIES TAKEAWAYS

➤ High crash urban intersections

➤ Repeated distracted driver 

behavior leading to avoidable 

crashes

➤ Negative public view of 

enforcement actions

➤ High visibility enforcement 

advertised in advance

➤ Educational messaging with

every stop

➤ Constant dialogue with media 

and citizens

➤ 27% crash reduction for two urban 

intersections

➤ Media partnership

➤ Public transparency

➤ Significant educational awareness

Background

The Oro Valley Police Department (OVPD) has created a datadriven initiative to improve traffic safety in the town of Oro 

Valley, Arizona. The program is called “HiVE” or High Visibility 

Enforcement, designed to target intersections that have high 

crash rates. HiVE is described as an “educational” initiative 

rather than a strict enforcement detail with the following two 

primary components: 

1. OVPD publishes HiVE’s future deployment dates and 

times to television, print, radio, and social media. This is 

to alert the community about the increased visibility of law 

enforcement and to improve communications between 

the police and citizens. Partnering with local media is a 

key component of the HiVE.

2. During scheduled deployments, OVPD places six 

motorcycle officers in and around the targeted 

intersections. Motorcycle officers actively enforce traffic 

violations during peak travel times. The graphic below 

shows the HiVE logo developed for communications and 

program identification.

OVPD reminds motorists not to engage in distracted driving or 

other driving behaviors that contribute to avoidable injury or 

fatal vehicle crashes.

The Challenge

When injury crashes reached an all-time high in Oro Valley, the 

Police Department held its first series of HiVE deployments for 

its motorcycle officers with the goal of increasing awareness 

and safety. At that time, two intersections, see Table 1 

accounted for roughly 20 percent of all injury-related crashes 

so the department sought to change driving behavior by 

implementing the following1:

• Raising awareness by bringing attention to the problem

• Having law enforcement present and highly visible to 

the public 

• Demonstrating intent to educate and train versus holding 

a punitive “ticket writing campaign”

• Showing transparency by warning the public about 

deployments and publishing the police deployment actions

HiVE enforcement using motorcycles.

Image Source: ORO Valley Police

HiVE logo used for communications.

Source: Oro Valley Police
17

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

High Visibility Enforcement

Enforcement Actions

Over a 3-year period, OVPD conducted 142 HiVE 

deployments resulting in 4,005 traffic stops. Given the focus 

on education, this resulted in only 1 in 5 drivers receiving a 

moving violation citation. OVPD made a concerted effort to be 

transparent in the results of each deployment and in providing 

a 3-year analysis of crashes since the program began.

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned

OVPD is working hard to show transparency to the public and to 

work with media outlets on the HiVE program. However, since 

this is a continuous program, it takes repeated efforts to ensure 

that messaging is consistent and that it accurately reflects the 

program’s intent. Several lessons learned include the following:

Diligent Messaging – Do not let the media change the 

message. The police department has to be diligent in avoiding 

negative messaging such as:

• “Oro Valley police officers working speed zones.”

• “Speed-trap at Oracle and Magee today.”

• “OVPD looking for speeders this morning.” 

When these messages appear OVPD works with the media 

outlets to make sure citizens are informed well ahead of any 

deployments and to stress the education components, (see 

example public message months in advance of deployment2).

Example public message in advance of enforcement actions.

Data Driven – OVPD conducted a study, measuring crashes 

before and during the HiVE program as shown in Table 1. On 

average, these two signalized intersections experienced 25 

fewer crashes each year. A comparison of injury related crashes 

showed a 42 percent reduction at Oracle Road and Suffolk Drive 

and 15 percent reduction at Oracle Road and Magee Road.

Long Term Focus – OVPD continues to operate the 

HiVE program and believe that it is making a difference 

increasing awareness and reducing avoidable crashes 

related to speed, inattention, following too close, and 

failing to yield to other drivers.

Table 1. Crash frequency comparison before and during HiVE

Intersection Pre-HiVE (2010-2012) HiVE (2013-2015) Crash Reduction

Oracle Rd. at Suffolk Dr. 124 72 -42%

Oracle Rd. at Magee Rd. 144 123 -15%

Intersections Combined 268 195 -27%

1 Sharp, Daniel. High Visibility Enforcement [Presentation]. Noteworthy Speed Management Practices webinar. ITE, June 13, 2019.

2 High Visibility Enforcement (HIVE) April and May Deployments, Town of Oro Valley, 10 April 10, 2019.

https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Government/News/High-Visibility-Enforcement-HiVE-August-Deployment

The Oro Valley Police Department (OVPD) will be 

conducting its “High Visibility Enforcement” (HiVE) efforts 

during the months of April and May on Oracle Road and 

Magee. OVPD hopes to increase awareness and reduce 

collisions related to speed, inattention, following too 

close, and failing to yield to other drivers.

OVPD will deploy motorcycle officers on the following dates:

Tuesday, April 16, 2019 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

Thursday, May 2, 2019 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

(distracted driving 

deployment)

Wednesday, May 29, 2019 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

Motorists are asked to be aware of the additional 

enforcement activity and drive safely. If you have any 

questions about this release or traffic related issues in Oro 

Valley, please contact (Officer Name, Phone Number).
18

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras 

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

ISSUE STRATEGIES TAKEAWAYS

➤ Adoption of safety cameras is 

often difficult due to legislative and 

public concerns

➤ Data-driven approach

➤ Advocacy 

➤ Comprehensive approach 

➤ 63% decrease in speed

➤ 55% decrease in fatalities

➤ 60% decrease in violations

Background

Speed is a persistent traffic safety issue; particularly in areas with 

high pedestrian and/or bike users. One effective enforcement 

strategy that has been utilized is Automated Speed 

Enforcement (ASE), more recently termed “safety cameras.”

However, agencies have often struggled with implementing 

safety cameras due to citizen concerns, legislative resistance, 

speeding not being perceived as a safety issue, and privacy 

issues1. Implementation has also battled the perception that 

automated enforcement is a “money grab.” 

Due to the high number of pedestrians and bicyclists, New 

York City (NYC) had a particular interest in the use of safety 

cameras. In 2013, pedestrian and bicyclist crashes accounted 

for 28 percent of all police reported crashes but made up 65 

percent of fatalities in New York City. Additionally, unsafe 

speed was noted as a contributing factor in 7 percent of all 

crashes but accounted for 25 percent of fatal crashes2. 

New York City faced typical oppositions to safety cameras 

such as legislative restrictions and citizen resistance. They 

successfully instituted a safety camera program in school 

zones through several strategies. 

Strategies for Success

Data-Driven Approach

The first factor for success in NYC’s adoption of safety cameras 

and addressing crashes in general was the use of a data-driven 

approach. For instance, the New York Police Department (NYPD) 

combats traffic crashes by identifying traffic violations that 

have the greatest impact on crash severity and then focuses on 

changing the driver behaviors that contribute to these crashes. 

Under Vision Zero, crash data were utilized to identify the 

following six violations that had the greatest impact on safety3: 

• speeding

• failure to yield to a pedestrian

• red light running

• improper turning

• cell phone use

• disobeying signs 

Corridors for improvements were identified based on 

where pedestrian deaths and severe injuries were the most 

concentrated4 and in some cases challenged conventional 

wisdom about what streets had safety issues. For safety 

cameras, sites were selected by ranking school zones 

according to the number of traffic injuries during school hours 

on school days. Site selection also included the use of speed 

data, roadway geometry, engineering judgment, and areas 

identified within Pedestrian Safety Action Plans5.

Advocacy and Outreach

Another factor for success was the active participation of 

advocacy and community organizations. Groups such as 

Transportation Alternatives and Families for Safe Streets

helped elevate road safety as a priority of the city. Advocacy 

included events, petitions, use of technical statistics along 

with personal stories, and even working with faith-based 

organizations within communities5,6.

Safety Camera. Source: Getty Images
19

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras 

Another example was a joint venture between the NYPD and 

NYDOT to conduct on-street outreach. The Vision Zero Street 

Teams identify corridors with a significant crash history and 

pinpoint the types of crashes that occur. Next, the NYPD and 

NYDOT staff distribute fliers to pedestrians and drivers with 

safety tips that correspond to the most serious crashes along 

that corridor. The NYPD also targets enforcement resources to 

address the violations related to identified crash types3.

Other advocacy and outreach strategies include ads on 

television, radio, bus stops, and billboards to educate 

aggressive drivers about the consequences of negative 

behavior. Results have shown 72 percent of drivers recall 

having seen the media campaign5.

Advocacy was also critical in the initial implementation 

of the safety cameras. Later when NYC’s authority to use 

safety cameras was set to expire in July 2018 after the state 

legislature failed to reach a compromise on extension, 

advocacy groups pushed for a special session to vote on the 

proposed bill. Advocacy groups directly contacted legislators 

to encourage them to vote7. The bill was ultimately passed. 

Comprehensive Approach

Another important factor for success was the use of a 

comprehensive approach. Safety cameras were one piece of 

a comprehensive strategy4 to address pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety. For instance, NYC was the first to implement a Vision Zero 

policy. This included developing a pedestrian safety action plan 

for each of the City’s five boroughs. Safety engineering projects 

were completed in areas with high rates of severe pedestrian 

crashes. NYC was able to implement countermeasures at almost 

90 percent of priority corridors and intersections and 461 safety 

engineering projects have been completed4. 

