DOT HS 810 648 August 2006

Pilot Test Of Heed The Speed, 

A Program To Reduce Speeds

In Residential Neighborhoods

This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
 

 

This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, 

and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the 

authors and not necessarily those of the Department of 

Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. The United States Government assumes no 

liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or 

manufacturers' names or products are mentioned, it is because 

they are considered essential to the object of the publication 

and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United 

States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. 
 i 

 

 Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

DOT HS 810 648 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

 August 2006 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Pilot Test of Heed The Speed, a Program to Reduce Speeds 

In Residential Neighborhoods 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Richard D. Blomberg and Arlene M. Cleven

8. Performing Organization Report No 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

Dunlap and Associates, Inc

110 Lenox Avenue 

Stamford, CT 06906. 11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTNH22-99-D-05099, Task Order 2 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

7/18/00 – 8/31/03 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Marvin M. Levy, Ph.D. was the Task Order Manager for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

16. Abstract 

There is abundant evidence that higher speeds are associated with more severe pedestrian injuries and increased death. Speeding is generally more 

dangerous for pedestrians on residential roads than on other roadways. There has been significant work on engineering approaches to traffic 

calming as a means of reducing neighborhood speeds. There have, however, been few attempts to combine public information, enforcement and 

innovative marking techniques with engineering changes as a means of achieving greater speed reductions. Some communities have used traffic 

calming on selected streets in a neighborhood but left others untouched because of objections voiced by emergency services. This has created 

streets within a defined calmed neighborhood where motorists continue to exceed prudent speeds – or at least exceed the speeds on adjacent calmed 

streets. The focus of the current study was therefore to determine whether enforcement and education techniques could achieve a meaningful speed 

reduction on untreated streets adjacent to streets that have received traffic calming treatments. Three neighborhoods each in two cities, Phoenix and 

Peoria, Arizona, were selected for a Heed the Speed program based on the expressed desire of the residents to moderate vehicle speeds and/or a 

history of excessive speeding. Multiple roads were part of the study in some of the 6 areas. Yard signs, pamphlets, and other education materials 

were distributed to area residents. The police increased enforcement patrols and tickets for speeding violations. They also added numerous 

“warning stops” for motorists exceeding the speed limit but below the range at which a stop would normally be made. Speed tables or speed humps 

were added in two of the neighborhoods in the middle of the 3-6 month campaign. Innovative pavement markings that created the illusion of 

impediments were tried in three of the neighborhoods. The program was evaluated by a pre/post mailed survey, by police data forms completed at 

each stop and by multiple waves of speed measurements using on-road traffic counters. The survey showed a strong increase in knowledge of the 

program, awareness of enforcement efforts and acceptance of the need to moderate speeds. Respondents also expressed a strong belief that speeds 

in their neighborhood had decreased since the Heed the Speed program was implemented. The police stop records showed that most violators were 

neighborhood residents. Speed measurements showed significant reductions in all 6 neighborhoods and on all test roads within the neighborhoods 

except one low volume street with pre-existing speed humps installed. The baseline speeds on this street were already well below the prevailing 25 

mph speed limit and did not change significantly after the treatments. On all other treated roads, there was a significant increase in drivers 

complying with the speed limit and significant reductions in mean speed and in the percentage of vehicles doing 7 mph or more above the speed 

limit. Compliance increases ranged from 17% to over 117%. Mean speed reductions ranged from approximately 0.5 mph to over 3.5 mph. The 

drop in the percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit by 7 mph or more ranged from about 14% to over 70%. The extent of the speed 

reduction involving thousands of vehicles per day suggests that Heed the Speed programs could be effective in reducing crashes to pedestrians and 

in limiting the injury severity when a crash does occur. 

17. Key Words 

Speed reduction Education 

Pedestrian safety Enforcement 

Traffic calming Engineering 

18. Distribution Statement 

Document Is Available To The Public Through The National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, Va 22161 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

231 

22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 
 ii 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 iii 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

 

TECHNICAL SUMMARY 

===================================================================== 

Contractor Contract 

 Dunlap and Associates, Inc. DTNH22-99-D-05099 

_________________________________________________________________________Task Order 2_______ Report Title Report Date Pilot Test of Heed the Speed, a Program to Reduce Speeds August 2006 

 In Residential Neighborhoods 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Report Author(s) 

 R.D. Blomberg and A.M. Cleven 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

===================================================================== 

There is abundant evidence that higher speeds are associated with more severe pedestrian 

injuries and death (Leaf and Preusser, 1999). One study has reported that 5 percent of 

pedestrians will die if struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour, 45 percent will die if the 

striking vehicle is traveling at 30 miles per hour, 85 percent will die if the vehicle is traveling at 

40 miles per hour, and almost all will die if the vehicle is traveling at 50 miles per hour 

(Department of Transport, 1997). In addition, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) national survey has revealed that drivers feel that speeding is more dangerous on 

residential roads than on other roadways, and that drivers believe that higher posted speeds will 

result in increased danger to neighborhood residents (Boyle, Dienstfrey, and Sothoron, 1998). 

There has been significant work on engineering approaches to traffic calming as a means 

to reduce neighborhood speeds (c.f., Ewing, 1999; Stuster, Coffman, and Warren, 1998). 

NHTSA has noted, however, that there have been few attempts to combine public information 

and enforcement techniques with engineering changes as a means of achieving greater speed 

reductions. NHTSA therefore funded the current study whose objective was to develop and test 

a behavior-based program to reduce motorist speed in residential areas by adding education and 

enforcement to engineering. 

It was determined that the study should focus on identifying the following types of 

neighborhoods/streets for this study: 

● Neighborhoods/streets that have not been traffic calmed and where no traffic calming 

was planned – to permit a focus on the effects of education and enforcement alone on 

non-calmed streets. 

• Neighborhoods/streets in which traffic calming already existed – to permit study of the 

effects of adding education and enforcement to existing traffic calming measures. 

(Continued on additional pages) 

===================================================================== “PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

UNDER CONTRACT NO.: DTNH22-99-D-05099, TASK ORDER 2. .THE OPINIONS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED IN 

THIS PUBLICATION ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHORS AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION.” 

===================================================================== 

HS Form 321 

July 1974 
HS Form 321 TECHNICAL SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

July 1974 

 iv May 2006 

● Neighborhood streets that have not been traffic calmed but implementation of traffic 

calming measures was planned during the study period – to provide information on the 

effects of the concurrent implementation of education, enforcement, and engineering. 

The study was conducted in two neighboring Arizona cities – Phoenix and Peoria. Three 

neighborhoods were selected for study in each city. In Peoria, they were the Desert Harbor/91st

Avenue neighborhood, the Bell Park neighborhood, and 95th Avenue. In Phoenix, they were 

Clarendon Avenue, Sweetwater Avenue, and the Moon Valley/Coral Gables neighborhood. 

Heed the Speed was selected as the slogan for the speed reduction program and a logo 

was designed. Several educational materials were developed for the program including street 

and lawn signs that displayed the slogan and logo; print materials for homeowners, parents, and 

drivers (including high school drivers); press releases for the two cities; inputs for homeowner’s 

association newsletters; and radio spots. These materials provided information on the 

relationship between various speeds and pedestrian injury severity in the event of a crash. 

Earned media included write-ups in local papers and participation in local television programs. 

Enforcement activities included special enforcement, training citizens to conduct neighborhood 

watches and deployment of speed trailers and photo speed enforcement trailers. Roadway 

treatments included installation of speed humps and tables and application of visual treatments to 

the roadway surface that gave an illusion of a roadway impediment or engineering treatment. 

Program logo containing program slogan 

Program lawn sign 

Four types of data were collected for the study – data collected by the police during 

routine stops made during special enforcement, information obtained from a survey of 
HS Form 321 TECHNICAL SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

July 1974 

 v May 2006 

neighborhood residents, speed data on the various road segments, and process data obtained from 

project and neighborhood representatives. Each is described below. 

Police Special Enforcement: Additional police patrol hours were incorporated in each 

neighborhood. During special enforcement, any vehicle traveling faster than the posted speed 

was subject to being stopped. When a stop was made, the officer approached the vehicle, 

announced the violation, and performed a routine check on the driver’s license. For each driver 

stopped, the officer completed a motorist stop form that provided a profile on the drivers 

speeding in the various neighborhoods. The form showed that a majority of speeding drivers 

lived in or within a mile of the neighborhood in which they were stopped (Phoenix, 63%; Peoria, 

56%). Most traveled on the road on which they were stopped at least once per week (Phoenix, 

74%; Peoria, 76%). The average age of the drivers was 40. Most drivers were traveling alone 

(Phoenix, 73%; Peoria, 70%). A large percentage of drivers wore their safety belts (Phoenix 

males, 81%, and females, 89%; Peoria males, 75% and females, 93%). Tickets were given 

initially only to drivers who flagrantly disobeyed the law. As the study progressed, more 

traditional forms of ticketing were used. Five percent of the stopped Peoria drivers were given 

tickets for speeding; 52 percent of those stopped in Phoenix were given speeding tickets. 

Literature on the dangers of speeding was given to 97 percent of the drivers stopped in Peoria 

and 41 percent of those stopped in Phoenix. 

Neighborhood Survey: A one-page survey form was designed to assess awareness of 

the program by neighborhood residents. Specifically, residents were asked if they noticed 

program components (publicity, police involvement, and roadway treatments) and if they noticed 

changes in vehicle speeds in the neighborhood. The survey was mailed to half of the 

neighborhood residents prior to the start of the program and to the other half as a follow-on after 

completion of the program (in Peoria) and after the installation of roadway treatments (in 

Phoenix). Pre-program and follow-on survey response rates in Peoria were 58 percent and 62 

percent, respectively. Comparable returns in Phoenix were 60 percent and 63 percent. 

All neighborhoods in both cities exhibited a significant increase in awareness of program 

publicity during the follow-on survey except for one neighborhood in Phoenix (Clarendon) that 

had no neighborhood association or vocal spokespersons and is predominately Spanish-speaking. 

There was a significant increase in awareness of publicity related to speeding with three 

neighborhoods showing a doubling or more in the percentage of people indicating they were 

exposed to publicity on speed control. The specific publicity item that received the largest 

proportion of post-program mentions in both cities consisted of the program signs (with reports 

ranging from 52% to 83% of the respondents), except for the Clarendon neighborhood where the 

percentage was 13. Flyers, bulletins, and newsletters were also mentioned, as were mail/letters, 

meetings, and newspapers, although the mentions for some neighborhoods were not large. 

 With regard to police involvement, the specific activities mentioned most frequently and 

considered to be definitely or probably program-related were visible enforcement (ranging from 

51% to 63%) and radar checks (ranging from 14% to 46%). Deployment of the speed trailer was 

noted in all Peoria neighborhoods. The photo speed enforcement trailer was noted in the Moon 

Valley/Coral Gables neighborhood of Phoenix. 

With regard to roadway treatments, signs again were mentioned frequently by 

respondents from all neighborhoods except for Clarendon. In addition, respondents in each 
HS Form 321 TECHNICAL SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

July 1974 

 vi May 2006 

neighborhood noticed the roadway visual treatments if they had been installed in the 

respondent’s neighborhood as part of the program 

Respondents were asked to rate the speeds in their neighborhoods compared to six 

months ago. With the exception of Clarendon, the majority of respondents in the remaining 

neighborhoods reported a perceived decrease in speeding. 

A subjective assessment of each survey response by a project staff member led to the 

judgment that more than half of the survey respondents were aware of the key elements of the 

Heed the Speed program. This suggests that there is a basis for attributing any significant speed 

reductions in the test neighborhoods across the study period to the effects of Heed the Speed.

Speed Data: The six neighborhoods selected for study involved 10 studied road 

segments. Speed data were collected on all 10 segments by means of automated traffic counters. 

The devices consisted of multiple pneumatic tubes placed on the roadway to record the presence 

of a vehicle and its speed. Five waves of data were collected in Peoria except for 95th Avenue 

where four waves were collected. Three waves were collected in Phoenix except on one segment 

that had five waves. The following measures were used to examine speed: 

• Average speed on the road segment (mean speed) 

• Mean difference in speed from the baseline value 

• Average speed above the speed limit (mean above limit) 

• Average speed of those exceeding the speed limit (mean of speeders) 

• The percentage of drivers going the speed limit or less (complying with the limit), over 

the limit but less than seven miles per hour over, and seven miles per hour or more over 

the limit 

(Speed data are reported herein to three decimal places for convenience since that is the format 

of the output from the statistical software employed. The presence of three decimals is not 

intended to imply either that the measurements were that precise or that a precision of three 

decimal places was required for statistical inference testing.) 

Since the primary objective of the statistical analysis was to assess the relationship 

between the various speed countermeasures and reductions in speed, ANOVA was the indicated 

primary statistical technique. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate effects on certain binary 

and nominal transforms of the speed scale, e.g., proportion driving seven or more miles over the 

speed limit. The speed data were analyzed as a set of 10 case studies. Results are summarized in 

the table on the next page and discussed briefly below together with a description of each test 

road: 

Peoria – 84th Avenue: The 84th Avenue test segment is part of the Bell Park 

neighborhood. It is a typical residential street with a 25 mph speed limit. It received a moderateto-high education effort and some enforcement. Both speed tables and an innovative visual 

treatment known as 3-D markings were installed as part of the program. The results were quite 

dramatic. The initial drop in mean speed following the installation of speed tables (3.088 mph) 

was almost completely sustained two months later (2.627 mph). Also, driver compliance to the 

posted speed limit more than doubled, and speeds 7+ mph over the limit decreased by about half. 
HS Form 321 TECHNICAL SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

July 1974 

 vii May 2006 

Summary of Countermeasures Implemented and Speed Reductions by Test Segment 

COUNTERMEASURE TYPE 

TEST 

SEGMENT 

Education 

(as Reported 

by 

Participants) 

Special 

Enforcement (as 

Reported 

by Police) 

PreExisting 

Vertical 

Treatments 

On Test 

Road 

PreExisting 

Vertical 

Treatments 

On 

Adjacent 

Roads 

New 

Vertical 

Treatments 

on Test 

Road 

3-DTM 

Marking TyregripTM 

% Increase

in 

Compliance 

to Posted 

Speed Limit 

% 

Reduction

in Speeds 

7+ mph 

Over the 

Limit* 

Phoenix 

Sweetwater 

(Table 65)** 

Intensive by 

active 

residents 

Very high 

prompted 

by citizen 

complaints 

√ √ 115.2% 47.4% 

Clarendon 

(Table 64) 

Mostly by 

police and 

city personnel 

English and 

Spanish 

High √ √ 23.9% 

69.5% 

(Speed 

between 

existing 

speed 

humps) 

Moon Valley 

East/West 

(Table 66) 

 30.7% 28.6% 

Moon Valley 

North/South 

(Table 67) 

 √ 117.8% 59.4% 

Coral 

Gables 

East/West 

(Table 68) 

 √ 93.8% 61.8% 

Coral 

Gables 

North/South 

(Table 69) 

Very active 

and involved 

neighborhood 

association 

High 

 √ 41.4% 44.8% 

Peoria 

Bell Park 

84th Ave. 

(Table 60) 

High 

before 

vertical 

treatments 

installed 

√ √ √ 64.4% 71.6% 

Bell Park 

85th Lane 

(Table 61) 

Moderately 

active 

neighborhood 

association 

Moderate – 

quiet side 

street w/o 

a speed 

problem 

√ √ 2.4%*** N/A**** 

Desert 

Harbor 

91st Ave. 

(Table 62) 

Very active, 

innovative 

and involved 

neighborhood 

association 

Very high 

prompted 

by citizen 

complaints 

 17.1% 14.1% 

95th Ave. 

(Table 63) 

Some citizen 

involvement 

with direct 

efforts of city 

personnel 

High √ 23.5% 39.7% 

*Between initial and final measure at each site 

**Location of detailed speed results within the body of the report 

***Initial compliance on 85th Lane was 86.7% 

****A total of only 11 vehicles were going 7+ over the limit in the first and last measurements combined (5 and 6, 

respectively)
HS Form 321 TECHNICAL SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

July 1974 

 viii May 2006 

3-D markings on pavement between speed tables on 84th Avenue in Peoria 

Peoria – 85th Lane: This is a quiet side street off 84th Avenue in Bell Park with a 25 mph 

speed limit. It had three speed humps installed well before the study began, but the residents 

wanted another hump because they thought the existing installations were too far apart. There 

was some education on this street from the yard and fixed signs, but little enforcement because 

of the low traffic volumes and benign speed profile. The 3-D markings were installed during the 

program. There was no meaningful change on 85th Lane, which is not surprising given the low 

baseline speed (19.675 mph) and the extremely small number of drivers going seven or more 

miles over the limit (5 and 6 in the first and last measurements, respectively). 

Peoria – 91st Avenue: The 91st Avenue test segment is a 78 foot wide street containing 

four travel lanes and a 28 foot wide landscaped center median. The street is conducive to high 

speeds and has a 30 mph speed limit. No roadway treatments, either physical traffic calming or 

visual treatment, were applied. The education program was intensive and sustained because of 

the high degree of interest of the neighborhood association. Enforcement was also applied 

because of the known propensity for speeding and the pressure on the police from the residents. 

The initial education and enforcement efforts produced a significant reduction in mean speed of 

1.283 mph. After a return toward baseline, the renewed efforts of the neighborhood association 

and police revived the initial impact. Although the effect was relatively small compared with the 

streets that had physical changes, it appears to have come almost entirely from drivers in the 

highest speed class. The proportion of vehicles going over the limit but less than seven miles per 

hour over stayed virtually constant while the percentage at or under the limit increased and those 

going seven or more miles per hour over the limit decreased. The mean speed above the speed 

limit was also down significantly in all post waves. 

 

Peoria – 95th Avenue: This is a straight roadway with a 30 mph speed limit. In addition 

to a moderate-to-high level of education and moderate enforcement, five sets of 3-D markings 

were placed on the roadway during the study. The initial education and enforcement produced a 

noteworthy effect with a drop in mean speed of 1.369 mph and a particularly large drop in the 

number of high-speed drivers and the mean of their speeds. This effect increased to 1.933 mph 

with the addition of the 3-D markings and was still evident, although somewhat diminished 

(1.029 mph), at the end of the data collection period. 

Phoenix – Clarendon: Clarendon is a street with a 25 mph speed limit that had existing 

speed humps. Residents were complaining that the existing vertical treatments were spaced too 

far apart thereby allowing motorists to speed between the humps. There is no neighborhood 

association for Clarendon, and a large proportion of the population is Spanish-speaking. As a 
HS Form 321 TECHNICAL SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

July 1974 

 ix May 2006 

result, the education campaign likely had moderate intensity even though many of the materials 

were translated into Spanish. Police enforcement was applied, but at a lower level than at other 

sites since the baseline speeds were well below the posted limit. The mean speeds at the two 

measurement locations between the humps showed a significant drop (2.506 mph) that was 

sustained through two post data collection waves. The reduction in drivers going seven mph or 

more over the prevailing 25 mph limit (from 16.7% to 5.1%) was particularly noteworthy. 

Phoenix – Sweetwater: Sweetwater Avenue received intensive education and 

enforcement spurred by the efforts of a vocal and active neighborhood association. In addition, 

TyregripTM material (a pavement surface visual treatment) was installed during the study period. 

