Noteworthy Practice 

Booklet – Speed 

Management

Source: Getty Images

FHWA-SA-20-076
8 Noteworthy Practice Case Studies

Speed Management 

Program

City of Austin, TX

Self-Enforcing 

Roadways

City of Golden, CO

Setting Credible 

Speed Limits

New Hampshire DOT

High-Visibility 

Enforcement

City of Oro Valley, AZ

Successful Strategies 

for Adoption of Safety 

Cameras

New York City, NY

Targeted Reporting of 

Speeding Related 

Crashes

Arizona DOT

Consistent Speed 

Limits for Vulnerable 

Road Users

Various Agencies

Network Approach 

to Setting Speed 

Limits

New Zealand

1
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 mandates an 85th 

percentile method be used for setting speed limits with 

allowances made where crashes are above average. The city 

determined that any roadway on the HIN meets the state’s 

definition of roadways with above average crash rates and 

therefore 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

2
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

3
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 (corridor and 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

4
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, traffic volumes,

and pedestrian 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 expected to be 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 and enforcement campaigns and policy reforms

around automated enforcement. 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.

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

5
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.

6
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

7
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.

8
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

9
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

10
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.

11
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

12
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).

13
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

14
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. 

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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.

23
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

24
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.

25
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

26
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

27
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.

28
Noteworthy Practice Booklet – Speed Management

https://highways.dot.gov/research/research-programs/safety/speed-management

FHWA-SA-20-076