Engineering strategies have included the installation of 

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) which gives crossing 

pedestrians a “head start” before vehicles begin to turn with 

around 2951 LPIs installed4. Left turn speed management 

was also instituted based on findings of a study of the 

interaction between left turn speeds and pedestrian safety 

and included the use of paint, flexible delineators, and rubber 

speed bumps. Other engineering countermeasures include 

bus boarding islands, speed cushions, dedicated bike lanes, 

roadway redesign, raised crosswalks, rubber pedestrian refuge 

islands offset crossings, and improved lighting3,4.

Enforcement has also played a role. In addition to playing a 

key role in Vision Zero, NYPD assesses speeding conditions in 

conjunction with the NYDOT and identifies solutions including 

increased enforcement.

Implementation of Safety Cameras

New York conducted a safety camera pilot program in 20 

school zones starting in 2013, using fixed and mobile cameras. 

A data-driven approach was used to determine locations. 

Cameras were placed on streets within a quarter mile of 

selected schools. The system was specifically targeted to 

school safety. The cameras operate 1 hour before and 1 hour 

after school activities and the speed threshold was set at 10 

mph over the speed limit. Additionally, data collected from 

the program cannot be used for unrelated purposes. 

The program was expanded to 140 school speed zones 

in 20145 and will further expand to be the largest urban 

network of safety cameras in the US (2,000 cameras in 750 

areas within a quarter mile of a school)8. More recently hours 

of operation were expanded9.

NYC use of safety cameras has shown significant success. A 

63 percent decrease in speed in school zones where safety 

cameras were present has been reported. Additionally, a 15 

percent decrease in crashes, a 17 percent reduction in injuries, 

and a 55 percent reduction in fatalities have occurred in school 

zones with safety cameras5. By 2018, the daily rate of camera 

violations had decreased by 60 percent and only 19 percent of 

violations are repeat offenders3.

NYC has also reported success in addressing pedestrian safety 

overall. From 2008 to 2017 pedestrian fatalities in urban areas 

nationally increased by around 46 percent. Over that same 

time period, pedestrian fatalities in NYC dropped 31 percent. 

Additionally, a 36 percent decline in pedestrian fatalities has 

occurred at Vision Zero priority locations4.

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned

Data driven – Successful adoption of safety cameras was 

due to NYC being able to respond to the key concerns about 

them. One strategy was use of a data-driven approach which 

highlighted the crash problem and focused on areas where 

safety issues existed. Camera locations were also selected 

using a data driven strategy.

Comprehensive strategy – NYC also used a comprehensive 

approach to address safety from a broad perspective which 

included utilizing a number of other countermeasures. 

This demonstrated safety cameras were just one piece of 

a larger strategy to address safety. Additionally, the use of 

a comprehensive approach addressed the problem from 

multiple angles rather than relying on one solution. 
20

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras 

Advocacy – Another key strategy was extensive outreach 

and advocacy activities. Educating the public helps them 

understand the problem and get buy-in. Citizen advocates 

were key since they demonstrated to both legislators and the 

public that speeding is a concern.

Continued vigilance – Another lesson learned is that 

continued vigilance is needed. After initial implementation 

in 2013, NYC’s authority to use safety cameras was set to 

expire in July 2018 after the state legislature failed to reach a 

compromise on extension. This required additional effort by 

the city and advocacy groups to ensure the program stayed 

active and was ultimately expanded.

Safety camera thresholds – Although not specific to the NYC 

case study, a general takeaway from the application of safety 

cameras is the use of thresholds. Most agencies set the system 

to activate at some threshold over the posted speed limit. This 

is generally 5 or 10 mph over. In the NYC program, a 10 mph 

threshold was utilized. Selecting a threshold over the speed limit 

is a typical approach, since most agencies do not want to ticket 

drivers right at the speed limit. It also allays concerns that the 

system is unfairly ticketing drivers and being used for revenue. 

However, once drivers become aware of the threshold, in reality, 

the target speed for drivers is likely to be the threshold limit 

rather than the actual speed limit. As a result, agencies should 

consider what the target speed is in selecting a threshold.

1 Miller, Richard, and J. Scott Osberg, Richard Retting, McKenzie Ballou, Randolph Atkins. System Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Behavioral Safety Research. DOT HS 812 257. April 2016.

2 Summary of New York City Motor Vehicle Crashes, New York State Department of Motor Vehicle Crashes. 2013. https://dmv.ny.gov/statistic/2013nyc.pdf

3 Vision Zero NYC. Vision Zero Year 5 Report. March 2019. www1.nyc.gov/assets/visionzero/downloads/pdf/vision-zero-year-5-report.pdf.

4 Vision Zero NYC (2019a). Borough Pedestrian Safety Action Plans Vision Zero Update. www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/vz-2019-update-city-hall.pdf

5 Automated Speed Enforcement Program Report 2014-2017. New York City DOT. June 2018. www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/speed-camera-report-june2018.pdf

6 Transportation Alternatives. www.transalt.org/citywide. Accessed December 2019.

7 Colon, Dave. “As speed camera deadline looms, advocates turn up heat on New York pols.” Curbed, New York. July 20, 2018.

ny.curbed.com/2018/7/20/17596566/nyc-speed-camera-legislation-transit-advocates

8 Hu, Winnie. “2,000 Cameras Will Be Watching How You Drive in New York City.” The New York Times. July 1, 2019.

www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/nyregion/speeding-cameras-nyc.html

9 Plitt, Amy. “NYC’s expanded speed camera program to take effect July 11.” Curbed, New York. May 24, 2019.

ny.curbed.com/2019/5/24/18638686/new-york-speed-camera-program-vision-zero

School Children crossing a street in NYC. Source: Getty Images
21

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Targeted Reporting of Speeding-Related Crashes

ARIZONA DOT

ISSUE STRATEGIES TAKEAWAYS

➤ Coding of Speed Too Fast

for Conditions on crash forms

may include impaired/weather 

related crashes

➤ Situations exist where no speed is 

safe and may be better addressed 

by countermeasures other than 

those targeted to speeding

➤ Data-driven approach 

➤ Acknowledged variability in 

coding crash forms

➤ Updated coding instructions to 

provide more concrete guidance

➤ Speeding-related locations can be 

identified

➤ Countermeasures can be targeted 

to the cause of crash (speeding 

versus impairment) allowing 

better allocation of resources

➤ More consistency in coding

Background

Speed Too Fast for Conditions (STFC) is a field provided 

on most agency crash forms. The intent is to label scenarios 

where a driver was traveling below the posted speed limit but 

the speed at the time of the crash was not appropriate for 

prevailing environmental conditions and was a contributor to 

the crash. However, significant variations exist in interpreting 

the definition of the environment when coding crash forms. As 

a result, it is often left to the attending officer’s interpretation. 

The Problem

In Arizona, historically STFC was defined as “Traveling at a 

speed that was unsafe for the road, weather, traffic or other 

environmental conditions at the time.” In many cases, an 

officer would include the behavioral or human environment 

and could interpret driver incapacity (Driving Under the 

Influence (DUI), impaired, distracted, fatigued) as a condition 

that would warrant traveling at a lower speed regardless of 

actual roadway conditions. For instance, a drunk driver on dry 

daytime roads traveling under the speed limit could be coded 

as Speed Too Fast for Conditions if the officer felt the state 

of impairment warranted a lower speed. Depending on the 

attending officer’s interpretation, there may be scenarios in 

which no speed is safe for conditions1.

While it is important to address these crashes, solutions 

should focus on the root cause of the crash when feasible. 

Countermeasures geared specifically towards speeding, such 

as Dynamic Speed Feedback Signs (DSFS), lane narrowing, or 

use of landscaping, may be less effective when the driver is 

impaired. Rather areas with a high number of impaired crashes 

should be targeted with countermeasures that address the 

impairment, such as enforcement.

Around one-third of Arizona fatal crashes were coded as 

speeding related between 2012 and 2016 and over 53 percent 

of those fatal crashes were also coded as impaired but below 

the posted speed limit1,2,3. 

Correcting the interpretation of behavioral conditions would 

have removed crashes such as DUI (53 percent), distracted 

(4 percent), sleeping or fatigued (3 percent) that were not 

marked as exceeding the posted limit and where no speed 

would have otherwise been reasonable. This would have 

reduced the number of crashes during this period that were 

coded as speeding related (Speed exceeded the limit and 

STFC) from over 33 percent down to approximately 11 percent 

of total fatalities.

As a result, Arizona made the decision to address the issue 

by providing clear instructions and training that would 

remove DUI and other impaired crashes from the category of 

STFC. In this manner locations with actual speeding-related 

issues can be better targeted1. 

Speeding Vehicle. Source: Getty Images
22

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Targeted Reporting of Speeding-Related Crashes

Redefining “Speeding-Related”

Arizona adapted coding instructions for their crash form for 

the field Speed Too Fast for Conditions. The new instructions 

define STFC as the following:

“Traveling at a speed that was unsafe for the road, 

weather, traffic or other environmental conditions at 

the time. This does not include behavioral conditions 

such as distraction, impairment, fatigue, falling asleep 

or other violations that would otherwise make any 

speed unreasonable”. 