The results showed almost a 50-percent reduction in the number of drivers going seven mph or 

more over the posted limit. The reduction was largest in the last data collection wave. The mean 

speed of the speeders also was reduced markedly in the last two data collection waves when 

compared with the baseline (3.610 mph and 3.213 mph, respectively). The reduction in the mean 

speed above the limit of speeders from 8.017 mph in the next-to-last wave to 7.634 mph in the 

last wave was also statistically significant (p<.001). It should be noted that across the three 

waves of measurement the shift in speeds was largest to the lowest category (under the speed 

limit). This category more than doubled. At the same time, the intermediate category of people 

going less than seven mph above the limit went from 28.8 percent to 42.3 percent, an increase of 

46.9 percent. The mean of speeders also showed continued improvement. This suggests that the 

TyregripTM installation may have yielded a further moderation in the most aberrant speeds even 

though the mean speed rose slightly. Since there was only a single wave of measurement after 

the appearance of the TyregripTM, no inference can be drawn concerning its long-term 

effectiveness. 

Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive East/West Segment: Moon Valley Drive is a 25 mph speed 

limit road with a segment that runs east and west on which only education and enforcement were 

applied. Significant mean speed reductions (1.578 mph) were achieved without the use of any 

physical measures – a reduction in average speed and a shift to the lower class intervals from the 

seven or more mph over the limit category. A particularly interesting aspect of the results at this 

site was that the effect was maintained and even increased significantly between the last two 

waves of data collection. This suggests the possibility of some persistence of the education plus 

enforcement approach. 

Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive North/South Segment: This segment of Moon Valley 

Drive running north and south received essentially the same education and enforcement as the 

east/west segment but also had two speed humps installed during the study program. The speed 

limit on this segment is also 25 mph. The results indicated that the effect of education and 

enforcement alone on speed on this roadway, although significant (0.693 mph), was somewhat 

less than that on the east/west segment of Moon Valley Drive. The influence of the addition of a 

speed hump before the last data collection wave was large (3.233 mph) and consistent with what 

was seen on 84th Avenue in Peoria. 

Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive East/West Segment: The east/west segment of Coral 

Gables Drive was treated with 3-D and TyregripTM materials. There were also education and 

enforcement countermeasures. Overall speed was below the baseline in excess of two mph in all 

post waves. The last two waves show markedly lower speeds by speeders. The addition of 

TyregripTM was associated with a significant increase of 0.489 mph in overall speed but a 

significant decrease of 0.434 mph in the mean speed of speeders between the last two data 

collection waves. 
HS Form 321 TECHNICAL SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

July 1974 

 x May 2006 

Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive North/South Segment: The north/south portion of Coral 

Gables Drive is wide and lined with expensive single-family homes. This segment received 

enforcement and education as well as a TyregripTM installation between the last two data 

collection waves. Results showed a reduction in mean speed of as much as 1.470 mph and a 

decrease in the percentage of speeders traveling seven mph or more over the speed limit of 44.8 

percent. 

TyregripTM installation on Coral Gables Drive in Phoenix 

Summary of Speed Results: The large samples of speed data indicated a consistent and 

operationally meaningful pattern of reductions in all neighborhoods and on all test segments 

except 85th Lane in Peoria. It is particularly noteworthy that the changes in the desired direction 

represent thousands of vehicles per day at each site. Clearly, the physical changes such as speed 

tables and speed humps produced the largest drops in speed. This was expected from previous 

research findings (e.g., Ewing, 1999). The general pattern of results across all of the test roads 

consisted of a decrease in mean speed accompanied by a moderate-to-large reduction of drivers 

exceeding the speed limit by seven mph or more and a concomitant increase in drivers 

proceeding at or below the speed limit. The mean speed above the speed limit and the mean 

speed of speeders also declined significantly at all sites except 85th Lane in Peoria, the site with 

low traffic volumes and preexisting speed humps. 

Summary of Traffic Volume Results: Traffic volumes varied across the various study 

measurements without a consistent pattern. Increases, decreases, and static volumes were noted. 

There is nothing in the traffic volume results, however, that suggests that the observed speed 

reduction effects were the result of diverting higher speed drivers to other, non-studied streets 

where they would continue to be a hazard. On 84th Avenue, volume dropped 29.7 percent from 

the first (baseline) wave to the last measurement. Over the same time period, the number of 

vehicles traveling 7+ mph over the speed limit decreased by 80.3 percent. On Sweetwater, the 

number of vehicles counted declined by 4,862 from the baseline to the last measurement while 

the number of vehicles measured at 7+ mph over the limit dropped by 8,606. 

Process Data: Discussions on the program were held with project representatives and 

with representatives from the neighborhoods under study. The Heed the Speed program elicited 

mostly positive and constructive comments for improvement from both those who helped mount 

it and the citizens it affected. Together with the survey data, these follow-up commentaries on 

the process suggest that the concept of a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted neighborhood speed 

reduction program was well accepted and could even be improved in future implementations 

based on the lessons learned. 
HS Form 321 TECHNICAL SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

July 1974 

 xi May 2006 

Discussion: The results show conclusively that Heed the Speed produced significant 

changes in speeding behavior in the six test neighborhoods. Nine of the 10 individual road 

segment analyses showed statistically significant and operationally meaningful reductions in 

speed after the application of the Heed the Speed countermeasures. The one segment that did not 

show a reduction, 85th Lane in Peoria, had baseline mean speeds almost 5 mph below the speed 

limit. 

On all nine segments that showed speed reductions, speeds were still statistically lower 

than prior to the Heed the Speed countermeasures at the final measurement wave, almost five 

months after the program began. In some cases, speeds seemed to be sliding back towards 

baseline. In several others, however, the speed reductions appeared to be holding or even 

improving as the program progressed. 

The design of this study was not intended to isolate the effects of the individual 

countermeasures employed. Rather, the objective was to mount a multi-pronged effort focused 

on achieving speed reductions in the test neighborhoods. The realities of the implementation of 

the Heed the Speed program, however, afforded some insights into the effects of some of the 

individual interventions: 

• Enforcement alone: Although not in total isolation because Spanish language 

educational materials were distributed, enforcement was a primary countermeasure in 

operation at the Clarendon Avenue test site in Phoenix. Thus, the reduction of 

approximately 2.5 mph in mean speed between the speed humps on Clarendon can be 

largely attributed to the special police enforcement and its deterrent effect. 

• Education alone: As with enforcement, there was no “pure” application of education in 

the test. The closest situation was likely the change between Wave 1 and Wave 2 at both 

91st Avenue and 95th Avenue in Peoria. During this period, the Peoria police were 

focusing their enforcement primarily on 84th Avenue in Bell Park. Taking this view, the 

education efforts on 91st and 95th Avenues can be credited with the observed reductions 

of 1.283 mph and 1.369 mph, respectively, in mean speeds. It is therefore reasonable to 

conclude that the Heed the Speed education materials contributed positively to the overall 

program effectiveness. 

• Enforcement and education together: The data provide many replications of wave-towave speed measurements in which the operative countermeasures applied over the 

transition were education and enforcement in combination. The combination of 

education and enforcement only failed to yield a significant speed reduction in one 

instance – between Waves 1 and 2 at 84th Avenue in Peoria. This may have been a result 

of the almost single-minded focus of the neighborhood leaders on getting speed tables 

installed as soon as possible. In all of the other cases in which education and 

enforcement operated alone, a significant mean speed reduction was achieved. 

• Vertical treatments: The study included two new installations of vertical roadway 

treatments. Both were highly effective in reducing speeds, particularly the more 

significant speed infractions. It is not surprising to find that vertical engineering 

treatments are effective in achieving traffic calming. This has been reported before (e.g., 

Ewing, 1999). Their application within this study, however, provides both a replication 
HS Form 321 TECHNICAL SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

July 1974 

 xii May 2006 

of the effects reported in the literature and a benchmark against which to compare the 

other countermeasures used. 

• Innovative Pavement Markings: The study employed two types of innovative 

pavement markings – 3-D markings and TyregripTM surfacing. Based on the findings and 

limitations of this study, it is reasonable to conclude that innovative pavement markings 

such as the ones tested are a viable addition to the speed reduction techniques available to 

program managers and merit serious consideration, particularly when used in 

combination with other types of speed reduction countermeasures. It might have been 

even more effective to integrate the innovative markings more closely with the remainder 

of the program, particularly the education materials by installing them earlier in the 

program timeline. This could help give the innovative markings a dual purpose as both 

the illusion of an impediment in the roadway and as a symbolic reminder to slow down. 

Countermeasure Persistence: The present study was only able to examine very shortterm persistence of the countermeasures. Even over this limited period there were conflicting 

findings. In four of the nine successful tests mean speed reductions were higher in the last 

measurement wave than in any of the preceding waves. In the remaining five tests, the last 

measurement represented some increase in speed from the lowest mean value obtained. In one 

of these five, although the last wave was not the slowest, it was significantly slower than the 

immediately preceding wave. This pattern of results suggests that the present study simply did 

not have a good view of countermeasure persistence – short, intermediate or long term. 

Additional research would be needed to yield a definitive resolution of how long Heed the Speed

continued to be successful. 

Program Costs: Exclusive of the evaluation and associated research, Heed the Speed 

was implemented in all six neighborhoods and 10 road segments for approximately $55,000 in 

out-of-pocket expenditures. These costs covered police overtime, acquiring lawn signs and 

stakes and printing education materials. Program participants in Peoria and Phoenix believe that 

subsequent Heed the Speed neighborhood programs can be mounted for $5,000 per 

neighborhood or less. 

Safety Implications of the Findings: There is no simple formula to relate speed 

reduction results to either reduced crashes or decreased injury severity. The clear finding from 

the literature review is that distributional shifts in the speeds of vehicles on residential streets 

such as those obtained in this study should provide for both a lower crash incidence and greater 

survivability if a crash does occur. When these shifts are applied to thousands of vehicles per 

day, as was the case on these test roads, a safety benefit is highly likely. Further, the success of 

Heed the Speed on nine of 10 test road segments suggests that the widespread implementation of 

the program would have a significant societal benefit. The low cost of the program means that 

achieving the potential safety benefits of Heed the Speed should be highly cost effective. 

Lessons Learned: The answer to the basic research question addressed by this study is 

that education and enforcement can add to the effectiveness of physical traffic calming. It was 

also shown that at least in the short term a program such as Heed the Speed can produce speed 

reductions of a significant and meaningful magnitude on through streets and other roads within 

traffic calmed areas that were not candidates for physical treatments. 
 xiii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

 The authors wish to express their appreciation to the many individuals who supported the 

conduct of this study. They include people who aided in project planning as well as in the 

design, implementation, and evaluation of the countermeasure program. 

 The contributions of the following Phoenix representatives are acknowledged: 

 Michael Cynecki, Street Transportation Department 

 Sara Elco, Street Transportation Department 

 Leticia Vargas, Street Transportation Department 

 Lt. Emilien Sapon, Police Department 

 Sgt. Rich Maiocco, Police Department 

 Officer Sandor Rogoff, Police Department 

The contributions of the following Peoria representatives are acknowledged: 

 Scott Nodes, Engineering Department 

 Kelly LaRosa, Engineering Department 

 Sgt. Clark Collier, Police Department 

The authors also wish to express their appreciation for the support of Sonny Yamamoto 

of SJS America who arranged for and provided most of the 3-D pavement markings for the 

project. 

Although a study of this type would not have been possible without the support of those 

named above and many others who provided guidance, assistance, and resources, the findings 

and conclusions contained herein are solely those of the authors. 
 xiv 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 xv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 

2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 5 

2.1 Literature Review Approach and Relevant Findings...................................................... 5 

2.1.1 Update of Previous Review .................................................................................... 5 

2.1.2 Pedestrian Safety Benefits of Speed Reduction...................................................... 7 

2.2 Workshop on Speed-Reducing Countermeasures........................................................... 8 

3. SITE SELECTION ............................................................................................................... 11 

4. PROGRAM DESIGN ........................................................................................................... 13 

4.1 Approach....................................................................................................................... 13 

4.2 Study Neighborhoods.................................................................................................... 13 

4.3 Program Duration.......................................................................................................... 16 

4.4 Program Organization, Slogan, and Logo..................................................................... 16 

4.4.1 Program Organization........................................................................................... 16 

4.4.2 Slogan and Logo ................................................................................................... 17 

4.4.3 Homeowner’s Association Meetings .................................................................... 17 

4.5 Education Materials ...................................................................................................... 18 

4.5.1 Street and Lawn Signs .......................................................................................... 18 

4.5.2 Printed Materials and Radio Spots........................................................................ 19 

4.5.3 Earned Media........................................................................................................ 20 

4.6 Enforcement Activities ................................................................................................. 21 

4.6.1 Special Enforcement ............................................................................................. 21 

4.6.2 Neighborhood Speed Watches.............................................................................. 22 

4.6.3 Deployment of Speed and Photo Speed Enforcement Trailers............................. 22 

4.7 Engineering and Roadway Treatments ......................................................................... 22 

4.7.1 Vertical Treatments............................................................................................... 22 

4.7.2 Visual Treatments ................................................................................................. 23 

4.8 Program Implementation Timeline............................................................................... 25 

5. PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................................................................ 27 

5.1 Police Special Enforcement .......................................................................................... 27 

5.1.1 Location and Month of the Stops.......................................................................... 28 

5.1.2 Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood .................................................... 30 

5.1.3 Frequency of Travel on Road Stopped ................................................................. 31 

5.1.4 Time of Stop ......................................................................................................... 33 

5.1.5 Driver Age and Gender......................................................................................... 35 

5.1.6 Safety Belt Use ..................................................................................................... 36 

5.1.7 Vehicle Occupants ................................................................................................ 38 

5.1.8 Vehicle Type and Model Year.............................................................................. 40 

5.1.9 Officer’s Action .................................................................................................... 41 

5.1.10 Extent of Speed Violation..................................................................................... 43 

5.1.11 Summary of Police Stop Data............................................................................... 44 

5.2 Knowledge and Exposure Survey................................................................................. 46 

5.2.1 Survey Methodology............................................................................................. 46 

5.2.2 Survey Response Characteristics .......................................................................... 47 

5.2.3 Respondent Description........................................................................................ 50 

5.2.4 Awareness of Activities to Control Speeds .......................................................... 55 

5.2.5 Awareness of Program Activity Categories.......................................................... 56 
 xvi 

5.2.6 Awareness of Specific Publicity Activities........................................................... 59 

5.2.7 Awareness of Police Activities ............................................................................. 62 

5.2.8 Awareness of Roadway Treatments...................................................................... 64 

5.2.9 Ratings of Neighborhood Speed ........................................................................... 66 

5.2.10 Respondent Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program......................................... 69 

5.2.11 Survey Summary................................................................................................... 73 

5.3 Speed Data .................................................................................................................... 75 

5.3.1 Data Collection and Management......................................................................... 75 

5.3.2 Analytic Approach................................................................................................ 76 

5.3.3 Speed Results........................................................................................................ 79 

5.3.3.1 Peoria – 84th Avenue......................................................................................... 80 

5.3.3.2 Peoria – 85th Lane ............................................................................................. 81 

5.3.3.3 Peoria – 91st Avenue ......................................................................................... 82 

5.3.3.4 Peoria – 95th Avenue......................................................................................... 84 

5.3.3.5 Phoenix – Clarendon......................................................................................... 85 

5.3.3.6 Phoenix – Sweetwater....................................................................................... 87 

5.3.3.7 Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive East/West Segment.......................................... 89 

5.3.3.8 Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive North/South Segment ...................................... 90 

5.3.3.9 Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive East/West Segment .......................................... 91 

5.3.3.10 Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive North/South Segment................................... 93 

5.3.3.11 Summary of Speed Results ........................................................................... 94 

5.3.3.12 Summary of Traffic Volume Results............................................................ 94 

5.4 Process Assessment ...................................................................................................... 95 

5.4.1 Program Conduct and Coordination ..................................................................... 95 

5.4.2 Selection of Program Neighborhoods................................................................... 95 

5.4.3 Neighborhood Speed Watch ................................................................................. 96 

5.4.4 Police Enforcement............................................................................................... 97 

5.4.5 Signs...................................................................................................................... 98 

5.4.6 Other Publicity...................................................................................................... 98 

5.4.7 Traffic Calming..................................................................................................... 98 

5.4.8 Roadway Visual Treatments................................................................................. 99 

5.4.9 Program Suggestions ............................................................................................ 99 

5.4.10 Citizen Comments............................................................................................... 100 

5.4.11 Process Data Summary ....................................................................................... 101 

6. DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... 102 

6.1 General Results ........................................................................................................... 102 

6.2 Effect of the Heed the Speed Program........................................................................ 103 

6.3 Effect of Individual Countermeasures ........................................................................ 103 

6.3.1 Enforcement Alone ............................................................................................. 103 

6.3.2 Education Alone.................................................................................................. 104 

6.3.3 Education and Enforcement Together ................................................................ 104 

6.3.4 Vertical Treatments............................................................................................. 104 

6.3.5 Innovative Pavement Markings .......................................................................... 105 

6.4 Countermeasure Persistence ....................................................................................... 106 

6.5 Traffic Diversion......................................................................................................... 106 

6.6 Safety Implications ..................................................................................................... 107 

6.7 Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................... 108 

6.8 Guide for Future Heed the Speed Programs ............................................................... 109 

7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 111 
 xvii 

Appendix A – Literature Review Report.................................................................................... 113 

Appendix B – Workshop Report................................................................................................. 131 

Appendix C – Program Countermeasure Materials.................................................................... 149 

Appendix D – Program Data Collection Forms.......................................................................... 178 

Appendix E – Maps Of Phoenix And Peoria Study Areas ......................................................... 186 

Appendix F – Draft Heed The Speed Guide ............................................................................... 196 
 xviii 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Schedule of Program Activities ................................................................................ 26 

Table 2. Police Stops by Neighborhood and Study Month (Peoria)....................................... 29 

Table 3. Police Stops by Neighborhood and Study Month (Phoenix).................................... 29 

Table 4. Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood (Peoria)........................................... 31 

Table 5. Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood (Phoenix)........................................ 32 

Table 6. Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood versus Frequency of Driver Travel 

 on Road Stopped (Peoria) ......................................................................................... 32 

Table 7. Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood versus Frequency of Driver Travel 

 on Road Stopped (Phoenix) ...................................................................................... 33 

Table 8. Time of Stop (Peoria and Phoenix)........................................................................... 34 

Table 9. Neighborhood by a.m. or p.m. Stop (Peoria)............................................................ 34 

Table 10. Neighborhood by a.m. or p.m. Stop (Phoenix)......................................................... 35 

Table 11. Age Range and Gender of Drivers Stopped (Peoria)................................................ 36 

Table 12. Age Range and Gender of Drivers Stopped (Phoenix)............................................. 36 

Table 13. Driver Safety Belt Use versus Gender (Peoria) ........................................................ 37 

Table 14. Driver Safety Belt Use versus Gender (Phoenix) ..................................................... 37 

Table 15. Driver Safety Belt Use versus Gender and Age Range (Peoria) .............................. 38 

Table 16. Driver Safety Belt Use versus Gender and Age Range (Phoenix)............................ 39 

Table 17. Number of People in the Stopped Vehicles (Peoria and Phoenix) ........................... 39 

Table 18. Vehicle Type (Phoenix and Peoria) .......................................................................... 40 

Table 19. Vehicle Model Year (Peoria and Phoenix) ............................................................... 41 

Table 20. Officer’s Action (Peoria and Phoenix) ..................................................................... 42 

Table 21. Amounts that Stopped Vehicles Traveled Over Posted Speeds (Phoenix)............... 43 