Based on the new instructions, crashes where impairment, 

fatigue, or other behavioral issues are the main contributor 

are coded as impairment. Crashes with an impaired driver can 

still be coded “Exceeding the Posted Speed Limit” when both 

conditions are met1.

In the future, officers and agencies will be able to use the data 

to identify locations with a high number of speeding-related 

crashes which actually represent a speeding problem. In this 

manner, automated enforcement and other speeding-related 

countermeasures can be applied and are expected to be more 

effective. For instance, ADOT is evaluating speed limit decals 

on State Route 347 where a review of crash reports indicated 

drivers were cited as STFC in more than half of crashes along 

this section of roadway4.

Percentage of fatal crashes 

coded as STFC decreased by 

more than 1/3 after changing the 

crash form instructions.

Fatal Crashes in Arizona.

Data Source: King, 2018; ADOT, 2016

53%

23%

17%

4% 3%

DUI

Other STFC

Exceeding 

Posted

STFC & Distracted STFC & Fatigued

Officer uses driver information to complete a traffic ticket. Source: Getty Images
23

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Targeted Reporting of Speeding-Related Crashes

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned

Addressing crash contributing factors to target 

countermeasures – Although both Speed Too Fast for 

Conditions and Exceeded the Posted Speed Limit represent 

important safety issues, in most cases they represent two 

vastly different situations. In many cases, STFCs are either 

impaired drivers or weather related situations. Since neither 

scenario is usually tied to a specific roadway section, it 

is difficult to target site-based countermeasures. More 

importantly, many speed management countermeasures may 

not be suited to the problem. For instance, DSFS or safety 

cameras are set to activate at speed thresholds set for dry 

conditions. As a result, an impaired driver involved in a crash 

or a driver traveling too fast for weather conditions could be 

coded by the attending office as STFC yet be traveling below 

the thresholds set to activate DSFS or safety cameras. This 

may lead to utilizing countermeasures which would have no 

impact on these types of crashes. Other speed management 

countermeasures, such as lane narrowing or pavement 

markings, may similarly not be well suited in these situations if 

drivers are cognitively impaired.

Arizona came to this realization as they considered how 

speeding-related crashes could be addressed. As a result, 

they found a solution that allows them to focus on the root 

cause of the crash when feasible. The ability to parse crashes 

by situations where speeding-related countermeasures are 

effective versus situations, such as impaired driving, where 

countermeasures such as targeted enforcement are effective is 

important because it allows agencies to better focus resources.

Consistency in coding – Arizona also made the decision to 

update the crash form rather than relying solely on additional 

training for officers in how to better code STFC. This was 

successful since, even with training, significant variation can 

exist in how officers interpret fields on a crash form. As a 

result, the updated crash form provides more consistency.

1 King, Jeff. Speeding Related Collision Data: It May Not Be Telling You What You Think Presentation at the 2018 FHWA Safety Discipline Seminar.

2 ADOT. 2015 Motor Vehicle Crash Facts for the State of Arizona Arizona Department of Transportation,

Transportation Systems Management and Operations. June 2016. azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2018/10/2015-crash-facts.pdf

3 ADOT. 2018 Motor Vehicle Crash Facts for the State of Arizona. Arizona Department of Transportation,

Transportation Systems Management and Operations. June 2019.

4 Giulliano, Tina. ADOT tests speed limit decals on highway pavement. AZFamily. Sept 20, 2019.

https://www.azfamily.com/traffic/adot-tests-speed-limit-decals-on-highway-pavement/article_eccf35c6-dbfd-11e9-b81f-9b64df3e3fe2.html
24

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Consistent Speed Limits for Vulnerable Road Users

Examples from Various Agencies

ISSUE STRATEGIES TAKEAWAYS

➤ Ped/bike crashes are a particular 

safety issue for many cities

➤ Inconsistent speed limits violate 

driver expectancy

➤ Data-driven approach which made 

a case for how lower speed limits 

would impact vulnerable road users

➤ Advocacy played a key role

➤ Most agencies also addressed 

speed limits as part of a 

comprehensive plan that included 

other speed management solutions

➤ Comprehensive approach 

demonstrated reductions were part 

of larger strategy

➤ Consistent speeds address driver 

expectancy

➤ Outreach activities were also used

Background

Speed limits are sometimes inconsistent within a jurisdiction for 

similar roadways. In some cases, this is because speed limits are 

applied to roadway sections based on characteristics which may 

not be obvious to the driver. For instance, speed limits on one 

roadway classified as a collector are set at 35 mph while another 

collector with similar characteristics is set at 30 mph due to a higher 

crash history. Since both appear similar to drivers, they are likely to 

apply the speed they believe is the most suitable to both roadways.

In other cases, as noted by “Methods and Practices for 

Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report,” varying 

levels of experience, use of different procedures, as well as 

subjective procedures for determining speed limits can lead 

to inconsistencies in setting speed limits within or between 

jurisdictions1. In either case, inconsistency violates driver 

expectancy and can lead to drivers disregarding speed limits.

Setting Consistent Speed Limits

Consistent speed limits on roadways with similar functions and 

characteristics assist drivers in developing good driving habits. 

As a result, drivers understand what is expected when they 

enter a particular area2. Additionally, consistent and credible 

speed limits can be more easily enforced.

Several agencies have instituted consistent speed limits across 

a particular type of roadway as described in the following 

examples. The idea is to provide drivers with a consistent 

message. In most of the cases highlighted, speed limits were 

used to address vulnerable road users due to high pedestrian 

and bicyclist fatalities. As a result, the use of consistent speed 

limits across a jurisdiction usually resulted in lower speed 

limits. Although not highlighted in these noteworthy practices, 

the use of consistent speed limits can include redefining 

speed limit zone lengths and increasing speed limits along 

sections where a lower speed was not warranted.

Examples of Successful Applications

The following summarizes examples of agencies that 

successfully set consistent speed limits. In most cases, changes 

were made to address pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

Charlotte, North Carolina

Between 2013 and 2017, while pedestrian and bicycling 

crashes accounted for less than 3 percent of crashes they 

made up 44 percent of fatalities3 in Charlotte. In response to 

concerns about traffic speed and pedestrian safety, the City 

of Charlotte developed a neighborhood traffic management 

program which is a joint program between the city and 

residents4 as well as adopted the city’s Vision Zero plan. 

Speed Limit Sign Source: Getty Images
25

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Consistent Speed Limits for Vulnerable Road Users

As part of those action plans, the city changed the speed 

limits on streets classified as “local” from 35 mph to 25 mph in 

November of 20185. The city also adopted other pedestriancentric measures such as additional sidewalk construction, 

sidewalk improvements, and upgrades to pedestrian 

crossings. The Vision Zero action items were a result of a datadriven approach that included engaging with the community, 

enforcement, and education.

Portland, Oregon

Almost half (47 percent) of fatal crashes in Portland are the result 

of speeding. Pedestrians account for 31 percent and bicyclists 

account for 6 percent of motor vehicle fatalities. Further, 57 

percent of deadly crashes occur on 8 percent of Portland Streets6. 

Portland adopted a Vision Zero Action Plan in 2015 to reduce 

fatal and serious injuries. The plan developed a High Crash 

Network which identified high crash locations for people 

walking, biking, and driving. The plan also reviewed how 

speed limits were set including use of the 85th percentile 

speed. Their approach shifted away from setting speed 

limits solely based on drivers to a balanced approach that 

incorporates all road users. Part of this plan was to achieve 

speed consistency on local residential streets7. State law 

was successfully amended in 2017 to allow speed limits to 

be reduced from 25 to 20 mph on all of 3,000 miles of local 

residential streets. The bill that passed in 2017 was specifically 

for Portland. More recent legislation may allow the law to 

expand this option to cities across Oregon8. Portland used the 

marketing theme “20 is plenty” and conducted activities such 

a distributing yard signs to remind residents7. The Vision Zero 

Action Plan incorporated a range of other activities9,

10.

Seattle, Washington

The City of Seattle, Washington experienced around 20 

fatalities and 150 serious injury crashes annually. Pedestrian 

and bicyclist crashes made up 5 percent of all crashes but 

almost 50 percent of fatalities. Additionally, 9 out of 10 

bicycle/pedestrian crashes resulted in injury. Speeding 

contributed to 25 percent of fatalities citywide and 42 percent 

of downtown traffic fatalities. 

In order to address these and other traffic safety issues, Seattle 

funded Vision Zero through a 9- year transportation levy. As 

part of this initiative, Washington State passed legislation in 

2013 allowing localities to lower speed limits to 20 mph. As a 

result, Seattle set consistent speed limits on non-arterials at 20 

mph. Additionally, 200 miles of arterial streets were re-signed 

from 30 mph to 25 mph in 201611. 

Seattle also utilized additional speed management strategies 

such as lane narrowing, speed cushions, and removing the 

center line. The process also included focusing on safety 

corridors with six completed and seven scheduled for 2019. 

Other safety corridor improvements include use of Leading 

Pedestrian Intervals (LPI), addition of protected bike lanes, 

use of more durable and visible pavement markings, lane 

narrowing, and speed cushions12. An LPI starts the pedestrian 

“walk” signal several seconds before the vehicle green phase 

changes so pedestrians are more visible to drivers making 

conflicting movements.

Although not solely attributed to changes in the speed limit, 

fatalities decreased by 26 percent between 2017 and 201813.

Biker along busy roadway. Source: Getty Images
26

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Consistent Speed Limits for Vulnerable Road Users

New York City, New York

In 2014, pedestrian and bicyclist crashes accounted for 27 

percent of all police reported crashes but made up 62 percent 

of fatalities and 34 percent of injury crashes in New York City 

(NYC). Additionally, unsafe speed was noted as a contributing 

factor in 7 percent of all crashes but accounted for 23 percent 

of fatal crashes14.

The use of consistent city-wide speed limits was one strategy 

that NYC felt would be effective given the high pedestrian and 

bicycle volumes present. However, while State law allowed the 

city to reduce speed limits on a case by case basis, citywide 

speed limits could not be lower than 30 mph15. 

NYC used a data driven and comprehensive approach to 

convince the legislature to pass a measure allowing a default 

25 mph speed limit based on overwhelming evidence about 

pedestrian risk15. In particular, they used evidence to convince 

the legislature that a pedestrian’s risk of dying is twice as high 

when struck at 30 mph as it is for being struck by a vehicle at 

25 mph. According to Repogle15, Deputy Commissioner for 

Policy at the New York City Department of Transportation, they 

also used the argument that lowering New York City’s speed 

limit was the most logical evidence based safety intervention 

they could take to save lives. Similar to their activities for 

safety cameras, the strategy was also part of the NYC Vision 

Zero initiative. The default city-wide speed limit was lowered 

from 30 to 25 MPH in 2014. This included all local streets and 

most arterials, around 90 percent of the streets in New York’s 

five boroughs. The 30 mph speed limit is still allowed on high 

traffic arterials16.

An important part of the process was to ensure the change 

was communicated to the public. Over 4,700 new 25 mph 

speed limit signs were posted. In some cases, the city reevaluated and resigned streets that had speed limits higher 

than 25. Additionally, speed limit maps were created for 

citizens to check speed limits along a particular roadway if 

there were any uncertainties17.

New York City also implemented other speed management 

strategies such as eliminating the number of turning 

movements entering complicated intersections, extending 

medians at intersections, integrating LPI, better lane 

designation, adding pedestrian signals, adding crosswalks or 

pedestrian safety islands, adding speed bumps, addition of 

bike lanes and paths, and increasing street lighting18.

Queens Boulevard, which had a higher than average 

pedestrian fatality rate, had a 3-year period without a single 

pedestrian or bicyclist fatality after the installation of the 25 

mph speed limit and safety cameras15.

Pedestrians in NYC. Source: Getty Images
27

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Consistent Speed Limits for Vulnerable Road Users

Boston, Massachusetts

Pedestrian and bicycle crashes accounted for 71 percent of 

fatal and 30 percent of injury crashes in 2016 in Boston19. 

Efforts to change the default speed limit were also part 

of the city’s Vision Zero program. A State law instituting 

a 25 mph default speed limit was signed in January 2017 

through a combined effort of the Boston City Council, 

Governor, Massachusetts DOT, and the Massachusetts State 

Legislature20. The default speed limit previously was 30 mph. 

In conjunction with the effort, they placed 25 mph signs at 

entrance points and other strategic locations to educate 

drivers about the change.

Overall fatalities in Boston dropped from 21 in 2016 to 10 in 

2018. Pedestrian and bike fatalities decreased from 15 to 7 

over the same time period. Pedestrian injury crashes dropped 

from 893 in 2016 to 680 in 2018, although bicycle crashes 

were reasonably unchanged (422 to 425)19. 

Other Examples

The City of Calgary, Canada has used both playground and 

school zones to protect vulnerable road users. Efforts to 

achieve compliance with speed limits in these areas were 

initially approached using education and enforcement 

followed by traffic control enhancements and speed 

management countermeasures. Prior to 2014, school zones 

and playgrounds in Calgary had different hours and speed 

limits. A commonly noted concern was uncertainty about the 

type of zone a driver was entering along with effective hours. 

Pedestrians in Boston. Source: Getty Images

80% of respondents in the City of 

Calgary survey felt it was easier 

to remember a single speed limit 

and consistent times.
28

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Consistent Speed Limits for Vulnerable Road Users

School zone and playground zone speed limits were changed 

by March 2016 to one consistent time (7:30 am to 9:00 pm) 

and speed limit (30 km/h) which is effective year-round,21,

22,23. 

A study by the City of Calgary and the University of Calgary 

collected data from 11 playgrounds and 18 school zones and 

found average speeds decreased from 35.9 to 30.1 km/h. 

Additionally, the study found the collision rate decreased from 

78 percent while injury collisions within playground zones 

decreased by 33 percent21.

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned

Data-driven approach – All of the agencies highlighted used 

a data-driven approach to set consistent speed limits which 

usually resulted in lower speed limits. Agencies were able to 

demonstrate a significant safety issue for vulnerable road users 

by underscoring the number of fatalities and injuries sustained 

by pedestrians and bicyclists. For instance, NYC used 

evidence about pedestrian risk to convince their legislature to 

make the change. Portland developed a High Crash Network 

and reviewed how speed limits were set. Additionally, most of 

them demonstrated the impact that speed has on the ability 

of vulnerable road users to survive a crash when educating 

decision makers and the public. 

Advocacy – Advocacy efforts are undertaken by concerned 

citizens. Advocacy groups are able to reach out and educate 

their peers to demonstrate the safety issues behind proposed 

changes on a more personal level than agencies may be able 

to achieve. Additionally, many advocacy efforts involved 

groups contacting their legislators which demonstrates 

widespread acknowledgement of the problem. 

Outreach – Most of the agencies spent considerable effort 

in educating the public about the need for changes and 

after consistent speed limits were adopted, they ensured 

the public was aware of the change. This included posting 

a large number of new speed limit signs, developing speed 

limit maps to show where changes had occurred, and using 

marketing campaigns. 

Comprehensive approach – Another strategy for success was 

that in almost all of the cases, agencies also implemented 

other speed management countermeasures rather than just 

relying on changing the speed limit. In most cases, the speed 

limit reduction was part of their Vision Zero plan and was part 

of a multi-pronged approach to the problem. This helps make 

a case to the public that the changes are part of a larger plan 

to address safety.

Playground. Source: Getty Images

Adult and child riding in a bike lane. Source: Getty Images
29

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Consistent Speed Limits for Vulnerable Road Users

1 Forbes, Gerald J., Teresa Gardner, Hugh McGee, and Raghavan Srinivasan. Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report.

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety. FHWA-SA-12-004. April 2012. safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004

2 Speed Management: A Road Safety Manual for Decision-Makers and Practitioners. World Bank, the FIA Foundation and GRSP. February 2008.

apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43915/9782940395040_eng.pdf?sequence=1

3 Neighborhood Traffic Management. City of Charlotte, North Carolina. charlottenc.gov/Transportation/Programs/Pages/TrafficCalming.aspx.

Accessed December 2019.

4 Vision Zero: Safer Streets for Charlotte: 2019 – 2030 Action Plan. City of Charlotte, Department of Transportation.

charlottenc.gov/VisionZero/Documents/Vision%20Zero%20Action%20Plan.pdf. Accessed December 2019.

5 Speed Limit Lowered to 25 mph on Charlotte Neighborhood Streets.

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/city-council-to-vote-on-lowering-speed-limits-in-charlotte-neighborhoods/878588105/ November 27, 2018.

6 Vision Zero Action Plan: Saving Lives with Safe Streets. City of Portland, Oregon. December 2016.

www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/71730. Accessed December 2019.

7 Residential Speed Limit Reduction. Portland Department of Transportation. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/669625. Accessed December 2019.

8 Theen, Andrew. “Portland Wraps ‘20 is Plenty’ Effort, Eyes More Speed Limit Reductions.” The Oregonian. April 9, 2019. 

www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/2019/04/portland-wraps-20-is-plenty-effort-eyes-more-speed-limit-reductions.html

9 City of Seattle. “Vision Zero: Seattle’s Plan to End Traffic Deaths and Serious Injuries by 2030.” Seattle Department of Transportation. February 2015.

www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/beSuperSafe/VisionZeroPlan.pdf

10 City of Seattle. Vision Zero: Speed Limit Reduction FAQ. City of Seattle, Seattle Department of Transportation.

 www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/beSuperSafe/VZ_FAQ_Flyer.pdf. Accessed December 2019.

11 Speed Limits. Seattle Department of Transportation. July 2018. www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero/speedlimits

12 “An update on Seattle’s ‘Vision Zero’ street safety efforts.” Capitol Hill Seattle Blog. March 8, 2019.

 www.capitolhillseattle.com/2019/03/an-update-on-seattles-vision-zero-street-safety-efforts/

13 Baruchman, Michelle. “Seattle traffic deaths and injuries down slightly last year; most of the fatalities were pedestrians.” The Seattle Times. March 11, 2019.

 www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-traffic-deaths-and-injuries-down-slightly-last-year-most-of-the-fatalities-were-pedestrians/

14 Summary of New York City Motor Vehicle Crashes. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. dmv.ny.gov/statistic/2014-nyccrashsummary.pdf.