Table 22. Summary of Police Stop Form Data Collection (Peoria and Phoenix)..................... 44 

Table 23. Profile of Stopped Peoria and Phoenix Speeders...................................................... 45 

Table 24. Survey Returns as a Percentage of Surveys Delivered (All Neighborhoods)........... 47 

Table 25. Survey Returns From Each City by Wave (All Neighborhoods) ............................. 48 

Table 26. Awareness of Activities to Control Speeds in Neighborhoods................................. 49 

Table 27. Respondent Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program (Phoenix and Peoria) .......... 50 

Table 28. How Long Respondents Have Lived in Their Current Neighborhoods 

 (Phoenix and Peoria)................................................................................................. 51 

Table 29. How Long Respondents Have Lived in Their Current Neighborhoods (Peoria)...... 52 

Table 30. How Long Respondents Have Lived in Their Current Neighborhoods (Phoenix)... 52 

Table 31. Age of Respondents (Phoenix and Peoria) ............................................................... 53 

Table 32. Age of Respondents by Neighborhood (Peoria) ....................................................... 53 

Table 33. Age of Respondents by Neighborhood (Phoenix) .................................................... 54 

Table 34. Gender of Respondents (Phoenix and Peoria) .......................................................... 54 

Table 35. Gender of Respondents by Neighborhood (Peoria).................................................. 55 

Table 36. Gender of Respondents by Neighborhood (Phoenix) ............................................... 55 

Table 37. Awareness of Activities to Control Speeds in Neighborhoods by Study 

 Wave (Peoria) ........................................................................................................... 56 

Table 38. Awareness of Activities to Control Speeds in Neighborhoods by Study 

 Wave (Phoenix) ........................................................................................................ 56 

Table 39. Category of Awareness by Neighborhood (Peoria).................................................. 57 

Table 40. Category of Awareness by Neighborhood (Phoenix) ............................................... 58 
 xix 

Table 41. Comments on Publicity Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

 (Phoenix and Peoria)................................................................................................. 60 

Table 42. Comments on Publicity Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents by 

 Neighborhood (Peoria).............................................................................................. 61 

Table 43. Comments on Publicity Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents by 

 Neighborhood (Phoenix)........................................................................................... 62 

Table 44. Comments on Police Involvement Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

 (Phoenix and Peoria)................................................................................................. 63 

Table 45. Comments on Police Involvement Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents by 

Neighborhood (Peoria).............................................................................................. 64 

Table 46. Comments on Police Involvement Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents by 

Neighborhood (Phoenix)........................................................................................... 65 

Table 47. Comments on Roadway Changes Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

 (Phoenix and Peoria)................................................................................................. 66 

Table 48. Comments on Roadway Changes Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

 by Neighborhood (Peoria)......................................................................................... 67 

Table 49. Comments on Roadway Changes Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

 by Neighborhood (Phoenix)...................................................................................... 68 

Table 50. Rating of Neighborhood Speeds (Phoenix and Peoria) ............................................ 68 

Table 51. Rating of Neighborhood Speeds by Neighborhood (Peoria) .................................... 69 

Table 52. Rating of Neighborhood Speeds by Neighborhood (Phoenix) ................................. 70 

Table 53. Respondent Follow-On Mention of Heed the Speed (Phoenix and Peoria).............. 70 

Table 54. Respondent Follow-On Mention of Heed the Speed (Peoria) .................................. 71 

Table 55. Respondent Follow-On Mention of Heed the Speed (Phoenix)................................ 71 

Table 56. Respondent Follow-On Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program 

 (Phoenix and Peoria)................................................................................................. 71 

Table 57. Respondent Follow-On Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program 

 by Neighborhood (Peoria)......................................................................................... 73 

Table 58. Respondent Follow-On Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program 

 by Neighborhood (Phoenix)...................................................................................... 73 

Table 59. Summary of Countermeasures Implemented on Each Test Segment....................... 78 

Table 60. Peoria 84th Avenue Speed Results ............................................................................ 80 

Table 61. Peoria – 85th Lane Speed Results.............................................................................. 82 

Table 62. Peoria – 91st Avenue Speed Results.......................................................................... 83 

Table 63. Peoria – 95th Avenue Speed Results ......................................................................... 85 

Table 64. Phoenix – Clarendon Speed Results (Only Sensors Between the 

 Existing Speed Humps)............................................................................................. 86 

Table 65. Phoenix – Sweetwater Speed Results ....................................................................... 87 

Table 66. Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive East/West Segment Speed Results .......................... 89 

Table 67. Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive North/South Segment Speed Results....................... 91 

Table 68. Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive East/West Segment Speed Results........................... 92 

Table 69. Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive North/South Segment Speed Results....................... 93 
 xx 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Program Logo Containing Program Slogan.............................................................. 17 

Figure 2. Program Street Sign .................................................................................................. 19 

Figure 3. Program Lawn Sign .................................................................................................. 19 

Figure 4. 3-D Markings on 85th Lane in Peoria........................................................................ 24 

Figure 5. 3-D Markings on Top of Speed Table on 84th Avenue in Peoria ............................. 24 

Figure 6. 3-D Markings on Pavement Between Speed Tables on 84th Avenue in Peoria........ 24 

Figure 7. TyregripTM Installation on Coral Gables Drive in Phoenix ...................................... 25 

Figure 8. Speed Classes on Peoria – 84th Avenue.................................................................... 81 

Figure 9. Speed Classes on Peoria – 85th Lane ........................................................................ 82 

Figure 10. Speed Classes on Peoria – 91st Avenue ................................................................ 84 

Figure 11. Speed Classes on Peoria – 95th Avenue................................................................ 85 

Figure 12. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Clarendon Between the Speed Humps.................... 87 

Figure 13. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Sweetwater.............................................................. 88 

Figure 14. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive East/West Segment ................. 90 

Figure 15. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive North/South Segment.............. 91 

Figure 16. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Coral Gables East/West Segment ........................... 93 

Figure 17. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Coral Gables North/South Segment........................ 94 
 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This final report describes a research study that implemented and evaluated a program 

named Heed the Speed designed to reduce vehicle speeds in residential neighborhoods. The 

study was sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

There is abundant evidence that higher speeds are associated with more severe pedestrian 

injuries and death (Leaf and Preusser, 1999). One study has reported that 5 percent of 

pedestrians will die if a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour strikes them (Department of 

Transport, 1997). The study further reported that 45 percent will die if the striking vehicle is 

traveling at 30 miles per hour, 85 percent will die if the vehicle is traveling at 40 miles per hour, 

and almost all will die if the vehicle is traveling at 50 miles per hour. In addition, a NHTSA 

national survey revealed that drivers feel that speeding is more dangerous on residential streets 

than on other roadways, and that drivers believe that higher posted speeds will result in increased 

danger to neighborhood residents (Boyle, Dienstfrey and Sothoron, 1998). 

There has been significant work on engineering approaches to traffic calming as a means 

to reduce neighborhood speeds (c.f., Ewing, 1999, Stuster, Coffman, and Warren, 1998). There 

has also been research on the effects of enforcement and education on speeding behavior that 

suggests that the effects they achieve may be more transitory than those produced by the physical 

changes associated with traffic calming. NHTSA noted, however, that there have been few 

attempts to combine public information and enforcement techniques with engineering changes as 

a means of achieving greater speed reductions. NHTSA therefore funded the current study 

whose objective was to: 

Develop and test a behavior-based program to reduce motorist 

speed in residential areas by adding education and enforcement 

to engineering. 

Preliminary project discussions with professionals from areas with active traffic calming 

programs revealed that some communities have used traffic calming on selected streets in a 

neighborhood but left others untouched because of objections voiced by emergency services and 

others. This procedure has created streets within a defined calmed neighborhood where 

motorists can (and probably do) exceed prudent speeds – or at least exceed the speeds on 

adjacent streets. Other communities have used traffic calming on a street-by-street basis. This 

process typically has resulted in traffic calming on side streets, but collector/arterial streets have 

remained unchanged, again largely because of emergency services concerns. It therefore seemed 

reasonable to utilize enforcement and education to attempt to achieve on these untreated streets a 

level of calming consistent with that on the adjacent streets that have received physical calming 

treatments. 

As a result of these discussions, it was determined that the study should focus on 

identifying the following types of streets/neighborhoods for this study: 

• Neighborhoods/streets that have not been traffic calmed and where no traffic calming is 

planned. This focused on the effects of education and enforcement alone on non-calmed 

streets. 
2 

• Neighborhoods/streets in which traffic calming has been in place for some time. This 

studied the effects of adding education and enforcement to existing traffic calming 

measures. 

• Neighborhood streets that have not been traffic calmed but implementation of traffic 

calming measures is planned during the study period. This provided information on the 

effects of the concurrent implementation of education, enforcement, and engineering. 

To achieve the objective of the study, the following tasks were conducted: 

• Literature search. The identification and review of speed-related studies that have been 

completed since NHTSA produced its literature review on vehicle travel speeds (Leaf and 

Preusser, 1999). 

• Expert workshop. A meeting of a panel of experts to explore the problem of speeding in 

neighborhoods, to identify promising countermeasures and to identify appropriate 

measures for use in assessing program success. 

• Selection of test sites. Development of site selection criteria, personal contact with 

eligible cities to determine their interest in supporting the program, and final site 

selection. The availability and interest of two contiguous cities – one large and one small 

– resulted in the selection of two Arizona cities (Phoenix and Peoria) as test sites. 

• Development of the countermeasure implementation and evaluation program. 

Development of education countermeasures to be implemented in the test sites plus plans 

for implementing the education, enforcement, and engineering countermeasures. For this 

task, the police departments of both test cities agreed to complete a form on all drivers 

stopped for speeding in the neighborhoods during the study. In addition, the engineering 

departments of both cities sponsored surveys to assess community awareness of program 

activities and accomplishments and provided traffic volume and speed measurements. 

• Evaluation of program results. Analysis of the police forms completed on drivers 

stopped for speeding, the survey returns, the speed data collected on all study streets, and 

the process data. 

• Preparation of a community guide. Preparation of a guide to assist other communities in 

implementing speed reduction programs. 

The subsequent sections of this final report describe the study approach and present the 

results and conclusions derived from the study: 

 

• Section II provides background information regarding the literature reviewed and persons 

contacted and the expert workshop. 

• Section III describes the site selection process for the two Arizona cities of Phoenix and 

Peoria. 
3 

• Section IV describes the countermeasure program implemented in the two cities. 

• Section V describes program evaluation procedures and results. 

• Section VI provides a discussion of the results obtained from the study. 

• Appendix A is a letter report of the results of the literature review conducted as part of 

the development of the study design. 

• Appendix B contains a letter report documenting the activities and results of an expert 

panel session to generate ideas and provide guidance to the study design and evaluation. 

• Appendix C contains black and white copies of program education countermeasures and 

supporting materials that were used in Peoria and Phoenix. 

• Appendix D contains program data collection forms. 

• Appendix E contains diagrams of the Phoenix and Peoria streets/neighborhoods that were 

studied. 

• Appendix F contains a draft guide for communities to use when developing Heed the 

Speed programs. 
4 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
5 

2. BACKGROUND 

 Two activities provided background information for the study. One consisted of a 

literature review on vehicle speeds to update an earlier review performed for NHTSA by Leaf 

and Preusser (1999). The second involved the selection of a panel of experts in traffic calming 

and speed management and conduct of a workshop to explore the speed problem, possible 

countermeasures, and possible evaluation measures. Each of these activities is described below. 

2.1 Literature Review Approach and Relevant Findings 

A review of the relevant literature was performed to help guide the study effort. There 

were two separate areas of focus. The first was an update of an extensive review previously 

performed for NHTSA (Leaf and Preusser, 1999). The second was a search for references that 

could relate speed reductions to specific pedestrian safety benefits. 

2.1.1 Update of Previous Review 

 The purpose of this effort was to identify relevant materials that had been produced since 

NHTSA’s previous report on the effects of speeding (Leaf and Preusser, 1999) was compiled. 

Searches were made of the Transportation Research Board Transportation Research Information 

Services (TRIS) database to identify studies published after 1998 on the topics of traffic calming, 

speed, enforcement, education, and pedestrian safety. In addition, contact was made with 

selected NHTSA and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) representatives, with bicycle 

and pedestrian professionals, and with contributors to the vehicle speed report to request 

additional references and materials. Finally, Web sites of cities with known traffic calming 

programs were accessed to obtain additional reports and information. Appendix A contains the 

entire letter report of the literature review. Its highlights are presented below. 

 

 In all, over 175 documents were identified, and abstracts of each were read. Based on the 

abstracts, hard copies of 60 of these documents were obtained and reviewed. The subject matter 

of the reviewed documents ranged widely and included descriptions of specific traffic calming 

techniques, legal aspects of traffic calming, crime issues, property value issues, and others. 

Although all hard-copy documents that were received were read, the major interest was in 

identifying evaluative studies of methods of traffic calming, especially those that might have 

combined education and enforcement with engineering. Very few evaluative studies were 

located. However, reports that summarized and quoted results of evaluative studies were found 

and proved useful (see Appendix A). 

 Two major documents were produced since the publication of NHTSA’s speed report 

(Leaf and Preusser, 1999). One was an Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report on the 

state of the practice of traffic calming (Ewing, 1999). Among other topics, it provides a brief 

history of traffic calming, a toolbox of traffic calming measures, engineering and aesthetic 

issues, impacts of traffic management measures, legal authority and liability issues, warrants, 

project selection procedures, public involvement, traffic calming on other than neighborhood and 

collector streets, and traffic calming in new developments. Twenty United States traffic calming 
 6 

programs are featured in the document. Specifications proposed by certain jurisdictions or 

professional groups for selected measures are included. 

A second major document of specific interest to the present effort was a synthesis of 

safety research related to speed and speed management sponsored by the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) (Stuster, Coffman, and Warren, 1998). This report covers speed-safety 

relationships, factors influencing speed, speed limits and speeds, speed limits and safety, 

enforcement and engineering measures. 

 The supplementary literature review revealed very little new information germane to the 

present study beyond what was contained in NHTSA’s vehicle speed report (Leaf and Preusser, 

1999). However, much of the new information served to confirm or amplify information 

contained in the NHTSA report. Across all of the literature examined, the following points of 

relevance to the current study were culled or inferred: 

• Although some professional groups and jurisdictions have proposed standards, there are 

no national standards for design and use of traffic calming measures. 

• The most effective traffic calming methods involve vertical treatments to the roadway. 

Humps have been proven to be very effective, and the public believes they are effective 

in reducing speeding. This was confirmed by the fact that the test sites for the present 

study chose vertical treatments for all of the physical calming measures employed. 

• Traffic circles such as those employed in Seattle have been proven not to induce vehicleto-vehicle crashes. They are, however, quite expensive and therefore are not widely 

used. Neither test site in the present study employed traffic circles in the studied 

neighborhoods. 

• There are rubber humps that can be used as a temporary traffic calming measure. Other 

measures can be created for temporary use, for example, permitting parking on opposite 

sides of the street for each block to create a chicane and using planters as bulbouts. The 

expert panel and officials at the chosen test sites, however, were opposed to using these 

temporary approaches because they could mar the aesthetics of the test neighborhoods. 

• Data on the effectiveness of roadway perceptual devices are inconclusive. Although 

street narrowing decreases speeding, there are data that suggest that it increases crashes. 

Some data show that street width must be reduced to 20 feet or less before speed 

reductions are noted. As it turned out, street narrowing was not an option in any of the 

test neighborhoods. 

• No studies were found in which education alone was used as a traffic calming measure. 

Typically, education programs consist of citizen watches combined with enforcement. 

Success in reducing speeding has been reported anecdotally, but no rigorous evaluation 

studies were found. 

• Enforcement is effective but may be impractical on low volume streets. Compliance is 

greatest in the vicinity of the police vehicle. This is also true of speed display boards. 

The public finds enforcement effective in reducing speeding. Again, although these 
 7 

concepts were promulgated by several authors, no definitive evaluation study was 

uncovered. 

• Anecdotal reports and limited scale studies indicate that photo radar has been successful 

in reducing speeds when deployed in neighborhoods in Europe. Some success has also 

been reported in the United States but the technique still has problems with political 

acceptability. The public apparently believes that photo radar is effective in reducing 

speeds. Photo radar was not permitted to be used at either of the test sites. As discussed 

below, however, speed trailers, that tell drivers the speed at which they are traveling 

without taking any automated enforcement actions, were used. 

• Measures of effectiveness for traffic calming are typically 85th percentile speed, average 

speed, percent exceeding posted speed, percent “x” miles per hour above posted speed 

and volume. Crashes are included sometimes. Only one study (Cambridge, 2000) was 

located that used pedestrian-related measures – it used number of drivers yielding to 

pedestrians. 

• Some jurisdictions use “hidden” measures for traffic calming, e.g., changes in traffic 

lights, prohibiting turns, making a “maze-like” path by creating a series of one-way 

streets. The two test communities chose not to employ these in the present study. 

2.1.2 Pedestrian Safety Benefits of Speed Reduction 

Relatively few references were located that provided a quantitative link between speed 

reduction and pedestrian safety benefits. Many of the references cited in Appendix A allude to 

the presumed benefits in terms of both injury reduction and crash avoidance, but there is a 

paucity of specific studies that confirm these links. 

The case for the injury reduction benefits of lower speeds is perhaps more fully 

documented because both biomechanical analyses and epidemiological studies are relevant. For 

example, Leaf and Preusser (1999) report on the effects of vehicle speed on pedestrian fatalities 

and cite several studies that show that the risk of a fatality increases exponentially with striking 

vehicle speed. One study reported from England shows that 5 percent of pedestrians struck at 20 

mph will die, compared with 45 percent at 30 mph, and 85 percent at 40 mph (Department of 

Transport, 1997). 

Other methodological development studies have proposed complex formulas for 

calculating the crash reduction potential of diminished travel speeds (cf., Navin, Chow, and 

Kwan, 2001; Davis, 1998). While these studies clearly support the general notion that lower 

speeds are associated with reduced crash risk, they do not provide a specific method in the 

context of the present study to translate any speed reduction obtained into an estimate of crashes 

avoided. 

Perhaps the most direct evidence for the pedestrian crash reduction potential of reduced 

speeds comes from a study by Tester et al. (2004). The study examined the protective 

effectiveness of speed humps in reducing child pedestrian injuries in residential neighborhoods. 

This case-control study showed that children living on streets where speed humps had been 

installed had lower odds of being injured within their neighborhoods and being struck by a motor 

vehicle in front of their homes. While this study provides excellent support for the crash-
 8 

reducing potential of successful speed countermeasures, it does not provide a direct formula for 

estimating the benefits of any particular application. 

A recent article (Lindenmann, 2004) examines crash quantification tools and aids in the 

context of all highway crashes, not just pedestrians. The overwhelming evidence reported is that 

lowering speed produces a reduction in crashes. Lindenmann (2004) cites a study from Finland 

(Kallberg, 1997) that concluded that an increase in the average speed of traffic by 1 km/h (0.62 

mph) increases the number of injury crashes by approximately 3 percent. This equates to an 

increase of about 4.8 percent for a speed increase of 1 mph. The study also points out that crash 

costs increase by about twice as much since the higher speeds increase severity. Obviously, 

pedestrians are included in this overall estimate, although no way is reported to separate out the 

specific pedestrian crash or injury risks. 

Thus, there is a widely held and partially proven theory that lowering speeds in 

residential neighborhoods will produce safety benefits both in terms of crashes avoided and by 

lessening injury severity when a crash does occur. This suggests that measures of both the mean 

or average speed and of those traveling at the highest speeds are needed in order to assess 

countermeasure programs such as those mounted in the current project. 