 Accessed December 2019.

15 Repogle, Michael. “How New York City Is Saving Pedestrian Lives Through Lower Speed Limits.” Road and Track. December 27, 2017.

 www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a14500765/new-york-city-vision-zero/

16 Bankoff, Caroline. “Things to Know About NYC’s New 25-Miles-Per-Hour Speed Limit.” New York Magazine. November 4, 2014.

 http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/11/things-to-know-about-nycs-new-speed-limit.html

17 Meyer, David. "DOT Releases Borough-by-Borough Speed Limit Maps." Streetsblog NYC. April 1, 2016.

 nyc.streetsblog.org/2016/04/01/city-releases-borough-by-borough-speed-limit-maps

18 Street Design and Regulation. New York City Vision Zero. www.nyc.gov/html/visionzero/pages/street-design/street-design.html. Accessed December 2019.

19 Fisher, Jenna. “680 Pedestrians Were Hit By Cars In Boston In 2018: Vision Zero.” Patch, 25 Apr. 25, 2019,

 patch.com/massachusetts/boston/680-pedestrians-were-hit-cars-boston-2018-vision-zero.

20 “Boston's New Default Speed Limit 25 MPH Effective Jan. 9, 2017.” City of Boston. 

 www.boston.gov/news/bostons-new-default-speed-limit-25-mph-effective-jan-9-2017

21 Churchill, A.E., Joanna Domarad, Lina Kattan, Suman Mishra, and Greg Iwaskow. Improving safety in school and playground zones through harmonization.

 2018 Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada Saskatoon, SK.

 https://www.tac-atc.ca/sites/default/files/conf_papers/churchilla_-_improving_safety.pdf. Accessed December 2019.

22 Calgary. Playground Zones. City of Calgary, Canada. www.calgary.ca/transportation/roads/pages/traffic/traffic-safety-programs/school-zone-safety.aspx.

 Accessed December 2019.

23 Tucker, Erika. “Study on Calgary Playground, School Zone Changes Shows Less Speeding, Collisions after Harmonization.” Global News. September 18, 2017. 

 https://globalnews.ca/news/3753764/study-on-calgary-playground-school-zone-changes-shows-less-speeding-collisions-after-harmonization

Addressing driver expectancy – Although most of the 

agencies reduced the speed limit to address safety concerns, 

the use of consistent speed limits also provides drivers with a 

consistent message and expectations. For instance, as noted 

in the Calgary example, instituting the same speed limits and 

effective hours for school zones and playgrounds presented 

drivers with a consistent message. Consistent speed limits 

on roadways with similar functions and characteristics assist 

drivers in developing good driving habits. As a result, drivers 

understand what is expected when they enter a particular area 

(WHO, 2008). Additionally, consistent and credible speed 

limits can be more easily enforced.
30

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Network Approach to Setting Speed Limits

NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY 

ISSUE STRATEGIES TAKEAWAYS

➤ Speed limits can be inconsistent

➤ In some cases, speed limits did not 

consider the safety aspect of speed

➤ Developed network based speed 

limits that were evidence based 

and nationally consistent

➤ Used outreach and education

➤ Used a measure of safety risk 

which can be communicated to 

stakeholders and the public

➤ Data-driven approach provides 

clarity in selecting speed limits

Background

Speeding is a contributing factor in almost one-third of 

fatalities and around 20 percent of serious injury crashes in 

New Zealand1,2. Additionally, roadway fatalities increased from 

253 in 2013 to 373 in 2018 while serious injuries increased 

from 2,020 to 2,8363. 

The Problem

Historically speed limits in New Zealand were based on the 

number of access points and surrounding land use for a 

particular rather than considering roadway characteristics or 

safety performance. 

Developing Consistent and

Evidence Based Speed Limits

To address concerns about speeding-related crashes, the 

New Zealand Transport agency developed the NZ Speed 

Management Guide which provides speed limits that are 

nationally consistent and evidence based2,4,. The resulting 

guide is an evidence-based, network-wide approach that 

recommends speed limits that are safe and appropriate based 

on road function, design, safety, and land use. 

The objectives of the guide are the following5:

• Make the roadway system more forgiving of human error

• Reduce force in crashes to a level that is tolerable for the 

human body to survive without serious injury 

• Minimize unsafe road user behavior

A recommended speed limit for each roadway type is 

developed based on various characteristics such as geometry, 

land use, roadside hazards, etc. An Infrastructure Risk Rate 

(IRR) is developed for each corridor based on the following 

and an IRR score is given (1 = low to 5 = high risk): 

• Roadway type

• Alignment

• Width

• Roadside hazards

• Land use

• Intersection density

• Access density

• Traffic volume

Speeding contributes to 1/3 of 

fatalities in New Zealand and is noted 

as being on par with drunk driving as 

their biggest safety problem2.

Speeding Vehicle. Source: Getty Images
31

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Network Approach to Setting Speed Limits

A measure of safety risk (low-to-high) is also assigned 

based on crash density and crash rate6. The IRR score is 

combined with safety risk and roadway function and a safe 

and appropriate speed recommended. The guide lays out 

principles for setting speed limits and applying speed 

management measures to ensure they are consistent across 

similar roadway types in a network4. A matrix was developed 

which recommends safe and appropriate speeds for a 

particular road class. An example of recommended speeds for 

a few roadway types is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Example of Recommended Speeds for Select Road Types

Roadway Function Road Safety Metric Infrastructure Risk Rating

Safe and 

Appropriate 

Speed

➤ ONRC* Class 1 -2

➤ Rural town

➤ Personal risk ≤ low to medium**

➤ Collective risk ≤ medium to high**

➤ Low or Low-medium 80 km/h

➤ ONRC* Class 1 - 3

➤ Rural town

➤ Personal risk ≤ medium** ➤ Low or Low-medium 60 km/h

➤ Any ONRC* 

➤ Rural town

➤ Personal risk ≤ medium to high** ➤ Low or Low-medium 50 km/h

*One Network Road Classification **Risk is further defined in the NZ Speed Management Guide

Typical rural road in New Zealand. Source: Getty Images
32

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Network Approach to Setting Speed Limits

The New Zealand Transport agency develops a map for each 

Road Controlling Agency, which shows where existing speed 

limits differ from the recommendations, and identifies where 

speed management will have the most benefit. Maps are 

developed using land use, speed limits, current operating 

speeds, and a measure of risk for the corridor4.

The network map is created by comparing existing speed limits 

against the recommended ones. Corridors with a safety issue 

and current travel speeds and speed limit above the calculated 

safe and appropriate speed are identified. The next step is to 

determine what type of intervention should be done for those 

corridors. Economically important roads where there is a strong 

case for investment are targeted for geometric improvements 

such as by-passes. When corridors do not meet these criteria, 

discussions are made about lowering the speed limit or 

employing lower-cost countermeasures. Finally, in locations 

where current travel speeds are below the current speed limit, 

lowering the speed limit is recommended to be consistent4. 

What Happened Next

The speed management guide was used to develop a tool 

called “Mega Maps” which assigns speeds within a particular 

network area based on factors from the NZ Speed Management 

Guide2. Application of the tool for fatal road crashes in 2018 

found 61 percent of fatal crash sites had a calculated “safe and 

appropriate speed” that was below the currently posted speed 

limit at that site2. This information allows agencies to better 

target speed limits for high-risk roadways.

New Zealand has also announced a $1.4 billion investment 

in road safety over the next 3 years with half of the funds 

allocated to state highways and half allocated for local roads. 

Improvements include the use of median and side barriers, 

rumble strips, and should widening3.

In Auckland, around 750 km of roads are being treated. The 

focus is on the top 10 percent high risk areas5.

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned

Data-driven approach – New Zealand used a data-driven 

approach that can be replicated by other agencies. Speed 

limits were assigned based on an assessment of roadway 

characteristics (i.e., width, volume, and alignment) as well as 

crash density and rate. A measure of safety risk is assigned. 

In addition to having a clear metric for assigning speed limits, 

the concept of risk can be explained to agencies and the 

public more easily. 

Outreach – As NZ began implementing the guide and tool 

they found some resistance. For instance, the use of the 

guide and tool resulted in speed limits on a large number of 

roadways being classified as “too high.” One source reported 

that 87 percent of speed limits in New Zealand are too high 

according to the tool with only 5 percent of open roads 

warranting the current 100 km/h speed limit. Others expressed 

concerns that blanket reductions could weaken the economy 

by increasing time for businesses to move freight7.

To address these concerns, New Zealand found engagement and 

outreach were an important part of the process. Their approach 

and perspective for implementation included the following: 

• Focus on “speed management” rather than speed limits

• Engage early with stakeholders

• Gradually build public understanding and support

• Consider the pace of change, resistance occurs when too 

many things are changed at once

61 percent of fatal crashes were 

found to occur on roadways where 

the calculated “safe and appropriate 

speed” was below the currently 

posted speed limit.

1 Safer Journeys. Safe Speed: Goal for 2020. www.saferjourneys.govt.nz/action-plans/safe-speeds. Accessed November 2019.

2 Koorey, Glen. Making Safer Speeds Happen. Can Do Workshop. July 2018 https://can.org.nz/system/files/GKoorey-CANDo-2018-LowerSpeeds.pdf

3 Tupou, Laura. “Government Announces a $1.4 Billion Investment in Road Safety.”

www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/12/government-announces-1-4-billion-investment-in-road-safety.html. December 16, 2018. Accessed November 2019.

4 New Zealand Transport Agency. NZ Speed Management Guide. November 2016. www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/speed-management-resources (Accessed October 

2019).

5 Turner, Shane. Applying the Speed Management Guide to New Zealand Cities.

Presentation at the 2020 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. January 2020.

6 KiwiRAP. KiwiRAP, New Zealand Road Assessment Programme. www.kiwirap.org.nz/index.html. Accessed November 2019.

7 Ensor, Jamie. Speed Limits Too High on Nearly All Kiwi Roads. New Zealand Transport Agency

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/06/speed-limits-too-high-on-nearly-all-kiwi-roads-nzta.html.
33

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Appendix A: Acknowledgments

This report is a result of FHWA’s leadership in the area of speed management 

and toward creating effective resources for practitioners. FHWA project staff 

include the following:

• Guan Xu | FHWA

• Abdul Zineddin | FHWA

• Norah Ocel | FHWA

The project team gratefully acknowledges the project Technical Advisory 

Committee (TAC) members who provided excellent guidance and support 

throughout this project. The TAC includes the following individuals:

• Brian Burk, P.E. | Travis County Public Works, Texas

• Christopher Cairns, P.E., PTOE | City of Orlando, Florida

• Hillary Isebrands, P.E., PhD | FHWA

• William Lambert, P.E. | New Hampshire DOT

• Pat Hoye | Department of Public Safety, Iowa

The following individuals also provided significant guidance to the project:

• Rosemarie Anderson | FHWA

• Chimai Ngo | FHWA

• Stephen Ratke | FHWA

• Jeffrey King | FHWA

• Clayton Chen | FHWA

• Keith Williams | NHTSA

• Lewis Leff | City of Austin, TX

• Joel Meyer | City of Austin, TX

• Commander Eric Miesse | City of Austin Police Department, TX

• Dan Hartman | City of Golden, CO

• Anne Beierle | City of Golden, CO

• Chief Daniel Sharp | Oro Valley Police Department, AZ

• Lieutenant Chris Olson | Oro Valley Police Department, AZ
34

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Appendix B: Summary of Activities

The efforts to gather potential noteworthy speed management 

practices consisted of a range of outreach efforts, including 

three roundtable workshops, as noted below. The objective 

was to identify agencies who have been involved in 

engineering, enforcement, education, or advocacy efforts to 

reduce speeding.

The first workshop was conducted on April 3, 2019, in Arlington, 

Virginia, concurrently with the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers Joint Southern and Mid-Colonial District Annual 

Meeting. The discussion topics included agency speed 

management practices, policies, countermeasures, setting 

speed limits, and law enforcement. These discussions were 

facilitated by subject matter experts along with several guest 

speakers including Adam Greenstein (WSP), and Eddie Reyes 

(Director at Prince William County Office of Public Safety).

The second workshop was a webinar conducted on June 

13, 2019. Similar to the Arlington workshop, information 

was shared on agency speed management practices and 

policies, advocacy, setting speed limits, law enforcement, 

and countermeasures. The webinar included presentations 

by subject matter experts along with several guest speakers 

including Veronica Vanterpool (Deputy Director, National Vision 

Zero Network) and Chief Daniel Sharp (Police Department for 

the town of Oro Valley, Arizona). Participants were engaged 

during the webinar by participating in live polls, using the chat 

pod, and using a post-webinar evaluation survey.

The third workshop was conducted on July 21, 2019, in Austin, 

Texas during the Joint ITE International and Texas District 2019 

Annual Meeting and Exhibit. These discussions were facilitated by 

subject matter experts along with several guest speakers including 

Brian Burk (Senior Engineer with Travis County Public Works, 

TX), Commander Eric Miesse (Austin Police Department), Randy 

McCourt (President, DKS Associates), and Sarah Abel (Technical 

Programs Manager, ITE). Several issues were discussed around 

the need for outreach, the lack of resources to address speed 

management, the necessity for a collaborative approach, data 

collection, and management issues.

Stakeholder meeting in Arlington, VA.

Image Source: Niloo Parvinashtiani
35

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Appendix B: Summary of Activities

In addition to these workshops, a number of supplemental 

outreach efforts were made to seek out speed management 

practices with an even wider audience including the following:

• Attending relevant national committee meetings or 

distribution of email to committee members. This 

included ITE Safety Council, ITE Traffic Engineering 

Council, ITE Vision Zero Steering Committee, 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) AHB65- Committee 

on Operational Effects of Geometrics, TRB ANB20(5)-

Traffic Speed and Safety – Cross cutting Issues Joint 

Subcommittee, Highway Safety Partners Venture 

Meeting (HSPV), American Association of State Highway 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Traffic Engineering 

Committee 2019 Annual Meeting, and National 

Operations Center of Excellence (NOCoE) road weather 

management peer exchange

• FHWA/ITE Joint Speed Management Workshop during 

joint ITE/Midwestern and Great Lakes District 2018 

Annual Meeting and Exhibit

• Case study online screening form distribution

• ITE membership outreach including ITE e-newsletter 

(Spotlite), ITE district/Section/Chapter newsletter, and ITE 

All Member e-community

• Attending other relevant meetings (GHSA-IIHS National 

Forum on Speeding, 29th Annual Governor’s Highway 

Traffic Safety Conference)

• FHWA and project’s Technical Advisory Committee

• Internet search

A total of 93 initial noteworthy practices were identified 

through the activities described above. The 93 initial 

noteworthy practices were narrowed to 36 potential 

noteworthy practices based on the following:

• Available content (initial scan of information to describe 

what the noteworthy practice is)

• US-based (although international examples were included, 

more weight was given to US examples)

• Additional information was gathered and the 36 potential 

noteworthy practices were reviewed. The practices were 

narrowed again to 15 top priority noteworthy practices 

based on the following:

• Representation of a range of practices

• Sufficient information to pursue a case study

• MUTCD compliant strategies (if applicable)

Case studies were selected from a cursory review of the 

information and initial discussions. A final 15 top priority 

case studies were identified and ultimately a final eight 

were selected in conjunction with the project TAC for 

documentation following discussions with individual agencies.
36

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Appendix C: Speed Management Resources

There are a number of speed management resources and 

examples of agency practices available for practitioners. 

Information summarized during the course of the project was 

summarized in five general areas including the following:

• General Guidance on Speed Management

• Setting Speed Limits

• Countermeasures

• Outreach

• Enforcement

General Guidance

on Speed Management 

Powell, T, and R. Martin. Speeding Away from Zero: 

Rethinking a Forgotten Safety Challenge. Governors 

Highway Safety Associate GHSA, January 2019

This report presents speeding-related fatality trends according 

to data collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System. This report 

documents and summarizes information collected from states 

and reviews policy, programmatic, and cultural trends related to 

speeding. It provides a discussion on the collection of speedingrelated crash data as well as showcases approaches to setting 

speed limits. The report concludes that the current landscape on 

speeding reveals a number of the following key findings:

• Progress on the issue of speeding is limited at best

Efforts to combat speeding face political roadblocks

• When it comes to speeding, drivers have a minimal 

perception of risk

The report recommends that in order to achieve 

breakthroughs, the transportation community should consider 

a number of key steps including the following:

• Improve Program Management

• Prioritize Enforcement

• Improve State and Local Policy

• Identify and Deploy a Culture Change Model

• Investigate Future Solutions

Neuner, M., J. Atkinson, B. Chandler, S. Hallmark, R. Milstead, 

and R. Retting. Integrating Speed Management Within 

Roadway Departure, Intersections, and Pedestrian and 

Bicyclist Safety Focus Areas. FHWA-SA-16-017. April 2016.

Speeding—defined as traveling too fast for conditions or in 

excess of the posted speed limits—, contributes to nearly 

one-third of all roadway fatalities, and this proportion has 

remained largely unchanged for the past decade. Practitioners 

and communities working to reduce speeding-related crashes 

need the latest information and tools to guide their efforts. 

Since roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and 

bicycle crashes have been identified by the Federal Highway 

Administration as the three areas with great potential to reduce 

fatalities, States are encouraged to integrate speed management 

into these three safety focus areas. In order to assist agencies 

with integrating speed management into their policies, practices, 

and safety plans, this report presents information on national 

speeding-related crash trends, promotes a speed-related 

crash data analysis approach, and recommends strategies 

and initiatives for integrating speed management into both 

an agency's overall policies as well as its roadway departure, 

intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety programs.

Bagdade, J., D. Nabors, H. McGee, R. Miller, and R. 