2.2 Workshop on Speed-Reducing Countermeasures 

 A panel of experts was assembled for a workshop to discuss existing speed reduction 

approaches and brainstorm new ideas. In addition to the authors and the NHTSA task order 

manager, the panel included practitioners from a cross-section of jurisdictions and specialists on 

speed countermeasures, pedestrian safety, the state-of-the-practice of traffic calming, traffic 

enforcement, and education. The workshop was held on May 10-11, 2001, at the FHWA 

Learning Center in Arlington, Virginia. The complete letter report of the workshop is included 

as Appendix B to this report. A summary of the key results follows. 

 The workshop participants were challenged to enumerate candidate test conditions, 

evaluation paradigms, and possible test locations for the study. The aim was to identify a 

reasonable (in terms of cost and time) and sufficiently general test or tests that could answer the 

question posed by the main objective of the study, i.e., to determine if a speed-reduction benefit 

is obtained by adding education and/or enforcement to more traditional traffic calming 

approaches. 

 The workshop was initiated by asking participants to identify speed-reducing 

countermeasures in the three E’s–engineering, enforcement, and education. Constraints and 

positive aspects were then noted for each. In an exercise in which participants attempted to 

identify a desirable set of countermeasures from those identified, no consensus was reached. 

However, the following principles, guidelines, and considerations that could be applicable to any 

project that attempts to reduce neighborhood speeds emerged from this activity: 

• A countermeasure can trick the senses but it can’t be deceitful (e.g., an artificial 

construction zone). 

• A countermeasure cannot devalue the neighborhood; it should improve the neighborhood. 

• Neighbors might not like to be the “bad guys” (e.g., participate in a trial by peers). 
 9 

• There should be a valid punitive value in any sanctions employed (e.g., a trial by peers 

may not be a deterrent if there is no meaningful punishment possible). 

• There must be places in the area to mount the countermeasure (e.g., there are few red 

lights in residential areas). 

• A countermeasure must not be annoying or contribute to neighborhood litter (e.g., 

windshield wiper flyers). 

• A countermeasure must be legal (e.g., mounting flyers on utility poles is illegal in many 

jurisdictions). 

• A countermeasure must be easily targeted (e.g., in-car cameras are tough to target). 

• The implementation and maintenance costs must be reasonable (e.g., cameras are 

expensive). 

• A countermeasure should not generate any privacy issues (e.g., people don’t want to feel 

watched). 

• Providing a good model for children is desirable (e.g., sending materials home from 

school). 

• Crime reduction can be an added benefit to some of the countermeasures used (e.g., 

added police patrols, increased lighting). 

• Sufficient space must be available (e.g., a street must be sufficiently wide to install a 

median). 

• It is preferable that residential countermeasures not limit access to homes and driveways 

(as would a median; however, short medians could be installed). 

• Appropriate data must be available or collectible to evaluate the actions. 

• Neighborhood involvement is advisable (e.g., a neighborhood speed watch program). 

The guidance represented by these principles was helpful in selecting and implementing 

countermeasures in Peoria and Phoenix. All of them were considered and applied to the extent 

applicable in each of the participating test neighborhoods. This list can also be helpful to anyone 

attempting any type of neighborhood-based programs. 

Although there was no consensus on specific countermeasure approaches, the workshop 

participants did agree that the project should work with permanent installations of engineering 

treatments whenever possible. It was noted that temporary installations, e.g., rubber speed 

humps, are often not aesthetically pleasing and can therefore engender negative reactions based 

on appearances alone. This can cause a backlash and make it difficult to generalize from 

temporary to permanent installations. 
 10 

 With regard to process, it was considered desirable that the project start from the 

beginning and look at transition from a non-calmed to a calmed neighborhood. Since it was 

acknowledged that this might not be possible under the constraints of the study, it was agreed 

that using an already calmed location with available “before” data was a viable alternative. 

 In a discussion of meaningful speed reduction, it was agreed that 85th percentile and 

average are not the most representative measures of what people are concerned about. People 

want the excessive speeders eliminated. It was proposed that the project focus on overall 

comfort level and unacceptably high speeds. The primary aim would be to eliminate speed 

outliers. Thus, the project should focus on the high tail of the speed distribution as well as the 

mean. To follow this recommendation, the study would require accurate speed data on each 

vehicle, not class interval or “bin” data. 

 A brief discussion was held on possible test sites for the program. The sites mentioned 

included those where pre- and post-studies have not had optimum results as well as those that 

have good process and treatments pending. Although participants mentioned several possible 

test sites, there was no consensus on an ideal test site for the study. Therefore, an independent 

site selection effort was mounted to find an appropriate test location. 

 The literature review and the expert panel session suggested that the study needed test 

sites that have implemented (or are in the process of implementing) traffic calming in the form of 

permanent rather than temporary physical changes. It was also considered desirable to select 

locales that would be willing to attempt some innovative treatments that might provide 

compelling visual stimuli without constituting an impediment to the transit of emergency 

vehicles. As discussed in the next section, the study was fortunate in finding two contiguous 

sites that met these basic criteria and were interested in helping to develop and test the Heed the 

Speed program. 
 11 

3. SITE SELECTION 

As stated previously (see Section 1), it was determined that the study site should contain 

neighborhoods/streets in which: 

• There has been no traffic calming and none is planned. 

• Traffic calming has been in place for some time. 

• There has been no traffic calming but implementation of traffic calming is planned during 

the study period. 

In addition, it was determined that the following site selection criteria were desirable: 

• Cooperation of key officials including the police and engineering personnel 

• Existence of adequate “before” data or a willingness to collect sufficient baseline data 

prior to implementing any countermeasures 

• Reasonable accessibility to the Dunlap offices 

• A concern for pedestrians among the involved city officials. It was considered beneficial 

to work in locales in which pedestrian safety was an established priority. 

 Telephone contacts were made with representatives from selected communities that were 

recommended as possible test sites by participants in the NHTSA speed workshop. With the 

exception of Phoenix, Arizona, contacts were limited to communities on the East Coast because 

of their relative proximity to the Dunlap offices. Phoenix was included because of previous 

working relationships with the city’s traffic engineering department in the conduct of other 

NHTSA field studies (Blomberg and Cleven, 1998). In all, contacts were made with eight 

communities/jurisdictions to solicit possible participation in the study. 

 As a result of the telephone contacts, two communities were identified as prime 

candidates to participate as study sites: Boca Raton, Florida, and Phoenix, Arizona. Both cities 

had active traffic calming programs and several neighborhoods that met the study criteria. In 

addition, traffic engineers in both cities were eager to participate in the study and had excellent 

working relationships with the local police departments to secure their support. The balance of 

the eight candidates either did not express an interest in participating or did not offer the same 

level of engineering/police cooperation that appeared to be available in Boca Raton and Phoenix. 

During the selection process, the study’s contact in Boca Raton left and accepted a 

position in Peoria, Arizona, a neighboring city to Phoenix. Since Peoria also had several 

neighborhoods that met study criteria and it was contiguous to Phoenix, it was decided to use the 

two cities as one “mega site.” Both cities met all site selection criteria, and liaison with both 

could be accomplished simultaneously because the traffic engineering representatives in the two 

cities knew each other and were eager to work together on a steering committee for the study. 

The Peoria and Phoenix police departments were also interested in the study and in forging a 

collaborative effort. 
 12 

Using both Phoenix and Peoria as test sites provided the following benefits: 

• Replication of the countermeasure tests in a variety of neighborhoods 

• More test sites so that testing of education and enforcement alone and in conjunction with 

engineering traffic calming efforts would be possible 

• Larger sample sizes 

• Greater variety in types of roadways included in the program 

Once Phoenix and Peoria were identified as study sites, a subcontract arrangement was 

established with each. The cities were provided with approximately $25,000 each to cover the 

cost of additional police patrols and the acquisition of study-related equipment. These funds 

were only a small percentage of the value of police and city staff time provided by each site. The 

remaining effort was paid for by the sites themselves. 
 13 

4. PROGRAM DESIGN 

This section describes the design of the program, the specific neighborhoods selected for 

study in each city, and the countermeasures that were implemented in each neighborhood. The 

neighborhoods were selected by traffic engineering and police representatives in each city. 

Countermeasures were proposed and designed by members of a study working group consisting 

of project staff and local traffic engineering and police personnel. Selections of countermeasures 

to be implemented in the various neighborhoods were made by city representatives. All print 

countermeasures were distributed on a CD-ROM so that city representatives could select the 

items of interest and adapt them as desired for each neighborhood. 

4.1 Approach 

The study involved the use of two cities and three neighborhoods within each. The goal 

was to implement a variety of countermeasures in three different environments – streets with preexisting physical traffic calming; streets not scheduled for physical changes; and streets on which 

education and enforcement would be mounted along with roadway changes, such as speed 

humps, during the study period. 

The adopted approach was not amenable to an experimental/comparison design because 

there would have been no reasonable way to select six comparison neighborhoods that were 

suitably matched with the selected experimental neighborhoods. In fact, as discussed below, the 

test areas were selected in part because they were unique or at least different from the norm with 

respect to interest in achieving speed reductions. Therefore, a longitudinal, pre/post study design 

was adopted. Baseline speed and knowledge/attitude measures were collected in each 

neighborhood before any countermeasures were started. One additional attitude/knowledge 

survey was conducted after countermeasure implementation. At least two additional postinitiation speed measurements were collected. On those test streets on which treatments were 

phased, up to two supplemental speed measurements were collected in order to assess the 

incremental effects of the added countermeasures. 

4.2 Study Neighborhoods 

 As indicated previously, three neighborhoods/streets were selected for study in each city. 

The rationale for selection was fourfold. First, the location had to meet the requirements of the 

study, i.e., a road or neighborhood with existing traffic calming, planned calming during the 

study period or no planned engineering treatments for the foreseeable future. Second, the 

location had to be of interest to the cooperating city either because of a history of complaints or 

because of known speeding violations and previous unsuccessful efforts to curtail them. Third, 

the neighborhood had to have an active association or one or more vocal residents who would 

agree to spearhead the countermeasure efforts. Fourth, the neighborhood had to have pedestrian 

activity that could potentially be made safer by a reduction in vehicle speeds. Pedestrian crash 

counts were not used in the selection of neighborhoods because the expected numbers in any 

given neighborhood are quite small. 
 14 

The areas selected for study in Phoenix were: 

• Clarendon Avenue – Clarendon Avenue is an east/west 32-foot wide local street north of 

the downtown area of Phoenix. The Clarendon Avenue study segment runs from 24th

Street to 28th Street, which is east of Central Avenue, the centerpoint of the city. It is 

approximately one-fourth of a mile in length and includes three existing speed humps. 

The posted speed is 25 mph, and there are 20 mph advisory signs posted with the speed 

hump warning signs. This segment is improved with rolled curbing and gutter.1

 This is 

an older neighborhood with sporadic placement of sidewalks. Forty-two percent of the 

surrounding neighborhood population is Hispanic. The area residents are predominantly 

household renters (86%) in contrast to owners (14%). The neighborhood appears to be 

made up of low- to middle-income wage earners. The major concern among the residents 

was high speeds between the recently installed speed humps. They had requested that the 

city install additional humps on the assumption that the existing three were too far apart. 

Since Phoenix will not place humps closer than 500 feet apart in consideration of fire 

department response times, the city was interested in finding an alternative way to reduce 

speeds and placate the residents. 

• Sweetwater Avenue – Sweetwater Avenue is an east/west 40-foot wide collector street in 

northeast Phoenix. The Sweetwater Avenue study segment encompasses the segment 

from 64th Street to Scottsdale Road (the eastern extremity of Phoenix on its border with 

Scottsdale) and is one mile in length. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. This segment is 

improved with vertical curbing and gutter, and there are striped on-street bike lanes 

which narrow each travel lane to a width of about 14 feet. Sidewalks are randomly 

placed in the one-mile segment. The area residents are predominantly household owners 

(93%) in contrast to renters (7%). The neighborhood appears to be made up of middle- to 

high-income wage earners. The study area contains an active homeowner’s group that 

had been vociferously requesting traffic calming from the city to counter excessive 

speeding. The city could not install conventional engineering treatments on Sweetwater 

since it is a collector street and the treatments could have too much of a negative impact 

on fire department response times. The combined use of enforcement, education, and 

innovative markings was therefore an attractive alternative. 

• Moon Valley /Coral Gables Area – The Moon Valley/Coral Gables neighborhood is on 

the northwest side of Phoenix. It is characterized by upscale homes and broad roadways 

that invite high speeds. The Coral Gables Drive study segment runs from Thunderbird 

Road to 7th Street and is approximately 2-1/2 miles in length. The westernmost part runs 

essentially north and south and then turns due east to reach 7th Street. Coral Gables is a 

40-foot wide collector street with painted on-street bike lanes that narrow travel lanes to 

about 14 feet in each direction. The only stopping point is a three-way stop sign about 

midway at 7th Avenue. The north/south and east/west segments of Coral Gables Drive 

were treated as separate segments for countermeasures and analysis. The posted speed 

limit is 30 mph except for a 15 mph zone at the eastern end that is in effect on school 

days on each approach to a school crosswalk. This segment is improved with vertical 

curbing, sidewalk, and gutter. The Moon Valley Drive study segment meanders north 

and east from Coral Gables Drive to Gleneagles Drive and is approximately 1-1/2 miles 

in length. As with Coral Gables Drive, the north/south and east/west portions of Moon 

 

1

 All improvements referenced within these site descriptions were pre-existing when the study began. 
 15 

Valley Drive were treated separately in the study. The posted speed is 25 mph. The 

street improvements on this segment include a mixture of vertical curbing or rolled 

curbing, sidewalk, and gutter. The area residents are predominantly household owners 

(95%) in contrast to renters (5%). This neighborhood has a highly organized 

homeowner’s association. 

The neighborhoods/roadways selected for study in Peoria were: 

• 95th Avenue – 95th Avenue is a north/south thoroughfare. The 95th Avenue study segment 

runs from Olive Avenue to Peoria Avenue and is one mile long. It is a straight two-lane, 

undivided roadway with a striped double-yellow centerline and marked bike lanes. The 

posted speed limit is 30 mph. The road width measures 28 feet from bike lane to bike 

lane. It is bordered on the east side by the Springer Ranch neighborhood with an 

organized homeowner’s association. There are no houses directly fronting the east side 

of the avenue. Most of the subdivision is separated from the roadway by a wall, except at 

the southern end. The test segment is bordered on the west side by two developments. 

On the northern half of the west side, single-family homes in a retirement community 

back directly up to 95th Avenue with unfenced yards. There is no wall separating the 

roadway from the back yards. On the southern half of the west side, there is a 

community with a mixture of duplex and single family homes. The area is middle class 

with generally retirees on the western side of 95th Avenue and younger families on the 

eastern side. The straight, open vista provided by 95th Avenue is conducive to speeding. 

Several vocal residents had requested action from the city and agreed to assist the project. 

This segment of 95th Avenue is classified by the City of Peoria as a collector street. 

• Desert Harbor/91st Avenue – Desert Harbor derives its name from the lake contained 

within the neighborhood. 91st Avenue runs north/south alongside the lake and residential 

and semi-commercial areas. The 91st Avenue study segment runs from Thunderbird 

Road to Greenway Road and is one mile long. The posted speed is 30 mph. It is a 78-

foot wide, four-lane divided roadway (with a 28-foot landscaped center median) that runs 

through the Desert Harbor community. Desert Harbor has two layers of homeowner’s 

associations. There are sub-associations for each cluster development and a larger 

homeowner’s association that oversees the subdivisions in the entire community. Desert 

Harbor is a higher-end upper-class community with a combination of single-family 

homes and gated waterfront estates. No homes directly front on 91st Avenue. There is an 

elementary school immediately north of the study area. The Desert Harbor associations 

are active and vocal and had been requesting actions against speeders for some time. 

This segment of 91st Avenue is classified by the City of Peoria as an arterial roadway. 

• Bell Park/84th Avenue and 85th Lane – Bell Park is an upper-middle class neighborhood 

in northern Peoria. The main roadway within the neighborhood is 84th Avenue which 

connects to Bell Road, a major commercial arterial thoroughfare. The 84th Avenue study 

segment runs from Bell Road to Grovers Road/Country Club Parkway and is 

approximately 2/3 mile long. Several homes and cul de sacs front on 84th Avenue. There 

is an elementary school at the northern end. The avenue is very wide and experiences 

cut-through traffic and traffic from vehicle dealerships on Bell Road that use 84th Avenue 

for test drives. The residents wanted vertical traffic calming treatments installed and 

were willing to execute all of the necessary petitions in time for an installation coincident 

with the study period. One of the side roads, 85th Lane, running from Grovers Avenue to 
 16 

84th Avenue was also a test segment. It received three speed humps approximately one 

year before the Heed the Speed program began. Nevertheless, residents on 85th Lane 

perceived that speeds were still too high and requested additional countermeasures. 

Since additional speed humps were not warranted, other study countermeasures had to be 

employed. The 84th Avenue segment is a two-lane, undivided facility with no centerline 

striping. From curb to curb, 84th Avenue measures 48 feet and 85th lane measures 38 feet. 

The posted speed on both roads is 25 mph. Both roadways are classified by the City of 

Peoria as local roadways. 84th Avenue serves as a local collector. 

Thus, there were actually 10 road segments addressed by the study as shown by the maps 

in Appendix E.2

 Across these 10 road segments, all of the desired study conditions were present 

and replicated at least once: 

• No physical traffic calming and none planned – Sweetwater Avenue, Coral Gables Drive 

(north/south segment), Coral Gables Drive (east/west segment), Moon Valley Drive 

(east/west segment), 91st Avenue and 95th Avenue.

• Traffic calming in place – 85th Lane and Clarendon Avenue.

• No traffic calming but traffic calming planned during the study period – Moon Valley 

Drive (north/south segment) and 84th Avenue. 

4.3 Program Duration 

The planning and preparation for the program began in early 2002 with the formation of a 

steering group and the development of materials as described below. A baseline set of 

evaluation measures was collected during October 2002. Countermeasure implementation 

commenced at the end of October. The planned active period for the countermeasures was three 

months. In actuality, the education and engineering efforts had no fixed end dates. The special 

enforcement program took place over a three-month period in Peoria. The enforcement effort in 

Phoenix was extended to six months because of the high local interest in the effort. The final 

evaluation measures were collected in February 2003. A detailed time phasing of the 

countermeasure implementation is presented below. 

4.4 Program Organization, Slogan, and Logo 

The countermeasures used during this study were not discrete efforts by the project staff. 

Rather, they were part of a coherent campaign mounted by Phoenix and Peoria working together. 

The organization of the program and its developed identity were an important part of its 

operation. 

4.4.1 Program Organization 

By design, the countermeasure program to be tested included a representation of all three 

E’s – education, enforcement, and engineering. In both Phoenix and Peoria, both engineering 

and traffic safety education are within the purview of the cognizant traffic engineering agencies.3

 

 

2

 There were four in Moon Valley/Coral Gables, two in Bell Park, and one each in the other four neighborhoods. 3

 Street Transportation Department in Phoenix and Engineering Department in Peoria 
 17 

Enforcement responsibilities obviously rest within the police departments in both jurisdictions. 

A planning and steering committee was therefore established that included these four agencies as 

well as the Dunlap and Associates project staff. This group met approximately every six weeks 

from the outset through the end of the data collection period. 

One of the first decisions made by the steering group was to develop a slogan and logo 

around which activities could coalesce. The group also agreed that a single unifying theme was 

desirable as opposed to separate identities for Phoenix and Peoria. The logic in this decision was 

that both cities share media, and many commuters to Phoenix live in Peoria. There was also a 

desire to have a single program identity going forward if the test project proved successful. 

4.4.2 Slogan and Logo 

Heed the Speed was selected as the slogan for the speed reduction activities. The name 

had been used previously by the Phoenix Police Department for a small pilot program that used a 

variety of education and enforcement techniques to produce a reduction in speeds in one 

neighborhood of Phoenix. That program has continued at a reduce level of police involvement. 

Since the goals of the current effort were largely the same as those in this pilot program, the 

Phoenix Police Department suggested that the same name be employed, and the Peoria 

participants concurred. 

A stylized version of a police officer writing a ticket was designed for the program logo. 

The slogan and logo appeared on most of the educational materials used in the study. They also 

appeared on street and lawn signs that were displayed throughout the duration of the program. 

The slogan and logo for the study are shown in Figure 1. The sign is black on white except that 

the emblem on the police officer’s hat and the pad and pencil in the officer’s hand are bright 

yellow. 

Figure 1. Program Logo Containing Program Slogan 

4.4.3 Homeowner’s Association Meetings 

As discussed earlier, one of the selection criteria for the test neighborhoods was the 

existence of an active homeowner’s association or at least a vocal and cooperative group of 

residents. Therefore, when possible, the program started in each neighborhood with a 

homeowner’s association meeting. At these meetings, representatives from their cities apprised 

residents of the purpose of the program and the various planned activities. In addition, 
 18 

volunteers were solicited for some program activities (e.g., distributing education flyers, 

displaying lawn signs, and monitoring vehicle speeds). 

Two of the Peoria meetings took place before the formal start of the program – the 

Desert Harbor/91st Avenue meeting took place on September 4, 2002, and the Bell Park/84th

Avenue meeting took place on October 10, 2002. Therefore, these meetings may have slightly 

contaminated the baseline in these communities by unveiling program objectives and the 

impending enforcement and education activities before the initial speed measurements were 

collected. The effect, if any, is likely small. The 95th Avenue meeting occurred on October 21, 

2002 – the day the program started in Peoria. A further meeting was held on November 14, 

2002, with the Spinnaker Cove subdivision of the Desert Harbor community. 

In Phoenix, a combined meeting of the Moon Valley/Coral Gables and Sweetwater 

residents took place on October 22, 2002, the day the program officially started. There was no 

meeting with Clarendon residents since they had no homeowner’s association. 

4.5 Education Materials 

The project developed all of the education materials used in the test. The general 

approach was to discuss media forms and themes at the planning committee meeting. Once there 

was agreement on an approach, a draft was produced and reviewed at the next meeting. After 

including any desired changes, a final version was produced. In addition to initial print runs, all 

of the materials were supplied to each city in electronic form so that they could be customized as 

needed for specific audiences. Each of the major education items is discussed below. 

4.5.1 Street and Lawn Signs 

Retroreflective metal street signs with the program slogan and logo were displayed at the 

entrance to each of the test roads in the neighborhoods under study. Measuring 24 x 12 inches, 

the signs were designed to meet the specifications for street signs in both cities and were 

produced by the City of Phoenix sign shop for both cities without cost to the project. They 

matched the width of a speed limit sign and were mounted below the first speed limit sign on the 

street. The program street sign is shown in Figure 2. As with the basic logo, the sign is black on 

white except that the emblem on the police officer’s hat and the pad and pencil in the officer’s 

hand are bright yellow. 

Overall in Peoria, four signs were mounted on each road segment – two in each direction. 

In Phoenix, the longer road segments received four signs while the shorter got only two. Thus, 

four signs were mounted on Sweetwater Avenue and Coral Gables Drive, two on Clarendon and 

one on Moon Valley. 
 19 

Figure 2. Program Street Sign 

Lawn signs were designed for the program, and homeowners were encouraged to display 

them on their property. These signs were reproduced in black on a bright yellow background on 

both sides of a piece of 24 x 16 CoroplastTM, a corrugated plastic material supported on the lawn 

by an H-shaped wire stake. The triangle with the pedestrians is a halftone of the yellow color, 

and the police officer’s cap and pad are white. A place on the sign was reserved for the name of 

the applicable homeowner’s association, as desired; however none of the neighborhoods chose to 

personalize the signs. The program lawn sign is shown in Figure 3. Initially, 600 signs were 

produced and distributed evenly between the two test cities. After the initial distribution and 

some attrition of signs on Halloween, an additional 400 signs were printed and split between the 

cities. The total cost for the signs and stakes for mounting them was less than $3,000. 

Figure 3. Program Lawn Sign 

4.5.2 Printed Materials and Radio Spots 

Several flyers and other types of printed materials were produced for the program. A 

black and white copy of each is contained in Appendix C. The specific flyers that were 

reproduced typically in black on either white or on variously colored paper included: 

• A message for homeowners indicating the program activities that might be incorporated 

in their neighborhood and what they could do to support the program – in both English 
 20 

and Spanish. In Peoria, the flyer was delivered to each neighborhood residence by the 

local homeowner’s associations and resident volunteers or was handed out at meetings by 

city personnel. In Phoenix, the flyer was mailed to residents in all three neighborhoods. 

Both English and Spanish language versions of the flyer were mailed to residents in the 

Clarendon neighborhood because of its large Hispanic population. 

• A message for parents distributed through schools indicating the program activities that 

might be incorporated in their neighborhood and what they can do to support the program 

– in both English and Spanish. 

• A message for drivers indicating the dangers of speeding – printed on the reverse side of 

replicas of both a Phoenix and Peoria traffic ticket. These 81⁄2 by 11 inch replicas were 

handed out by police officers when they made warning or enforcement stops in the 

neighborhoods (see Section 4.6.1 below). 

• A slim version of the message for drivers, excluding the traffic ticket, for distribution 

wherever drivers congregated (e.g., gas stations) and for distribution as door hangers. 

• A message for car dealers requesting them to ask their customers to drive slowly, to drive 

slowly themselves, and to avoid test drives on neighborhood streets. One neighborhood 

in each of the test cities experienced this problem. 

• A message for high school drivers for distribution at schools on the dangers of speeding – 

reproduced in both English and Spanish. 

• A press release announcing the program. 

• Write-ups on the program for homeowner’s associations to use in neighborhood 

newsletters. 

In addition to the printed materials, five live copy radio spots on the dangers of speeding 

were prepared for distribution to local radio stations. These were short and suitable for use as 

either a public service announcement or as part of a station break/promo. 

All print materials were reproduced on a CD-ROM and provided to local transportation 

representatives in both cities. Thus, the materials could be customized for individual 

neighborhoods as desired. 

4.5.3 Earned Media 

The existence of the program also generated its own education countermeasures. One 

was an article in the local newspaper describing the program. Another was a taped interview on 

the Phoenix Channel 11 television program called Leading Edge. In that program, local Phoenix 

transportation and police personnel described the many program components. Another was a 

news spot on Phoenix Channel 5 in which a reporter did a live story from 95th Avenue in Peoria. 

Heed the Speed generated additional earned media through the Phoenix cable channel, city 

council sessions, caller-on-hold messages and a radio spot in Peoria. Valley-wide radio spots 

were sent out by the City of Phoenix. In addition, Peoria representatives developed a variety of 

print materials that were specific to its neighborhoods under study. These materials were 
 21 

mentioned quite frequently in the mail survey responses that were part of the evaluation (see 

Section 5). 

4.6 Enforcement Activities 

In addition to being active participants in program planning and neighborhood meetings, 

police in each city assumed responsibility for the following activities: 

• Performing special enforcement 

 

• Training citizens to conduct neighborhood speed watches and use radar guns 

• Deploying radar speed and photo speed enforcement trailers

4.6.1 Special Enforcement 

It was agreed among the steering committee, Dunlap project representatives, and NHTSA 

sponsors that special enforcement activities were needed in addition to routine neighborhood 

patrols. In this context, special enforcement meant both increased patrols and more stringent 

criteria for making stops whether as a warning or to issue a citation. To accomplish the desired 

special enforcement activities, the project gave each jurisdiction a small subcontract to fund 

some police overtime. The funding covered only a portion of the total supervisory and patrol 

time that was involved in the heightened enforcement effort. 

In Peoria, officers of the traffic squad implemented special enforcement for three months. 

Their strategy was to get the attention of the neighborhoods scheduled for subsequent 

engineering changes at the outset and then to focus on the remaining neighborhoods that were 

not receiving physical alterations. 

Phoenix implemented a six-month enforcement campaign that focused on all three 

neighborhoods. Rather than “blitz” an area and then leave, the Phoenix police strategy involved 

rotating officers through all of the areas on a regular basis. In addition to the regular patrol, the 

Phoenix Police Department employed officers in radar speed unit training for many of the special 

patrols. Through this approach, they were able to support the program and provide valuable 

training experience to new officers in the proper procedures for traffic stops. 

During the special enforcement time periods, virtually all vehicles that were traveling 

faster than the posted speed limit were subject to being stopped. The typical allowance of five to 

seven miles per hour over the limit was largely ignored as a criterion for making a stop. After 

the stop, the officer approached the vehicle, announced the violation, and performed a routine 

check on the driver’s license. With regard to the speed violation, initially only drivers who were 

flagrantly disobeying the law or who were uncooperative or belligerent were ticketed. The 

remainder who were not ticketed received a verbal warning and the facsimile of a speeding ticket 

with the education material on its reverse side. Officers either discussed the literature with the 

driver or waited while the driver read it. As shown in Appendix C, the message for drivers 

pointed out the dangers and penalties of speeding. The idea was to make the violator think he or 

she was about to receive a citation and then make it clear that it was just a warning. 

 
 22 

Also, for each stop, the officer filled out a motorist stop form, a copy of which is included 

in Appendix D. This form was designed to obtain information on the drivers who were speeding 

in the neighborhood. It provided data on the location of the stop, the proximity of the driver’s 

address to the neighborhood, the driver’s age and gender, whether or not the driver was wearing 

a safety belt, how often the driver traveled on the road, the number of people in the vehicle, the 

vehicle type and model year, and the outcome of the stop (that is, if the officer gave the driver a 

ticket and/or literature). Information obtained from this form is described in Section 5 of this 

final report. 

4.6.2 Neighborhood Speed Watches 

Neighborhood speed watches are groups of citizen volunteers who use speed radar units 

provided by the police department to monitor speeds near their homes. Police train the 

volunteers on how to use the radar guns, what information to collect and how to collect the 

information. When speeders are clocked, they can report the license plate, speed, time and place 

of the observation to the police. Follow-up typically consists of a warning or educational letter 

to the registered owner of the vehicle. 

The police departments in both Peoria and Phoenix acquired additional radar units and 

trained volunteers to use them to measure the speeds of vehicles at various points in their 

neighborhoods. Although there was much enthusiasm among the trainees, this obviously did not 

carry over into the actual use of the radars as the Phoenix Police received no citizen reports on 

the watches, and the Peoria Police received only a few. 

4.6.3 Deployment of Speed and Photo Speed Enforcement Trailers 

A trailer or speed van that displayed a vehicle’s speed as it passed was deployed in both 

cities. In Peoria, it was deployed on 17 different days during the three-month study period – six 

days in Bell Park, eight days on 95th Avenue, and three days in Desert Harbor. In Phoenix the 

photo speed enforcement trailer was deployed in the Moon Valley/Coral Gables neighborhood 

approximately once per week during the first two months of the program. It was deployed at the 

15 mph zone on Coral Gables at Moon Valley Elementary School. No speed data were collected 

during these deployments but photo enforcement was conducted. The Phoenix City Council only 

allows automated speed enforcement in school zones, which limited the use of this enforcement 

tool. 

4.7 Engineering and Roadway Treatments 

The countermeasure program included two types of roadway treatments. The first were 

standard vertical treatments that were permanently affixed to the roadway. The second were 

surface treatments intended to create the illusion of an impediment or simulate an engineering 

treatment. 

4.7.1 Vertical Treatments 

Two of the test road segments had vertical treatments added during the test. The 

north/south segment of Moon Valley Drive in Phoenix had two speed humps added early in 2003 

prior to the final wave of speed measurements. Four speed tables were added to 84th Avenue in 
 23 

Peoria prior to the third wave of measurements there in December 2002. These speed tables 

were combined with one of the innovative pavement markings as described below. 

In addition to the vertical treatments on Moon Valley and 84th Avenue, there were 

existing speed humps on Clarendon Avenue in Phoenix and on 85th Lane in the Peoria Bell Park 

neighborhood. 

4.7.2 Visual Treatments 

One of the countermeasure ideas initiated from the expert panel and more fully discussed 

during Phoenix/Peoria steering committee meetings consisted of innovative pavement markings 

that would not present an actual barrier to travel but would appear to be an impediment. During 

the process of defining specific countermeasures, two commercially available products were 

identified – Solidsheet 3-Dimensional Road Marking and TyregripTM surfacing. 

Solidsheet 3-Dimensional Road Marking (“3-D marking”) is a product of Sekisui Jushi 

Corporation in Japan.4 This patented material is a geometrically shaped, multi-colored 

thermoplastic flat sheet that creates an optical illusion of a three-dimensional object in the 

roadway. Retroreflective glass beads are incorporated into the sheets for increased nighttime 

visibility. The 3-D marking material has been used for a variety of road marking tasks such as 

crosswalks and edge lines. Previous research on the 3-D marking showed encouraging results 

(Organization for Traffic Safety, 2001). 

The 3-D markings come in a variety of shapes and sizes. For this project’s applications, 

the “Large Mountain” shapes were used as shown in Figure 4. The markings are installed by 

first applying a primer to the road surface. Then the sheets are placed on the ground in the 

predetermined pattern and heated with a torch until they adhere to the pavement. 

 

In Peoria, 3-D markings were applied on 85th Lane between two of the existing speed 

humps and at seven locations on 84th Avenue – four on the four newly installed speed tables (see 

Figure 5) and three in the spaces between the new speed tables (see Figure 6). The material was 

also applied alone without vertical treatments at five locations on 95th Avenue. In Phoenix, it 

was applied at three locations on Coral Gables Drive.

TyregripTM is a combination of a two-part resin binder with a drop-on aggregate.5

 

Although primarily designed for skid resistance, the appearance of the material can be structured 

so that it resembles a speed table, crosswalk or neighborhood entry treatment. TyregripTM was 

not used in Peoria. In Phoenix, it was applied at five locations on Coral Gables Drive and six 

locations on Sweetwater Avenue. A TyregripTM installation on Coral Gables Drive in Phoenix is 

shown in Figure 7. 

 

4

 Much of the 3-D marking product used in the test was provided to the project for test purposes by the SJS 

(America), Inc., Cartersville, Georgia. 

5

 TyregripTM is sold in the US by Traffic Safety Systems, Inc. of Roswell, Georgia. 
 24 

Figure 4. 3-D Markings on 85th Lane in Peoria

Figure 5. 3-D Markings on Top of Speed Table on 84th Avenue in Peoria 

Figure 6. 3-D Markings on Pavement Between Speed Tables on 84th Avenue in Peoria 
 25 

Figure 7. TyregripTM Installation on Coral Gables Drive in Phoenix 

4.8 Program Implementation Timeline 

Table 1 summarizes the timeline of the implementation of program activities in each of 

the two cities. A more detailed description of the specific activities on each road segment 

within each neighborhood can be found later in the report in Table 59. 
 26 

Table 1. Schedule of Program Activities* 

Month Phoenix Peoria 

September 

2002 Desert Harbor – Meeting with homeowner’s 

association 

October 2002 All sites – press release issued

All sites – news article in Arizona Republic 

Moon Valley and Sweetwater – meeting 

with homeowner’s associations

All sites – Heed the Speed traffic signs 

posted 

All sites – Heed the Speed lawn signs 

distributed 

All sites – special enforcement initiated 

All sites – program materials distributed 

All sites – press release issued 

Coral Gables – photo speed van deployed 

All sites – press release issued

All sites – news article in Arizona Republic

95th Ave and Bell Park – open house 

meetings with residents 

All sites – police training on radar guns 

All sites – Heed the Speed traffic signs posted 

All sites – Heed the Speed lawn signs 

distributed 

All sites – special enforcement initiated 

All sites – program materials distributed 

Bell Park – speed trailer deployed 

November 

2002 

All sites – Channel 11 interview with police 

and transportation personnel on Leading 

Edge program 

All sites – special enforcement continued 

All sites – additional program materials 

distributed as needed 

Coral Gables – photo speed van deployed 

All sites – special enforcement continued 

Desert Harbor – presentation to Spinnaker 

Cove subdivision 

All sites – additional program materials 

distributed as needed 

95th Ave – Speed trailer deployed 

December 

2002 

All sites – special enforcement continued 

All sites – additional program materials 

distributed as needed 

Coral Gables – 3-D materials applied 

All sites – special enforcement continued 

84th Ave, 85th Lane, and 95th Ave –3-D 

materials applied 

84th Ave – speed tables installed 

All sites – additional program materials 

distributed as needed 

95th Ave and Desert Harbor – Speed trailer 

deployed 

January 2003 All sites – special enforcement continued 

Coral Gables – TyregripTM applied 

All sites – special enforcement continued 

95th Ave – installation of 3-D material 

completed 

95th Ave – speed trailer deployed 

All sites – enforcement program ended 

(1/21/03) 

February 2003 All sites – special enforcement continued 

Sweetwater Ave – TyregripTM applied 

Moon Valley – speed humps installed 

March to April 

2003 

All sites – special enforcement continued 

All sites – enforcement program ended 

(4/15/03) 

*Program started October 21, 2002. No new activities were initiated and special enforcement ceased after 

January 21, 2003, in Peoria and April 15, 2003, in Phoenix. 
 27 

5. PROGRAM EVALUATION 

 This section describes program evaluation procedures and results. It includes information 

obtained from the police special enforcement stop form, the neighborhood mailed opinion and 

knowledge survey, and speed data collected during the conduct of the study. It also contains 

process data that were obtained from focus groups/discussions with the engineering and police 

representatives from both cities as well as with representatives from the various study 

neighborhoods. 

 The focus of the evaluation was on obtaining information that could be linked to both the 

actual speed response in the studied neighborhoods and the extent to which any change towards 

lower speeds was the result of deterrence produced by Heed the Speed activities. Since it is not 

reasonable to presume that police will always be present to witness speeding violations and 

available to take enforcement action, the deterrence of the unsafe behavior is crucial to a 

reduction in pedestrian crash risk. The operative theory is that increased enforcement will 

generate specific deterrence among those stopped and warned or cited for speeding. In addition, 

a general deterrence of speeding should result among those who witness the increased 

enforcement activity as well as among those whose attitudes and values are altered by the 

messages in the Heed the Speed educational materials. 

 When viewing these data, the reader should keep in mind that the project essentially 

consisted of 10 separate case studies as described earlier. Only the speed data, however, were 

sufficiently differentiated to permit a separate assessment of each of the 10 test segments. The 

police data did include an indication of where each speeding stop was made which permitted this 

information to be disaggregated by neighborhood. It was not possible, however, to determine 

what proportion of the special police patrol time was allotted to each road segment. The mail 

survey was sent out anonymously and precoded by neighborhood but not specific address and 

therefore could not be broken down by road segment. 