Retting. Speed Management: A Manual for Local Rural 

Road Owners. FHWA-SA-12-027. November 2012. This 

document provides information on how to develop a speed 

management program that is tailored to meet the needs of 

local rural road practitioners. A speed Management program 

can be effective in lowering the number of speeding crashes 

and the resulting fatalities and serious injuries on local rural 

roads. This document describes the various elements of a speed 

management program, including the principles of setting speed 

limits appropriate for roads within the jurisdiction and various 

countermeasures that are effective in mitigating speeding as it 

relates to roadway safety in rural areas.
37

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Appendix C: Speed Management Resources

Speed Management ePrimer for Rural Transition Zones 

and Town Centers. FHWA. January 2018. This Speed 

Management ePrimer for Rural Transition Zones and Town 

Centers is a free, online resource openly available for public 

use. The ePrimer presents a review of speeding-related safety 

issues facing rural communities, along with the basic elements 

required for data collection, information processing, and 

countermeasure selection by rural transportation professionals 

and community decision-makers. The ePrimer is presented in 

six distinct modules developed to allow the reader to move 

between each to find the desired information, without a coverto-cover reading. The ePrimer presents the following:

• A definition of speeding and speed management, 

its importance, and its relationship to the goals and 

challenges (e.g., resource constraints) faced by many rural 

communities

• Illustrations and photographs of 14 types of speed 

management countermeasures, particularly suited for rural 

transition zones and town centers

• Considerations for their appropriate application, including 

effects and design and installation specifics

• Research on the mobility and safety effects of speed 

management countermeasures for passenger cars 

and commercial trucks, pedestrians and bicyclists, and 

agricultural vehicles which frequent roadways in and 

around many rural communities

• Case studies that cover effective processes used to 

plan and define a rural community speed management 

program or project, and assessments of the effects 

of individual and series of speed management 

countermeasures.

Speed Management Toolkit. FHWA Safety Program. 

FHWA0SA015-017. 2017. This speed management resource 

was developed from the most relevant and up-to-date 

existing speed management guides, informational resources, 

and research evidence. The first section is an annotated 

bibliography that provides a descriptive list of key speed 

management resources. The bibliography also identifies the 

primary target audiences who may find the resources most 

useful. Resources were reviewed as part of the project to 

identify best speed management practices, and to develop 

the model speed management Action Plan template.

The second section describes crash- and speed-reducing 

countermeasures and the effects that might be expected for 

implementing the listed treatments. The countermeasures 

included, with potential crash effects or Crash Modification 

Factors (CMFs), are derived from high quality evaluations. 

Several sources were consulted to develop the list of 

countermeasures with strong evidence of crash or speedreducing effects. Key among these sources were the Highway 

Safety Manual, the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, 

and FHWA proven safety countermeasures information. 

Although only measures that have a high quality of evaluation 

evidence were included in these lists, other measures may 

also have crash-reducing effects, but the evidence is not 

as conclusive. New knowledge emerges continually, so 

practitioners are encouraged to consult the Crash Modification 

Factors Clearinghouse and other sources for the most up-todate information. These CMF effect estimates may be used 

in cost benefit assessments to help prioritize among alternate 

countermeasures as described in the Action Plan template. 

The third section provides tip sheets for communications 

experts and others involved in supporting the speed 

management program and countermeasures through 

education and awareness efforts. The tip sheets provide 

guidance on developing a locally-tailored communications 

program. Creating and sustaining an effective speed 

management program requires the commitment and support 

of diverse stakeholders, including users of the roadways and 

effective communications which can help build such support. 

In addition, safety benefits of specific countermeasures, such 

as enforcement or new or unfamiliar engineering treatments, 

may be enhanced with an effective communications program.

Ecola, L., S.W. Popper, R. Silberglitt, and L. Fraade-Blanar. 

The Road to Zero: A Vision for Achieving Zero Roadway 

Deaths by 2050. Rand Corporation. 2018. 

Summarizes information for achieving vision zero.
38

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Appendix C: Speed Management Resources

Traffic Calming ePrimer. FHWA. February 2017.

The Traffic Calming ePrimer is a free, online resource openly 

available for public use. The ePrimer presents a thorough 

review of current traffic calming practices and contains the 

information needed to understand this complex field. The 

ePrimer is presented in eight distinct modules developed to 

allow the reader to move between each to find the desired 

information, without a cover-to-cover reading. The ePrimer 

presents the following:

• A definition of traffic calming, its purpose, and its 

relationship to other transportation initiatives (like 

complete streets and context sensitive solutions)

• Illustrations and photographs of 22 different types of 

traffic calming measures

• Considerations for their appropriate application, including 

effects and design and installation specifics

• Research on the effects of traffic calming measures on 

mobility and safety for passenger vehicles; emergency 

response, public transit, and waste collection vehicles; 

and pedestrians and bicyclists

• Examples and case studies of both comprehensive traffic 

calming programs and neighborhood-specific traffic 

calming plans

• Case studies that cover effective processes used to plan 

and define a local traffic calming program or project and 

assessments of the effects of individual and series of 

traffic calming measures

Hallmark, S., S. Knickerbocker, and N. Hawkins. Evaluation 

of Low Cost Traffic Calming for Rural Communities – Phase II.

Iowa Department of Transportation. January 2013. 

The study evaluated traffic-calming treatments through small 

Iowa communities using either single-measure low-cost or 

gateway treatment that was appropriate for major roads 

through small rural communities. The project identified small 

rural communities with speed issues, selected and installed 

countermeasures, and compared the impact using before and 

after studies. Thirteen different traffic calming strategies were 

evaluated in 10 rural communities in Iowa.

Fitzsimmons, E., N. Oneyear, S. Hallmark, N. Hawkins, 

and T. Maze. Synthesis of Traffic Calming Techniques in 

Work Zones. January 2009. Smart Work Zone Deployment 

Initiative. This project identified and summarized the 

effectiveness of different traffic calming treatments to reduce 

speeds in work zones. State of the art and new technologies 

for speed management in work zones were identified 

and summarized. A report, summarizing work zone speed 

management countermeasures was developed.

Hallmark, S. and N. Hawkins. “Traffic Calming on 

Main Roads through Rural Communities” Tech Brief. 

FHWA-HRT-08-067. US Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration. February 2009. Speed 

management is a significant challenge for most communities 

in the United States. This is particularly true for small, rural 

communities where the main roadway through the town 

serves a dual role. Outside the town, the roadway provides 

high-speed travel over long distances; within the built-up 

area, however, the same roadway accommodates local access, 

pedestrians of all ages, on-street parking, bicycles, and the 

many other features unique to the character of a community. 

This convergence of roadway purposes presents both an 

enforcement challenge for the community and a potential 

safety problem for the public.

Addressing the issue through law enforcement alone often 

leads to temporary compliance at a significant cost. A more 

permanent way to reinforce the need to reduce speed is 

to change the look and feel of the road by installing traffic 

calming treatments that communicate to drivers that the 

function of the roadway is changing. Traffic calming has been 

evaluated and used extensively within low-speed urban areas 

in the United States but less so in rural areas where driver 

expectations and traffic characteristics are different.

Traffic calming is more common in rural communities in Europe 

where multiple measures such as colored pavement, physical 

lane narrowing, signing, and landscaping are often combined. 

A gateway treatment intended to evoke lower speed on the 

approach and entrance to the community is usually followed 

by a series of other measures repeated throughout the 

community to encourage drivers to maintain appropriate 

speeds. Speed reductions up to 15 mph from rural traffic 

calming have been reported in France, Denmark, and the UK, 

although speed reductions of 5 mph were more typical. Total 

accidents were reduced by 50 percent and injury accidents by 

25 percent or more.

This tech brief summarizes an evaluation of the effects on the 

speed of low-cost, traffic-calming treatments on main rural 

highways passing through small, rural communities in Iowa.

Hallmark, S. and H. Isebrands. Toolbox to Address Safety 

and Operations around Schools in Iowa. Nov. 200.5 Case 

studies around elementary schools in Iowa were conducted 

to identify common traffic safety issues and best practices. 

Countermeasures and recommendations were summarized in 

a toolbox specifically prepared for school officials as well as 

transportation agencies.
39

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Appendix C: Speed Management Resources

Setting Speed Limits

USLIMITS2. FHWA Office of Safety Programs. January 2018.

USLIMITS2 is a web-based tool designed to help practitioners 

set reasonable, safe, and consistent speed limits for specific 

segments of roads. USLIMITS2 is applicable to all types of 

roads ranging from rural local roads and residential streets to 

urban freeways. However, the tool is not applicable to school 

zones or construction zones.

User-friendly, logical, and objective, USLIMITS2 is of particular 

benefit to local communities and agencies without ready access 

to engineers experienced in conducting speed studies for 

setting appropriate speed limits. For experienced engineers, 

USLIMITS2 can provide an objective second opinion and 

increase confidence in speed limit setting decisions. 

Hildebrand, E.D., A. Ross, and K. Robinchaud. “The 

Effectiveness of Transitional Speed Zones.” ITE Journal.

October 2004. pp. 30-38. This study summarizes policies 

on speed transition zones and summarizes studies which 

evaluated driver compliance in transition zones. 

Rawson, C.T. Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones.

August 2015.Texas Department of Transportation. These 

procedures summarize speed management policies in Texas 

including transition zones.