5.1 Police Special Enforcement 

Additional hours of police patrols were incorporated in each neighborhood for the project 

enforcement activities. This special enforcement was performed in addition to routine 

neighborhood patrols. 

 During the special enforcement time periods, any vehicle traveling faster than the posted 

speed limit by any amount was subject to being stopped. This represented a change from normal 

practice in which motorists could exceed the speed limit by five to seven miles per hour with 

virtual impunity as long as their driving behavior was not erratic. 

When a stop was made during the program, the officer approached the vehicle, 

announced the violation, and performed a routine check on the driver’s license. With regard to 

the speeding violation, only drivers who were flagrantly disobeying the law, who were stopped 

multiple times, or who were rude were ticketed initially. As the study period progressed, 

however, a higher percentage of speeding tickets were issued as the tolerance of the participating 

officers diminished. 
 28 

Drivers who were not ticketed received a verbal warning and a facsimile of a police 

ticket. The back of the facsimile ticket contained a message for drivers that pointed out the 

dangers and penalties of speeding. A copy of the speeding message is included in the 

countermeasures reproduced in Appendix C. 

For each driver stopped, the officer filled out a motorist stop form, a copy of which is 

included in Appendix D. This form was designed to obtain a profile on the drivers who were 

speeding in the various neighborhoods. In addition to the date and time of the stop, it consisted 

of 11 items that provided the following information: 

• The test neighborhood in which the stop was made 

• Specific street on which the stop was made 

• Proximity of the driver’s address to the neighborhood in which the stop was made 

• Gender of the driver 

• Date of driver’s birth 

• Driver’s safety belt use 

• How often driver travels on the street on which stopped 

• Number of people in the vehicle 

• Vehicle type 

• Vehicle model year 

• Officer’s action, (i.e., if the officer gave the driver a ticket and/or literature that provided 

information on the dangers of speeding)

Unless otherwise noted, when data were missing for a particular item, the record for that stop has 

been excluded from the summary tables that follow pertaining to the missing item. The second 

item (street on which the stop was made) was only used to confirm the neighborhood 

identification as necessary and was not analyzed separately. 

5.1.1 Location and Month of the Stops 

 The police stop form data from Peoria were collected over a three-month period starting 

on October 23, 2002, and ending on January 17, 2003. Collection of the stop form data in 

Phoenix also started on October 23, 2002. However, data in Phoenix were collected over a sixmonth period ending on April 15, 2003. The returns obtained from each Peoria neighborhood 

during the three study months are shown in Table 2. Those obtained from Phoenix are shown in 

Table 3. It should be noted that these data are only a profile of those people stopped during the 

program and not an estimate of the incidence of speeding in the test neighborhoods. 

Table 2 shows that 283 stops were made in Peoria during the three-month study period – 

an average of 94 stops per month. The largest percentage of stops were made in the 95th Avenue 

neighborhood (45.9%), and the smallest in Bell Park (19.4%). In addition, the largest percentage 

of stops were made in the first study month (47.3%), followed by the second (28.6%), and the 

third (24%). Given the demonstrated reduction in speeding (see below), there were likely fewer 

violators for the police to stop. It is also possible that there was some waning of police interest 

that also contributed to the decline in stops over time. 
 29 

Table 2. Police Stops by Neighborhood and Study Month (Peoria) 

Neighborhood 

Study Month 

95th Avenue

Desert 

Harbor/91st 

Avenue 

Bell Park/84th 

Avenue Total 

Count 56 29 49 134 

Row % 41.8% 21.6% 36.6% 100% 1–Oct 23 

to Nov 16 

 Column % 43.1% 29.6% 89.1% 47.3% 

Count 48 33 0 81 

Row % 59.3% 40.7% 0% 0% 2–Nov 17 

to Dec 14 

 Column % 36.9% 33.7% 0% 28.6% 

Count 26 36 6 68 

Row % 38.2% 52.9% 8.8% 100% 3–Dec 15 

to Jan 18 

 Column % 20% 36.7% 10.9% 24% 

Count 130 98 55 283 

Row % 45.9% 34.6% 19.4% 100% Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Table 3. Police Stops by Neighborhood and Study Month (Phoenix) 

Neighborhood Study Month 

Sweetwater 

Moon 

Valley/Coral 

Gables Clarendon Total 

Count 23 135 29 187 

Row % 12.3% 72.2% 15.5% 100% 1–Oct 23 

to Nov 16 

 Column % 7.2% 32.5% 50.9% 23.6% 

Count 47 51 13 111 

Row % 42.3% 45.9% 11.7% 100% 2–Nov 17 

to Dec 14 

 Column % 14.6% 12.3% 22.8% 14% 

Count 16 10 7 33 

Row % 48.5% 30.3% 21.2% 100% 3–Dec 15 

to Jan 18 

 Column % 5% 2.4% 12.3% 4.2% 

Count 149 145 1 295 

Row % 50.5% 49.2% .3% 100% 4–Jan 19 

to Feb 15 

 Column % 46.4% 34.9% 1.8% 37.1% 

Count 55 60 7 122 

Row % 45.1% 49.2% 5.7% 100% 5–Feb 16 

to Mar 15 

 Column % 17.1% 14.4% 12.3% 15.4% 

Count 31 15 0 46 

Row % 67.4% 32.6% .0% 100% 6–Mar 16 

to Apr 15 

 Column % 9.7% 3.6% .0% 5.8% 

Count 321 416 57 794 

Total Row % 40.4% 52.4% 7.2% 100% 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 
 30 

In Bell Park, 89.1 percent of the stops were made in the first study month, none in the 

second, and 10.9 percent in the third. In the 95th Avenue neighborhood, 43.1 percent of the 

stops were made during the first month, followed by 36.9 percent in the second, and 20 percent 

in the third. The stops made in the Desert Harbor neighborhood were distributed reasonably 

evenly over the three-month period. This was the pattern of enforcement activity that the police 

in Peoria chose to execute. In particular, the intent was to concentrate enforcement in the Bell 

Park area during the first two weeks and then stop when the speed tables were installed on 84th

Avenue. In practice, the installation of the speed tables was delayed. However, the original plan 

for heavy enforcement in Bell Park in the first two weeks was carried out. It was then stopped 

and not started again until near the end of the program in Peoria. 

 Table 3 shows that 794 police stops were made in Phoenix during the six-month period – 

an average of 132 stops per month. The largest percentage of stops in Phoenix took place in the 

Moon Valley/Coral Gables neighborhood (52.4%), followed by the Sweetwater neighborhood 

(40.4%), and the Clarendon neighborhood (7.2%). There was a great deal of variability in 

percentage of stops per month ranging from 37.1 percent for month 4 (January 19 to February 

15) to 4.2 percent for month 3 (the month in which the Christmas/New Year holidays occurred). 

In general, there was a spurt for the first study month followed by two months of gradual decline. 

There was then another spurt in the fourth month followed by another two months of gradual 

decline. 

 With regard to Phoenix neighborhoods, half of the police stops made in the Clarendon 

neighborhood (50.9%) were made in the first study month. Almost one-quarter (22.8%) were 

made in the second study month. No stops were made during the last study month. For 

Sweetwater, the largest percentage of stops were made in month 4 (46.4% for January 19 to 

February 15) followed by 17.1 percent in month 5 (February 16 to March 15). For the Moon 

Valley/Coral Gables neighborhood, the largest percentage of stops were made in month 4 (34.9% 

for January 19 to February 15), followed by month 1 (32.5% for October 23 to November 16). 

5.1.2 Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood 

Included on the police stop form was a question asking how close the driver’s address 

was to the neighborhood in which the driver was stopped. The intent here was to determine how 

many of the speeders lived in (or very near) the neighborhood in which they were stopped. The 

police officer could check one of three categories: “in the neighborhood,” “near the 

neighborhood” (within one mile) or “outside the neighborhood” (more than one mile). The 

results for Peoria are given in Table 4 and those for Phoenix are given in Table 5. 

Table 4 shows that 37.9 percent of the drivers who were stopped in Peoria lived in the 

neighborhood in which they were stopped, and an additional 18.1 percent lived within a mile of 

that neighborhood. Thus, over half (56.0%) of the drivers stopped in Peoria lived in or within a 

mile of the neighborhood in which they were stopped. Forty-four percent of the drivers lived 

more than one mile from the neighborhood in which they were stopped. 

With regard to individual Peoria neighborhoods, 95th Avenue had the largest number of 

stops for residents residing in the neighborhood (52.3%). In fact, 60.8 percent of the drivers 

stopped in the 95th Avenue neighborhood lived in or within one mile of the neighborhood in 

which they were stopped. Comparable data for the Bell Park and Desert Harbor neighborhoods 
 31 

were 52.7 percent and 51.5 percent, respectively, but these neighborhoods had lower proportions 

of in-neighborhood violators and higher percentages of near-neighborhood speeders. 

Table 4. Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood (Peoria) 

Neighborhood Proximity of Driver Address 

to Neighborhood 

95th Avenue 

Desert 

Harbor/91st 

Avenue 

Bell Park/84th 

Avenue Total 

Count 68 21 18 107 

Row % 63.6% 19.6% 16.8% 100% In 

Neighborhood 

Column % 52.3% 21.6% 32.7% 37.9% 

Count 11 29 11 51 

Row % 21.6% 56.9% 21.6% 100% Near 

Neighborhood 

Column % 8.5% 29.9% 20% 18.1% 

Count 51 47 26 124 

Row % 41.1% 37.9% 21% 100% Outside 

Neighborhood 

Column % 39.2% 48.5% 47.3% 44% 

Count 130 97 55 282 

Total Row % 46.1% 34.4% 19.5% 100% 

Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Table 5 shows that 51.4 percent of the drivers stopped in Phoenix lived in the 

neighborhood in which they were stopped, and an additional 12.0 percent lived within one mile 

of the neighborhood. Thus 63.4 percent of the stopped drivers lived in or within one mile of the 

neighborhood in which they were stopped. Only about a third of the drivers (36.6%) lived 

outside the neighborhood. With regard to individual neighborhoods, the Moon Valley/Coral 

Gables neighborhood (57.4%) had the largest percentage of drivers who lived in the 

neighborhood followed by Sweetwater (46.5%) and Clarendon (34.5%). This is not surprising 

since Moon Valley was the largest of the studied neighborhoods, and Clarendon was the 

smallest. For the Moon Valley neighborhood, 67.1 percent of the drivers lived in or within one 

mile of the neighborhood in which they were stopped. These data for the Clarendon and 

Sweetwater neighborhoods were 60 percent and 59.2 percent, respectively. 

5.1.3 Frequency of Travel on Road Stopped 

Tables 6 and 7 compare the proximity of driver address with frequency of travel on the 

road on which the driver was stopped, for Peoria and Phoenix, respectively. Table 6 shows that, 

of those drivers stopped in Peoria who lived “in the neighborhood,” 92.5 percent traveled on the 

road daily and an additional 4.7 percent traveled on the road weekly. Of those who lived within 

a mile of the neighborhood, 70.6 percent traveled on the road daily and an additional 19.6 

percent traveled on the road weekly. Of those who lived “outside the neighborhood,” 21 percent 

traveled on the road daily, and an additional 30.6 percent traveled on the road weekly. In fact, 

75.9 percent of all of the drivers stopped for speeding in Peoria traveled on the road on which 

they were stopped at least once a week. Only 10.3 percent had never used the road before. 

Thus, they were frequent users of the roads on which they were stopped. 
 32 

Table 5. Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood (Phoenix) 

Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood 

Neighborhood 

Sweetwater 

Moon 

Valley/Coral 

Gables Clarendon Total 

Count 147 237 19 403 

In Neighborhood Row % 36.5% 58.8% 4.7% 100% 

Column % 46.5% 57.4% 34.5% 51.4% 

Count 40 40 14 94 

Row % 42.6% 42.6% 14.9% 100% Near 

Neighborhood 

Column % 12.7% 9.7% 25.5% 12% 

Count 129 136 22 287 

Row % 44.9% 47.4% 7.7% 100% Outside 

Neighborhood 

Column % 40.8% 32.9% 40.0% 36.6% 

Count 316 413 55 784 

Total Row % 40.3% 52.7% 7.0% 100% 

Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Table 6. Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood versus Frequency of Driver 

Travel on Road Stopped (Peoria) 

Proximity Frequency of Travel 

 on Road Where 

 Stop Was Made In 

Neighborhood 

Near 

Neighborhood 

Outside 

Neighborhood Total 

Count 99 36 26 161 

Daily Row % 61.5% 22.4% 16.1% 100% 

Column % 92.5% 70.6% 21.0% 57.1% 

Count 5 10 38 53 

Weekly Row % 9.4% 18.9% 71.7% 100% 

Column % 4.7% 19.6% 30.6% 18.8% 

Count 1 2 25 28 

Monthly Row % 3.6% 7.1% 89.3% 100% 

Column % .9% 3.9% 20.2% 9.9% 

Count 0 2 27 29 

Row % 0% 6.9% 93.1% 100% Never 

Before 

Column % 0% 3.9% 21.8% 10.3% 

Count 2 1 8 11 

Other Row % 18.2% 9.1% 72.7% 100% 

Column % 1.9% 2% 6.5% 3.9% 

Count 107 51 124 282 

Total Row % 37.9% 18.1% 44% 100% 

Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Table 7 shows that, of those drivers stopped in Phoenix who lived “in the neighborhood,” 

87 percent traveled on the road daily and an additional 8.2 percent traveled on the road weekly. 

Of those who lived within a mile of the neighborhood, 58.7 percent traveled on the road daily 

and an additional 30.4 percent traveled on the road weekly. Of those who lived “outside the 
 33 

neighborhood,” 12.1 percent traveled on the road daily and an additional 25.9 percent traveled on 

the road weekly. Overall, 73.7 percent of the drivers stopped for speeding in Phoenix traveled 

on the road on which they were stopped at least once a week. Only 13.2 percent had never used 

the road before. Thus, as was true of the stopped Peoria speeders, the stopped Phoenix speeders 

were frequent users of the roads on which they were stopped. 

Table 7. Proximity of Driver Address to Neighborhood versus Frequency of Driver 

Travel on Road Stopped (Phoenix) 

Proximity Frequency of Travel 

on Road Where 

Stop Was Made In 

Neighborhood 

Near 

Neighborhood 

Outside 

Neighborhood Total 

Count 349 54 34 437 

Daily Row % 79.9% 12.4% 7.8% 100% 

Column % 87% 58.7% 12.1% 56.4% 

Count 33 28 73 134 

Weekly Row % 24.6% 20.9% 54.5% 100% 

Column % 8.2% 30.4% 25.9% 17.3% 

Count 7 7 66 80 

Monthly Row % 8.8% 8.8% 82.5% 100% 

Column % 1.7% 7.6% 23.4% 10.3% 

Count 10 3 89 102 

Row % 9.8% 2.9% 87.3% 100% Never 

Before 

Column % 2.5% 3.3% 31.6% 13.2% 

Count 2 0 20 22 

Other Row % 9.1% 0% 90.9% 100% 

Column % .5% 0% 7.1% 2.8% 

Count 401 92 282 775 

Total Row % 51.7% 11.9% 36.4% 100% 

Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 

5.1.4 Time of Stop 

Table 8 shows the times that the special enforcement speeding stops were made in both 

Peoria and Phoenix. The table shows that all Peoria stops were made in two time periods: 6 a.m. 

to 8:59 a.m. (40.8%) and 2 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. (59.2%). These times appear to be selected to cover 

rush hour traffic, and therefore the drivers are likely typical of those who speed during rush 

hours in the three neighborhoods. 

In contrast, the Phoenix police spread their special enforcement activities throughout the 

day (omitting the “graveyard shift” 11 p.m. to 5:59 a.m. time period). The majority of their stops 

(55.5%) were made in the 2 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. time period. However, they also stopped 14.6 

percent of their speeders in the morning rush hour (6 a.m. to 8:59 p.m.) and 25.7 percent of their 

speeders in the period from 9 a.m. to 1:59 p.m. A few stops were also made after 7 p.m. 
 34 

Table 8. Time of Stop (Peoria and Phoenix) 

City Time of Stop 

Phoenix Peoria Total 

Count 113 115 228 

6 a.m. to 8:59 am Row % 49.6% 50.4% 100% 

 Column % 14.6% 40.8% 21.6% 

Count 199 0 199 

9 a.m. to 1:59 pm Row % 100% 0% 100% 

 Column % 25.7% 0% 18.9% 

Count 429 167 596 

2 p.m. to 6:59 pm Row % 72% 28% 100% 

 Column % 55.5% 59.2% 56.5% 

Count 32 0 32 

Row % 100% 0% 100% 7 p.m. to 

10:59 p.m. 

 Column % 4.1% 0% 3% 

Count 773 282 1055 

Total Row % 73.3% 26.7% 100% 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 

Table 9 shows the stops made by Peoria police broken down by time and the three 

neighborhoods under study. It shows that afternoon stops were made more often in the 95th 

Avenue neighborhood (71.5%) and the Bell Park neighborhood (56.4%). Morning stops were 

made more frequently in the Desert Harbor neighborhood (55.7%). 

Table 9. Neighborhood by a.m. or p.m. Stop (Peoria) 

Neighborhood Stop Time 

 

95th Avenue 

Desert 

Harbor/91st 

Avenue 

Bell Park/84th 

Avenue Total 

Count 37 54 24 115 

Row % 32.2% 47% 20.9% 100% a.m. 

 

 Column % 28.5% 55.7% 43.6% 40.8% 

Count 93 43 31 167 

Row % 55.7% 25.7% 18.6% 100% p.m. 

 

 Column % 71.5% 44.3% 56.4% 59.2% 

Count 130 97 55 282 

Row % 46.1% 34.4% 19.5% 100% Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Similar data for Phoenix are shown in Table 10. That table shows that most stops 

(71.1%) were made after the noon hour. This was true for all Phoenix neighborhoods, 

particularly the Clarendon neighborhood where 89.1 percent of the stops were made after the 

noon hour and Moon Valley/Coral Gables where 79.9 percent of the stops were made after the 

noon hour. 
 35 

Table 10. Neighborhood by a.m. or p.m. Stop (Phoenix) 

Neighborhood 

Stop Time 

Sweetwater 

Moon 

Valley/Coral 

Gables Clarendon Total 

Count 136 81 6 223 

a.m. Row % 61% 36.3% 2.7% 100% 

 Column % 43.3% 20.1% 10.9% 28.9% 

Count 178 322 49 549 

p.m. Row % 32.4% 58.7% 8.9% 100% 

 Column % 56.7% 79.9% 89.1% 71.1% 

Count 314 403 55 772 

Total Row % 40.7% 52.2% 7.1% 100% 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 

5.1.5 Driver Age and Gender 

The next results address the demographics of the stopped drivers. These are presented 

simply to describe the stopped individuals rather than to suggest any overrepresentation since the 

underlying populations of all drivers on the road at the time of the stops is not known. Table 11 

gives the gender of the Peoria drivers stopped for speeding as a function of their ages. Similar 

data for Phoenix are shown in Table 12. In terms of gender, Table 11 shows that the total Peoria 

sample of drivers stopped for speeding included more females (53.4%) than males (46.6%). In 

terms of age, the largest sample consisted of individuals who were in the range of 25 to 39 years 

(37.6%). This age range was followed by those who were 40 to 64 years old (33.7%), those who 

were under 25 (20.8%), and those who were 65 or older (7.9%). Males under 25 (27.7%) were 

stopped more often than females (14.8%) in the same age group, and females in the age range of 

25 to 39 (42.3%) were stopped more often than males (32.3%) in that age group. For other age 

categories, the proportion of males and females was approximately the same. 

Table 12 shows that the Phoenix sample of speeding drivers also included slightly more 

females (52.4%) than males (47.6%). In terms of age, the largest Phoenix sample consisted of 

individuals in the range of 40 to 64 (42.6%). It was followed by those who were 25 to 39 

(33.8%), those who were under 25 (19%), and those who are 65 and older (4.6%). Males under 

25 years of age (23.3%) were stopped more often than females (15.1%) in the same age group, 

and females in both age groups 25 to 39 and 40 to 64 were stopped more often than males in 

those age groups. 

The mean age and age range of the stopped drivers from the two cities were similar. The 

mean age for Peoria drivers was 39 and the ages ranged from 16 to 82. The mean age for 

Phoenix drivers was 39.1 and the ages ranged from 15 to 85. 
 36 

Table 11. Age Range and Gender of Drivers Stopped (Peoria) 

Gender 

Age Range 

 Male Female Total 

Count 36 22 58 

Row % 62.1% 37.9% 100% < 25 

 

 Column % 27.7% 14.8% 20.8% 

Count 42 63 105 

Row % 40% 60% 100% 25 - 39 

 

 Column % 32.3% 42.3% 37.6% 

Count 41 53 94 

Row % 43.6% 56.4% 100% 40 - 64 

 

 Column % 31.5% 35.6% 33.7% 

Count 11 11 22 

Row % 50% 50% 100% 65+ 

 

 Column % 8.5% 7.4% 7.9% 

Count 130 149 279 

Row % 46.6% 53.4% 100% Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 

Table 12. Age Range and Gender of Drivers Stopped (Phoenix)

Gender Age Range 

Male Female Total 

Count 87 62 149 

Row % 58.4% 41.6% 100% 

< 25 

 

 Column % 23.3% 15.1% 19% 

Count 113 152 265 

Row % 42.6% 57.4% 100% 

25 - 39 

 

 Column % 30.3% 37% 33.8% 

Count 152 182 334 

Row % 45.5% 54.5% 100% 

40 - 64 

 

 Column % 40.8% 44.3% 42.6% 

Count 21 15 36 

Row % 58.3% 41.7% 100% 

65+ 

 

 Column % 5.6% 3.6% 4.6% 

Count 373 411 784 

Row % 47.6% 52.4% 100% 

Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 

5.1.6 Safety Belt Use 

Table 13 shows whether or not the drivers stopped in Peoria were wearing safety belts as 

a function of their gender. Similar data for Phoenix drivers are shown in Table 14. Arizona has 

only a secondary safety belt law but has shown extremely high safety belt use rates in national 

surveys. The measured Arizona safety belt use rates for 2002 and 2003, respectively, were 73.7 

percent and 86.2 percent (NHTSA, 2004). 
 37 

 Overall, Table 13 shows that 84.6 percent of the drivers stopped for speeding in Peoria 

were belted. By gender, the table shows that 93.3 percent of the stopped females were belted in 

contrast to only 74.8 percent of the stopped males. 

Table 14 shows that the belt use data for Phoenix are similar to those for Peoria. Overall, 

85.1 percent of the drivers stopped for speeding in Phoenix were belted. However, the difference 

in belt use between males and females was not as pronounced as it was in Peoria. A smaller 

proportion of females (88.8%) were belted in Phoenix than in Peoria. Also, a larger proportion 

of males (80.9%) were belted in Phoenix than in Peoria. Across both cities, it is noteworthy that 

belt use appears unusually high for a population of drivers caught speeding. Perhaps drivers – 

even those who are speeding – in the residential neighborhood settings studied in this project are 

simply conscientious safety belt users. 

Table 13. Driver Safety Belt Use versus Gender (Peoria) 

Gender Was Driver Belted? 

Male Female Total 

Count 98 139 237 

Yes Row % 41.4% 58.6% 100% 

 Column % 74.8% 93.3% 84.6% 

Count 33 10 43 

Row % 76.7% 23.3% 100% No 

 

 Column % 25.2% 6.7% 15.4% 

Count 131 149 280 

Row % 46.8% 53.2% 100% Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 

Table 14. Driver Safety Belt Use versus Gender (Phoenix) 

Gender Was Driver Belted?

Male Female Total 

Count 301 365 666 

Row % 45.2% 54.8% 100% 

Yes 

 

 Column % 80.9% 88.8% 85.1% 

Count 71 46 117 

Row % 60.7% 39.3% 100% 

No 

 

 Column % 19.1% 11.2% 14.9% 

Count 372 411 783 

Row % 47.5% 52.5% 100% 

Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 

Table 15 shows driver safety belt use by age and gender for Peoria stopped drivers. 

Similar data for Phoenix stopped drivers are shown in Table 16. 

Table 15 shows that 25 percent of stopped males in Peoria who were under age 25 were 

unbelted in contrast to 9.1 percent of the females. For stopped drivers between 25 and 39 years 

of age, 32.5 percent of males were unbelted in contrast to 9.5 percent of females. For stopped 
 38 

drivers between 40 and 64 years of age, 19.5 percent of males were unbelted in contrast to 1.9 

percent of the females. Finally, for stopped drivers who are 65 years of age and older, 9.1 

percent of both males and females were unbelted. 

 It is interesting that the largest nonuse of safety belts among males was observed for the 

25 to 39 age range followed by the under 25 age group. Use of safety belts by males increased at 

age 40 and above. For females, nonuse of belts was reasonably constant at around 9 percent, 

except for the age range of 40 to 64 where it dropped to 1.9 percent. However, the number of 

unbelted females was extremely small in each age range (ranging from one to six). 

Table 15. Driver Safety Belt Use versus Gender and Age Range (Peoria) 

Gender 

Age Range Male Female Total 

Belted Not Belted Belted Not Belted Belted Not Belted 

Count 27 9 20 2 47 11 

Row % 75% 25% 90.9% 9.1% 81% 19% < 25 

 

 Column % 27.8% 29% 14.4% 20% 19.9% 26.8% 

Count 27 13 57 6 84 19 

Row % 67.5% 32.5% 90.5% 9.5% 81.6% 18.4% 25 - 39 

 

 Column % 27.8% 41.9% 41% 60% 35.6% 46.3% 

Count 33 8 52 1 85 9 

Row % 80.5% 19.5% 98.1% 1.9% 90.4% 9.6% 40 - 64 

 

 Column % 34% 25.8% 37.4% 10% 36% 22% 

Count 10 1 10 1 20 2 

Row % 90.9% 9.1% 90.9% 9.1% 90.9% 9.1% 65+ 

 

 Column % 10.3% 3.2% 7.2% 10% 8.5% 4.9% 

Table 16 shows that 21.8 percent of the stopped Phoenix males under 25 were unbelted in 

contrast to 30.6 percent of the females. For males between 25 and 39 years of age, 23 percent 

were unbelted in comparison to 10 percent of the females. Belt use increased for males aged 40 

and above as it did for females. There were no unbelted females aged 65 and above. As was the 

case with Peoria speeders, the number of unbelted females in each age range category was small. 

5.1.7 Vehicle Occupants 

 The number of people (including the driver) in the speeders’ vehicles is shown in 

Table 17. Data in this table are combined for both Peoria and Phoenix. As might be expected 

(since many of the stops were made during rush hours), the majority of vehicles stopped in both 

cities contained a driver only (73% for Phoenix and 70.1% for Peoria). There was a driver only 

or a driver with one passenger in 90.2 percent of the vehicles. The maximum number of 

occupants in any one vehicle was six. 
 39 

Table 16. Driver Safety Belt Use versus Gender and Age Range (Phoenix) 

Gender 

Age Range Male Female Total 

Belted Not Belted Belted Not Belted Belted Not Belted 

Count 68 19 43 19 111 38 

< 25 Row % 78.2% 21.8% 69.4% 30.6% 74.5% 25.5% 

Column % 22.7% 27.5% 11.9% 41.3% 16.8% 33% 

Count 87 26 135 15 222 41 

25 - 39 Row % 77% 23% 90% 10% 84.4% 15.6% 

Column % 29% 37.7% 37.3% 32.6% 33.5% 35.7% 

Count 128 20 169 12 297 32 

40 - 64 Row % 86.5% 13.5% 93.4% 6.6% 90.3% 9.7% 

Column % 42.7% 29% 46.7% 26.1% 44.9% 27.8% 

Count 17 4 15 0 32 4 

65+ Row % 81% 19% 100% 0% 88.9% 11.1% 

Column % 5.7% 5.8% 4.1% 0% 4.8% 3.5% 

Table 17. Number of People in the Stopped Vehicles (Peoria and Phoenix) 

City Number of People in 

Vehicle Phoenix Peoria Total 

Count 574 197 771 

1 Row % 74.4% 25.6% 100% 

 Column % 73% 70.1% 72.3% 

Count 136 55 191 

2 Row % 71.2% 28.8% 100% 

 Column % 17.3% 19.6% 17.9% 

Count 45 14 59 

3 Row % 76.3% 23.7% 100% 

 Column % 5.7% 5% 5.5% 

Count 24 13 37 

4 Row % 64.9% 35.1% 100% 

 Column % 3.1% 4.6% 3.5% 

Count 5 1 6 

5 Row % 83.3% 16.7% 100% 

 Column % .6% .4% .6% 

Count 2 1 3 

6 Row % 66.7% 33.3% 100% 

 Column % .3% .4% .3% 

Count 786 281 1067 

Total Row % 73.7% 26.3% 100% 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 
 40 

5.1.8 Vehicle Type and Model Year 

Table 18 shows that just over half (53.5%) of the stopped vehicles in the two cities 

combined were cars. This was true for both Peoria (53.4%) and Phoenix (53.5%). The next 

largest categories consisted of SUVs (17.9%), pickup trucks (17.4%), and minivans (8.5%). The 

data for Peoria and Phoenix were similar except that the second most-used vehicle in Peoria was 

the pickup truck (24.4% versus14.9% in Phoenix). The third most-used vehicle in Peoria was the 

SUV (11.3% versus 20.3% for Phoenix). 

 The vehicle model years ranged from 1966 to 2003. A grouping by vehicle model year is 

presented in Table 19. That table shows that the model year of 92.8 percent of the vehicles was 

1990 or newer, and the model year of 41.2 percent of the vehicles was 2000 or newer. The data 

were similar for both cities. 

Table 18. Vehicle Type (Phoenix and Peoria) 

City Vehicle type 

Phoenix Peoria Total 

Count 425 151 576 

Car Row % 73.8% 26.2% 100% 

Column % 53.5% 53.4% 53.5% 

Count 68 24 92 

Minivan Row % 73.9% 26.1% 100% 

Column % 8.6% 8.5% 8.5% 

Count 161 32 193 

SUV Row % 83.4% 16.6% 100% 

Column % 20.3% 11.3% 17.9% 

Count 118 69 187 

Pickup Row % 63.1% 36.9% 100% 

Column % 14.9% 24.4% 17.4% 

Count 7 0 7 

Other truck Row % 100% 0% 100% 

Column % .9% 0% .6% 

Count 5 2 7 

Motorcycle Row % 71.4% 28.6% 100% 

Column % .6% .7% .6% 

Count 10 5 15 

Other Row % 66.7% 33.3% 100% 

Column % 1.3% 1.8% 1.4% 

Count 794 283 1,077 

Total Row % 73.7% 26.3% 100% 

Column % 100% 100% 100% 
 41 

Table 19. Vehicle Model Year (Peoria and Phoenix) 

City Model Year 

Phoenix Peoria Total 

Count 13 6 19 

Row % 68.4% 31.6% 100% 

< 1980 

 

 Column % 1.6% 2.1% 1.8% 

Count 39 19 58 

Row % 67.2% 32.8% 100% 

1980 - 1989 

 

 Column % 4.9% 6.7% 5.4% 

Count 412 142 554 

Row % 74.4% 25.6% 100% 

1990 - 1999 

 

 Column % 52.2% 50.2% 51.6% 

Count 326 116 442 

Row % 73.8% 26.2% 100% 

2000 - 2003 

 

 Column % 41.3% 41% 41.2% 

Count 790 283 1073 

Row % 73.6% 26.4% 100% 

Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 

5.1.9 Officer’s Action 

 Finally, each officer was asked to indicate the action taken as a result of the stop. 

Specifically, the officer was asked to indicate if a ticket was issued, if the ticket facsimile that 

contained literature on the dangers of speeding was given to the driver, or if both a ticket and the 

literature were given. Officers from the two cities handled the question somewhat differently. 

The results are given in Table 20. 

 

Table 20 shows that officers in Peoria ticketed 5 percent of the stopped speeders – 3.2 

percent of all those stopped received a ticket only, and 1.8 percent received both a ticket and the 

project speeding literature (the ticket facsimile). No request was made on the police stop form 

for the officer to indicate the type of ticket issued. Since the stop was made for a speeding 

offense, it was assumed that any ticket issued was also for a speeding offense. 

 In all, 96.8 percent of the stopped Peoria speeders received the project literature. As 

indicated previously, the primary intent of this activity was to have the police officer provide 

information on the dangers of speeding – at least initially. Peoria officers issued tickets only in 

exceptional cases when the driver was unusually flagrant in disobeying the law. 

The officers in Phoenix used a more traditional method of ticketing. In addition, several 

officers included on the form not only tickets issued for speeding but also tickets issued for other 

offenses. The “other” category in Table 20 includes all of these “other” ticketing situations (i.e., 

those that did not involve speeding). These other offenses included license irregularities, lack of 

safety belts, etc. As in Peoria, if no specific offense was listed, speeding was assumed since that 

was the focus of the study. The following listing provides a summary of all known ticketing by 

the Phoenix police during their special enforcement program: 
 42 

Ticket Type Count % of Total Police Actions 

Speeding 460 59.1% 

Speeding warning 10 1.3% 

Insurance 29 3.7% 

Safety belt 28 3.6% 

License 18 2.3% 

Stop sign 2 0.2% 

Registration 2 0.2% 

Drugs 1 0.1% 

In addition, 342 individuals (43.9% of the drivers stopped in Phoenix) were given project 

literature. Of the Phoenix drivers who were stopped, 298 (38.3%) received literature alone. 

Table 20. Officer’s Action (Peoria and Phoenix)

City Officer's Action 

Phoenix Peoria Total 

Count 384 9 393 

Row % 97.7% 2.3% 100% Gave Ticket (Speed) 

Only 

 Column % 49.3% 3.2% 37.1% 

Count 298 265 563 

Row % 52.9% 47.1% 100% Gave Literature Only 

 

 Column % 38.3% 95% 53.2% 

Count 24 5 29 

Row % 82.8% 17.2% 100% Gave Ticket (Speed) 

and Literature 

 Column % 3.1% 1.8% 2.7% 

Count 47 0 47 

Row % 100% 0% 100% Gave Tickets (Speed 

and Other) 

 Column % 6.0% 0% 4.4% 

Count 5 0 5 

Row % 100% 0% 100% 

Gave Tickets (Speed 

and Other) and 

Literature Column % .6% 0% .5% 

Count 8 0 8 

Row % 100% 0% 100% Gave Warning 

(Speed) and 

Literature 

 Column % 1% 0% .8% 

Count 2 0 2 

Row % 100% 0% 100% 

Gave Warning 

(Speed), Ticket 

(Other), and 

Literature Column % .3% 0% .2% 

Count 6 0 6 

Row % 100.0% .0% 100.0% Gave Ticket (Other) 

 

 Column % .8% .0% .6% 

Count 5 0 5 

Row % 100% 0% 100% Gave Ticket (Other) 

and Literature 

 Column % .6% 0% .5% 

Count 779 279 1,058 

Total Row % 73.6% 26.4% 100% 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 
 43 

 

5.1.10 Extent of Speed Violation 

 Although there was no space allocated on the police stop form for recording the speed 

that prompted the stop6

, some officers wrote one or more of the following items of information 

on the form – posted speed, actual speed or amount the vehicle was moving over the posted 

speed. In Phoenix, 552 forms (69.5%) contained data that indicated the amount that vehicles 

were traveling over posted speeds. The data for those 552 forms are shown in Table 21. 

Table 21 shows that vehicles stopped in Phoenix for which the police wrote in data 

exceeded posted speeds by a range of 6 to 31 miles. In 88% of the cases, the vehicles exceeded 

the posted speeds by 10 mph or more. The roads on which these vehicles were traveling had 

speed limits of either 25 or 30 mph. 

Table 21. Amounts That Stopped Vehicles Traveled Over Posted Speeds (Phoenix) 

Speed Over 

Posted Speed 

(mph) Count Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

 6 1 .2% .2% 

 7 11 2% 2.2% 

 8 27 4.9% 7.1% 

 9 27 4.9% 12% 

 10 65 11.8% 23.7% 

 11 93 16.8% 40.6% 

 12 81 14.7% 55.3% 

 13 76 13.8% 69% 

 14 46 8.3% 77.4% 

 15 34 6.2% 83.5% 

 16 22 4% 87.5% 

 17 15 2.7% 90.2% 

 18 18 3.3% 93.5% 

 19 13 2.4% 95.8% 

 20 6 1.1% 96.9% 

 21 3 .5% 97.5% 

 22 4 .7% 98.2% 

 23 3 .5% 98.7% 

 24 4 .7% 99.5% 

 30 1 .2% 99.6% 

 31 2 .4% 100% 

 Total 552 100% 

 

6

 In retrospect, this was probably a poor decision on the part of this project. It was assumed that the police would 

not want to publicize their decision-making and so no data category was included. As data collection progressed, it 

became clear that the participating police would have been willing to record the information. At that point, the 

Phoenix police participants agreed to ask all involved officers to write in the information. 
 44 

The Phoenix data on extent of speed violation were not obtained from all neighborhoods. 

No speed data were available for any stops made in the Clarendon neighborhood. This is not 

surprising since, as will be discussed later, prevailing speeds on Clarendon were quite low 

because of the speed humps that had been installed prior to the commencement of this study. 

Even the higher speeds between the humps were not sufficient to prompt the officers to make a 

note. In terms of the other neighborhoods, 58.7 percent of the speed data came from stops made 

in the Moon Valley/Coral Gables neighborhood, and 41.3 percent came from stops made in the 

Sweetwater neighborhood. 

Only 38 of the police stop Peoria forms (13.4% of the sample) contained speed data. The 

data came primarily from the Bell Park neighborhood and showed actual speeds over the posted 

limit ranging from 7 mph to 18 mph. 

5.1.11 Summary of Police Stop Data 

 Tables 22 and 23 summarize the information obtained from the police stop form. Table 

22 provides information on data collection. Table 23 provides a profile of individuals stopped 

for speeding during the Heed the Speed program in Peoria and Phoenix. 