Sign Installation Policy—Speed Limits. Municipality of 

Anchorage. Traffic Engineering Department. This is a speed 

limit policy for Municipality of Anchorage.

Speed Limit Guidelines. Missouri Department of 

Transportation. October 2019. Guidelines on setting speed 

limits for Missouri Department of Transportation 

Speed Zoning for Highways, Roads, and Streets in Florida. 

Florida Department of Transportation. Topic #750-010-002. 

March 2010. This report summarizes bases for setting speed zones. 

Speed Limit Guidelines. North Dakota Department of 

Transportation. September 2015. Describes the North 

Dakota’s DOT process for setting speed limit transitions zones. 

Policy for Speed Limit Review/Request. City of Shorewood, 

Minnesota. June 2015. Describes the City of Shorewood’s 

process for setting speed limit transitions zones.

Forbes, G.J., T. Gardner, H. McGee, and R. Srinivasan. 

Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An 

Informational Report. FHWA-SA-12-004. Federal Highway 

Administration. April 2012. This publication describes 

primary practices and methods to set speed limits. 

Countermeasures

Dixon, K., H. Zhu, J. Ogle, J. Brooks, C. Hein, P. Aklluir, 

and M. Crisler. Determining Effective Roadway Design 

Treatments for Transitioning from Rural Areas to Urban 

Areas on State Highways. Oregon Department of 

Transportation. FHWA-OR-RD-09-02. September 2008. 

This publication provides a review of countermeasures for 

rural-to-urban transitions zones using a simulator study. 

Bloomberg, R.D. and A.M. Cleven. Pilot Test of Heed 

the Speed, a Program to Reduce Speeds in Residential 

Neighborhoods. DOT HS 810 648. National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. August 2006. This report discusses a 

pilot study in Phoenix and Philadelphia.

Hein, C. Comparison of Effectiveness of Roadway 

Design Treatments for Transitioning from Rural Areas to 

Urban Areas Using a Driving Simulator. Thesis. Clemson 

University. 2007. This thesis discusses six different 

countermeasures tested in a driving simulator.

Sandberg, W., T. Schoenecker, K. Sebastian, and D. Soler. 

Long-Term Effectiveness of Dynamic Speed Monitoring 

Displays for Speed Management at Speed Limit Transitions. 

This report evaluates dynamic speed feedback sign in 

transition zones (rural and urban).

FIldes, B., B. Corben, S. Newstead, J. Macaulay, T. 

Gunatillake, and M. Tziotis. Perceptual Countermeasures 

to Speeding. 49th Annual Proceedings Association for the 

Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Sept. 2005. 

This proceedings document evaluates transverse edgelines at 

the approach to an intersection.

URS. Traffic Calming Report. November 2013. United 

Kingdom and Ireland. This report offers a detailed description 

of most European style speed management countermeasures.

Traffic Calming. Local Transport Note 1/07. March 2007. 

Department for Transport, United Kingdom. This report 

offers a summary table of various countermeasures used in the 

United Kingdom.

Dutta, N., M.D. Fontaine, R.A. Boateng, and M. Campbell. 

Evaluation of the Impact of the I-66 Active Traffic 

Management System: Phase II. Report No. VTRC 19-R7. 

Virginia Department of Transportation. Richmond, Virginia, 

October 2018.
40

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Appendix C: Speed Management Resources

Outreach

Wisconsin Statewide Speed Management Guidelines. 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation. June 2009.

This document describes guidelines for transitional speed 

zones in terms of length and characteristics.

Alabama Speed Management Manual. Alabama 

Department of Transportation. October 2015. 

This manual provides information on data collection and 

countermeasures for speed management.

Guidelines for Traffic Calming. City of Sparks Public 

Works, Nevada. January 2007. These guidelines include a 

methodology for application and approval of countermeasures 

as well as a summary of countermeasures.

Brown, D. Effective Application of Traffic Calming Techniques.

Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation. September 

2011. This document summarizes traffic calming guidance from 

several states. The report summarizes background, traffic calming 

policies, types of treatments, and legal issues. 

Main Streets: Flexibility in Design and Operations. 

California Department of Transportation. January 2005.

This booklet includes information on common 

countermeasures and performance measures; its focus is on 

developing state highways that are also local main streets.

Delaware Traffic Calming Design Manual. Delaware 

Department of Transportation. 2012. This manual outlines 

the needs and process for a traffic calming plan. 

Maine DOT Guidelines for Use of Traffic Calming Devices.

This proposed policy includes traffic calming guidelines but 

does not address data, rural, or transition zones.

Mass Highway. Traffic Calming and Traffic Management, 

Chapter 16. 2006. This chapter includes speed management 

guidelines.

Smart Transportation Guidebook. Pennsylvania and New 

Jersey Department of Transportation. March 2008.

Discusses a section on rural, town, and village neighborhood 

speed management.

Traffic Calming Study and Approval Process for State 

Highways. Vermont Agency of Transportation. September 

2003. This study includes information about planning, 

evaluating, and implementation traffic calming projects on 

state highways in Vermont.

Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Streets. Virginia 

Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Division. 

October 2002, July 2008. This guide describes a speed 

management process for local streets.

Pennsylvania’s Traffic Calming Handbook. Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation. Pub 383 (7-12). July 2012.

This handbook describes study and approval process, data 

collection metrics, and speed management countermeasures.

Torbic, D.J., D.K. Gilmore, K.M. Bauer, C.D. Bokenkroger, 

D.W. Harwood, L.M. Lucas, R. J. Frazier, C.S. Kinzel, 

D.L. Petree, and M.D. Forsberg. NCHRP Report 737: 

Design Guidance for High-Speed to Low-speed Transition 

Zones for Rural Highways. Transportation Research 

Board. Washington, DC. 2012. This study developed 

design guidance for high to low speed transition zones and 

conducted studies on several transition zone treatments. 

Additionally, the study summarized international guidelines on 

use of treatments.

Safe Road Design—A Practical Manual, Public Works, 

and Water Management, the Netherlands, September 

2005. Safe Road Design – A Practical Manual (World Bank 

and Dutch Ministry of Transportation, 2005) This manual 

provides a summary on the use of speed reduction measures 

in the Netherlands.

Bagdade, J., D. Nabors, H. McGee, R. Miller, and R. 

Retting. Speed Management: A Manual for Local Rural 

Road Owners. FHWA Office of Safety. FHWA-SA-12-027. 

November 2012. Provides a definition of speed metric: 

design speed, operating speed, posted speed. The 

process for conducting a speed management program is 

also described. The study also has an appendix on how to 

conduct speed studies using traffic counters, time-measured 

zone, radar LIDAR.
41

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices

Appendix C: Speed Management Resources

Enforcement

Eccles, K.A., B. Persuad, C. Lyon, and G. Hansen. NCHRP 

Report 729: Automated Enforcement for Speeding and 

Red Light Running. Transportation Research Board, 

Washington DC. 2012. The report provides some guidance 

on the initiation and operation of an automated enforcement 

program. The guidance was developed based on a survey 

of agencies, field visits, a literature review, and author 

experience. It covers planning, enabling legislation, violation 

enforcement, use of revenue, evaluation, and technology.

Eccles, K.A. “Automated Enforcement for Speeding and 

Red Light Running.” TR News. May 2014. Summarizes 

information from NCHRP 729.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. An Overview 

of Automated Enforcement Systems and Their Potential 

for Improving Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety. Summarizes 

impacts of speeding and red-light running on pedestrians 

and bicyclists. Summarizes studies which evaluated 

automated enforcement programs. Results of 13 studies 

found a statistically significant reduction in crashes after 

introduction of automated speed enforcement with an 

estimated 20 to 25 percent reduction. A study of covert or 

unmarked enforcement programs in Australia and Canada 

also found a 20 to 25 percent reduction in crashes. Other 

studies found ASE reduced mean speeds by 11 mph or more 

for 65 mph speed limit roads. One study found a speed 

reduction of 3 to 8 mph in work zones. A study in Canada 

found reductions crashes for urban arterials with speed limits 

of 50 km/h (31 mph). The report also summarized methods to 

enhance effectiveness of automated enforcement including 

addressing legal issues and public opinion.

Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational 

Guidelines. National Highway Transportation Safety 

Administration, US Department of Transportation. DOT 

HS 810 916. March 2008. The study provides guidelines 

for use of speed enforcement cameras. The advantages and 

disadvantages compared to traditional speed enforcement 

were highlighted. The report also studies which evaluated the 

effectiveness of ASE. The report provides guidance on legal/

policy authority, planning, identifying a speeding-related 

issue, developing a strategic plan, selecting a countermeasure, 

obtaining interagency and community support, selection of 

equipment, addressing media coverage, setting enforcement 

thresholds, processing violations, and program evaluation.

Miller, R.J., J.S. Osberg, R. Retting, M. Ballou, and R. 

Atkins. System Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement 

Implementation. National Highway Transportation Safety 

Administration, US Department of Transportation. DOT 

HS 812 257. April 2016. The study contacted currently 

operating and recently discontinued ASE to determine 

whether their programs were consistent with NHTSA 

guidelines, Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational 

Guidelines. This included a survey of 11 states. The report 

summarized overall results.