Table 22. Summary of Police Stop Form Data Collection (Peoria and Phoenix) 

Activity/Information Peoria Phoenix 

Duration of Data Collection 3 months 6 months 

Forms Completed 283 794 

Stops Made per Month Month 1 - 47.3% 

Month 2 - 28.6% 

Month 3 - 24% 

Month 1 - 23.6% Month 4 – 37.1% 

Month 2 – 14% Month 5 - 15.4% 

Month 3 – 4.2% Month 6 - 5.8% 

Unusual Stop Coverage 89.1% of Bell Park stops were made 

in the first month 

None 

Time of Stops Rush hour All day 

Stops Made per 

Neighborhood 

95th Avenue - 45.9% 

Desert Harbor - 34.6% 

Bell Park - 19.4% 

Moon Valley - 52.4% 

Sweetwater - 40.4% 

Clarendon - 7.2% 

Speed Data Forms for 13.4% of the stops included 

speed data 

Forms for 69.5% of the stops included 

speed data 
 45 

Table 23. Profile of Stopped Peoria and Phoenix Speeders 

Characteristic Peoria Phoenix 

Percent Living in Neighborhood 

Where Stopped 

95th Avenue - 52.3% 

Bell Park - 32.7% 

Desert Harbor - 21.6% 

All Peoria speeders - 37.9% 

Moon Valley - 57.4% 

Sweetwater - 46.5% 

Clarendon - 34.5% 

All Phoenix speeders - 51.4% 

Percent Living in or Near 

Neighborhood Where Stopped 

95th Avenue - 60.8% 

Bell Park - 52.7% 

Desert Harbor - 51.5% 

All Peoria speeders - 56% 

Moon Valley - 67.1% 

Sweetwater - 59.2% 

Clarendon - 60% 

All Phoenix speeders - 63.4% 

Percent Traveling on Road Where 

Stopped at Least Once Per Week 

Live in neighborhood - 7.2% 

Live near neighborhood - 90.2% 

Live outside neighborhood - 51.6% 

All Peoria speeders - 75.9% 

Live in neighborhood - 95.2% 

Live near neighborhood - 89.1% 

Live outside neighborhood - 38% 

All Phoenix speeders - 73.7% 

Driver Age Range Males - 16 to 82 

Females - 16 to 75 

Males - 15 to 78 

Females - 16 to 87 

Driver Average Age Males - 38 

Females - 39.7 

Males - 38.6 

Females - 39.6 

Percent of Drivers Belted Males - 74.8% 

Females - 93.3% 

Males - 80.9% 

Females - 88.8% 

Percent of Drivers < 25 Years of Age 

Belted 

Males - 75% 

Females - 90.9% 

Males - 78.2% 

Females - 69.4% 

Number of Vehicle Occupants 1 to 6 (including driver) 1 to 6 (including driver) 

Percent of Drivers Traveling Alone 70.1% 73% 

Vehicle Type Driven Car - 53.4% 

Pickup - 24.4% 

SUV - 11.3% 

Minivan - 8.5% 

Car - 53.3% 

SUV - 20.3% 

Pickup - 14.9% 

Minivan - 8.6% 

Vehicle Model Year 2000 - 2003 - 41% 

1990 - 1999 - 50.2% 

2000 - 2003 - 41.3% 

1990 - 1999 - 52.2% 

Officer’s Action Gave Speeding Ticket - 3.2% 

Gave Literature - 95% 

Gave Both - 1.8% 

Other - 0% 

Gave Speeding Ticket - 49.3% 

Gave Literature - 38.3% 

Gave Both - 3.1% 

Other - 1% 

Range of Speed Over Posted Speed Insufficient Data Available 6 to 31 mph 

Percent of Speed Over Posted Speed Insufficient Data Available 6 - 9 mph - 12% 

10 - 14 mph - 65.4% 

15 - 19 mph - 18.6% 

20 - 24 mph - 3.5% 

25 - 29 mph - 0% 

30 - 31 mph - 0.6% 
 46 

5.2 Knowledge and Exposure Survey 

 Both the Phoenix Street Transportation Department and the City of Peoria Engineering 

Department sponsored a mail survey to assess awareness of the program by residents of each of 

the study neighborhoods. Specifically, answers were sought to the following research questions: 

• What program activities did the residents notice? 

• What activities were noticed most? 

• Did they notice a change in vehicle speeds in their neighborhoods compared to six 

months ago? 

• Who noticed the activities or changes in vehicle speeds? 

5.2.1 Survey Methodology 

The identical one-page survey was mailed to all residents of the six study neighborhoods 

in two waves – pre-program and follow-on. The survey was printed on the back of a letter from 

a city official requesting cooperation (see Appendix D). A reply envelope with a postage stamp 

was included. 

The survey sample was drawn from the available city mailing lists. Approximately 500 

households were selected in each neighborhood by choosing the addresses closest to the test 

segment roads.7 Thus, for example, households in the Bell Park neighborhood of Peoria were 

selected along the 84th Avenue test segment first. Then, if needed, additional households closest 

to the test segments were added until the sample needs were fulfilled. The available databases 

only contained addresses, not the names of the owners or tenants. Thus, the envelopes with the 

questionnaires were addressed to “Resident.” The return envelope was addressed by name to the 

city official signing the letter. 

One month prior to the start of program activities, the pre-program survey was sent to 

half of the residents in each of the Peoria and Phoenix neighborhoods. This was accomplished 

by selecting every other label on the sheets of labels containing the names for each 

neighborhood. For Peoria, the follow-on survey was sent to the remaining residents of each of 

its neighborhoods in the week following the completion of program activities in that city. 

Therefore, for Peoria, the time span that the residents had for observing program activities was 

three months. For Phoenix, the follow-on survey was mailed to the remaining sample of 

residents of each of its neighborhoods four months after the program started in that city. The 

differential timing was occasioned by the delay in the implementation of roadway treatments in 

Phoenix. The extra month ensured that all planned roadway treatments were in place. The 

special enforcement program in Phoenix continued for almost an additional two months after 

mailing of the follow-on survey. Therefore the follow-on survey was actually sent out while the 

program in Phoenix was still in process. 

 

7

 As of July 1, 2004, there were slightly over 500,000 households in Phoenix and approximately 40,000 in Peoria. 
 47 

5.2.2 Survey Response Characteristics 

 Overall, 60.9 percent of the mailed surveys that were delivered as addressed were 

completed and returned. A slightly higher percentage of follow-on surveys (62.7%) were 

returned than of pre-program surveys (59.1%). Approximately the same proportion of returns 

was received from Phoenix (61.9%) as from Peoria (60.1%). Table 24 shows the number of 

returns for both waves and both cities as well as the percentage of delivered survey forms that 

were completed and returned. 

Table 24. Survey Returns as a Percentage of Surveys Delivered (All Neighborhoods) 

Survey wave Sent/Received Phoenix Peoria Total 

Surveys Sent 686 783 1469 

Pre-Program Surveys Received 413 455 868 

Percent Received 60.2% 58.1% 59.1% 

Surveys Sent 733 779 1512 

Surveys Received 465 483 948 Follow-On 

Percent Received 63.4% 62% 62.7% 

Surveys Sent 1419 1562 2981 

Total Surveys Received 878 938 1816 

Percent Received 61.9% 60.1% 60.9% 

Of the first wave of survey returns, 96 (50 from Phoenix and 46 from Peoria) were 

received after the publicity and enforcement programs had started in the two cities. They were 

separated from the pre-program returns and identified in the database as “late returns” in order to 

be able to examine this small group of returns for possible changes in exposure to program 

activities. 

The resultant study samples by survey wave are shown in Table 25. This table shows a 

remarkable consistency in returns for each wave for each city, that is, pre-program returns were 

41.3 percent of returns in Phoenix and 43.6 percent in Peoria, late returns were 5.7 percent of the 

returns in Phoenix and 4.9 percent in Peoria, and follow-on returns were 53 percent of returns in 

Phoenix and 51.5 percent of returns in Peoria. 

The survey form used in both cities is shown in Appendix D. It consisted of eight 

questions that asked the following of neighborhood residents: 

1. Are you aware of any recent activities to control speeds in your neighborhood? 

2. Did any of these activities include any publicity? If yes, what publicity? 

3. Were the police involved in any of these activities? If yes, what activities? 

4. Did any of these activities include any physical changes to the road or the physical 

environment? If yes, what changes? 

5. Compared to 6 months ago, how would you rate the speeds in your neighborhood – much 

slower, a bit slower, the same, a bit faster, much faster? 

6. How long have you lived in your current neighborhood – less than 1 year, 1 to 5 years, 

more than 5 years? 

7. What is your age? 

8. What is your gender? 
 48 

Table 25. Survey Returns From Each City by Wave (All Neighborhoods Combined) 

City Survey Wave 

Phoenix Peoria Total 

Count 363 409 772 

Pre-Program Row % 47% 53% 100% 

Column % 41.3% 43.6% 42.5% 

Count 50 46 96 

Late Return Row % 52.1% 47.9% 100% 

Column % 5.7% 4.9% 5.3% 

Count 465 483 948 

Follow-On Row % 49.1% 50.9% 100% 

Column % 53% 51.5% 52.2% 

Count 878 938 1816 

Total Row % 48.3% 51.7% 100% 

Column % 100% 100% 100% 

Thus, the survey provided information on the following: 

• Awareness of activities to control speeds in the six neighborhoods 

• Specific awareness of: 

- Publicity activities 

- Police activities 

- Roadway treatments 

• Perceived changes in vehicle speeds in the neighborhoods 

• Description of the responders 

- Time lived in the neighborhood 

- Age 

- Gender 

A database was created that documented the answers of each survey respondent. Each 

publicity/police/roadway event or activity that was specified by the respondent was post-coded to 

indicate whether the activity was perceived to be “definitely program-related,” “probably 

program-related,” or “not program-related (or program relation was unknown).” Assignment of 

these codes and the resulting analysis were therefore conservative because they were based on 

unaided recall of the Heed the Speed program and a high threshold for assuming a program 

relationship when post coding. As an example, comments that the respondent had seen police 

ticketing or general mentions of hearing messages were coded as “probably program-related,” 

although it is likely that most of the police enforcement and media efforts during the program 

period were program-related. Likewise, a mention of 3-D paint on the road or yellow signs was 

judged to be “definitely program related.” 

Two additional subjective post codes were entered in the database. One provided an 

indication of whether or not the respondent had referred to the Heed the Speed program by name. 
 49 

For the second, each respondent was assigned one of three codes depending on whether the 

survey form as a whole indicated that the respondent had definitely been exposed to the program, 

had probably been exposed to the program or had not been exposed to the program. 

An initial examination was made of the returns to determine if the late returns should be 

maintained as a separate file, combined with the pre-program or follow-on returns, or eliminated 

from the analysis. For this examination, responses to two survey questions were explored – 

respondent awareness of speed control activities and exposure to the Heed the Speed program. 

 

The first survey question asked respondents if they were aware of any recent activities to 

control speeds in their neighborhoods. The responses for both cities are given in Table 26, which 

shows significant differences between survey waves for both cities. 

In both Phoenix and Peoria, the table shows a significant increase in awareness of 

activities from pre-program data to late returns to follow-on data. It is interesting to note that 

approximately two-fifths of the respondents in both cities reported being aware of activities to 

control speeds in their neighborhoods before the program started. In Phoenix, 44.1 percent of the 

pre-program returns indicated awareness of activities, 74 percent of late returns, and 84.5 percent 

of follow-on returns. In Peoria, these data were 41.6 percent, 58.7 percent, and 82 percent, 

respectively. The data for late returns likely indicate a building exposure to program activities in 

the two cities. 

Table 26. Awareness of Activities to Control Speeds in Neighborhoods 

by Study Wave and City (Phoenix and Peoria) 

Phoenix* Peoria** Awareness of 

Activities to Control 

Speeds PreProgram 

Late 

Return Follow-On 

PreProgram Late 

Return Follow-On 

Count 160 37 393 170 27 395 

Yes Row % 27.1% 6.3% 66.6% 28.7% 4.6% 66.7% 

 Column % 44.1% 74% 84.5% 41.6% 58.7% 82% 

Count 203 13 72 239 19 87 

No Row % 70.5% 4.5% 25% 69.3% 5.5% 25.2% 

 Column % 55.9% 26% 15.5% 58.4% 41.3% 18% 

Count 363 50 465 409 46 482 

Total Row % 41.3% 5.7% 53% 43.6% 4.9% 51.4% 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 *Phoenix chi square significance = .000 

**Peoria chi square significance = .000

Table 27 shows whether or not the respondent was judged to have been exposed to the 

Heed the Speed program. The table shows that only one of the pre-program respondents had 

probably been exposed to the program. However, 22 percent of the respondents who sent in late 

returns from Phoenix had probably or definitely been exposed to the program as had 19.6 percent 

of the late returns from Peoria. These data, though small in number, appear to indicate that 

awareness of the program was already present in the late return data. By the time of the followon survey, 69.5 percent of the Phoenix residents had probably or definitely been exposed to the 

program as had 70.8 percent of the Peoria respondents. 
 50 

Table 27. Respondent Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program (Phoenix and Peoria) 

Phoenix* Peoria** Was Respondent 

Exposed to the 

Heed the Speed

Program? Preprogram Late return Follow-on 

Preprogram Late return Follow-on 

Count 0 5 261 0 4 210 

Row % 0% 1.9% 98.1% 0% 1.9% 98.1% Yes, 

Definitely 

 Column % 0% 10% 57.2% 0% 8.7% 43.5% 

Count 1 6 56 0 5 132 

Row % 1.6% 9.5% 88.9% 0% 3.6% 96.4% Yes, 

Probably 

 Column % .3% 12% 12.3% 0% 10.9% 27.3% 

Count 362 39 139 409 37 141 

Row % 66.9% 7.2% 25.7% 69.7% 6.3% 24% No 

 

 Column % 99.7% 78% 30.5% 100% 80.4% 29.2% 

Count 363 50 456*** 409 46 483 

Row % 41.8% 5.8% 52.5% 43.6% 4.9% 51.5% Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 *Phoenix chi square significance = .000 

**Peoria chi square significance = .000 

***Nine follow-on period surveys in Phoenix had insufficient information to determine program exposure and were therefore 

deleted from the original sample of 465.

As indicated previously, the number of late returns was quite small. The foregoing 

tables, however, suggest that the late returns were somewhat different from both the pre-program 

and program samples. Since there was an insufficient number of late program returns to support 

analyses of meaningful subsets (e.g., gender, neighborhood) and it was inappropriate to combine 

them with either the pre-program or program data, they were omitted from further analyses. 

Subsequent tables therefore include only pre-program and follow-on data. 

 The information obtained from the surveys is presented in the following paragraphs. 

Unless otherwise noted, when no data were provided for a given item, the record for that item 

has been excluded from the summary tables. Significant associations were tested for selected 

survey results by means of the chi-square test. Differences reaching the 0.05 level of 

significance or less are noted. 

5.2.3 Respondent Description 

 Three questions on the survey form provided descriptive information on the respondents. 

One question asked how long they had lived in the neighborhood, another asked their age, and a 

third inquired about their gender. 

The length of time respondents lived in their current neighborhoods is given in Table 28. 

The table shows that approximately 72 percent of both the pre-program and follow-on Phoenix 

respondents have lived in their neighborhoods for over five years. For Peoria, more than 50 

percent have lived in their neighborhoods more than five years. Very few in both cities have 

lived in their neighborhoods one year or less. There are no meaningful differences between preand follow-on respondents as would be expected since the survey waves were only months apart. 
 51 

Table 28. How Long Respondents Have Lived in Their Current Neighborhoods 

(Phoenix and Peoria) 

Phoenix Peoria How Long Have You 

Lived in Your Current 

Neighborhood? PreProgram Follow-On 

PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 13 23 30 40 

Row % 36.1% 63.9% 42.9% 57.1% Less Than 1 

Year 

Column % 3.6% 4.9% 7.4% 8.3% 

Count 87 103 150 186 

1 to 5 Years Row % 45.8% 54.2% 44.6% 55.4% 

Column % 24% 22.2% 36.9% 38.5% 

Count 263 339 226 257 

Row % 43.7% 56.3% 46.8% 53.2% More Than 

5 Years 

Column % 72.5% 72.9% 55.7% 53.2% 

The length of time respondents of each Peoria neighborhood reported living in their 

neighborhoods is given in Table 29. The table shows that respondents from 95th Avenue (where 

approximately one-third have lived in their neighborhoods more than five years) have not lived 

in their neighborhoods as long as have those from Desert Harbor and Bell Park (where close to 

two-thirds have lived in their neighborhoods more than five years). Fewer than 10 percent of the 

respondents from all neighborhoods have lived in their neighborhoods less than one year. There 

are essentially no differences between pre-program and follow-on respondents. 

Similar data for Phoenix neighborhoods are given in Table 30 which shows a more 

uniform pattern. Almost three-quarters of respondents, regardless of neighborhood, have lived in 

their neighborhoods more than five years. Again, fewer than 10 percent of the respondents from 

all neighborhoods have lived in their neighborhoods less than one year. There are no notable 

differences between pre- and follow-on respondents. 

 The age range of respondents from the two cities is shown in Table 31. The table shows 

that nearly three-fifths (ranging from 54.8% to 59.5%) of the respondents in each city were in the 

age range of 40 to 64. In fact, approximately four-fifths (ranging from 78.5% to 86.1%) of the 

respondents in each group were over age 39. Very few respondents were under 25 years old. 

The ages of pre-program and follow-on respondents are essentially the same. These data are not 

inconsistent with the descriptions of the areas in which the test was conducted as provided by the 

participating Peoria and Phoenix personnel and described earlier. 
 52 

Table 29. How Long Respondents Have Lived in Their Current Neighborhoods 

(Peoria) 

Peoria Neighborhoods 

95th Ave Desert Harbor/91st Ave Bell Park/84th Ave 

How Long Have You 

Lived in Your Current 

Neighborhood? PreProgram Follow-On 

PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 13 13 6 14 11 13 

Row % 50% 50% 30% 70% 45.8% 54.2% Less Than 1 

Year 

Column % 9.9% 8.1% 5.5% 8.6% 6.7% 8.2% 

Count 72 93 36 45 41 47 

1 to 5 Years Row % 43.6% 56.4% 44.4% 55.6% 46.6% 53.4% 

Column % 55% 58.1% 33% 27.8% 25% 29.6% 

Count 46 54 67 103 112 99 

Row % 46% 54% 39.4% 60.6% 53.1% 46.9% More Than 

5 Years 

Column % 35.1% 33.8% 61.5% 63.6% 68.3% 62.3% 

Table 30. How Long Respondents Have Lived in Their Current Neighborhoods 

(Phoenix) 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Sweetwater Moon Valley/Coral Gables Clarendon 

How Long Have You 

Lived in Your Current 

Neighborhood? PreProgram Follow-On 

PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 4 9 3 8 6 6 

Row % 30.8% 69.2% 27.3% 72.7% 50% 50% Less Than 1 

Year 

Column % 3.2% 5.2% 2.2% 4.6% 6.1% 5% 

Count 31 46 31 31 25 26 

1 to 5 Years Row % 40.3% 59.7% 50% 50% 49% 51% 

Column % 24.6% 26.6% 22.5% 17.9% 25.3% 21.8% 

Count 91 118 104 134 68 87 

Row % 43.5% 56.5% 43.7% 56.3% 43.9% 56.1% More Than 

5 Years 

Column % 72.2% 68.2% 75.4% 77.5% 68.7% 73.1% 

 The age ranges of respondents from each Peoria neighborhood are shown in Table 32. 

The table shows that the 95th Avenue neighborhood had the highest proportion of respondents 65 

and over. Desert Harbor and Bell Park had less than half the representation of respondents 65+ 

as did 95th Avenue, which had the highest mean ages of the Peoria respondents (56 and 55 years 

for the pre-program and follow-on surveys, respectively). The pre-program and follow-on means 

for Desert Harbor respondents were 52 years and 51 years, and the average Bell Park respondent 

was 48 years old in both survey waves. 
 53 

Table 31. Age of Respondents (Phoenix and Peoria) 

Phoenix Peoria 

Age Range PreProgram Follow-On 

PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 1 6 1 5 

Row % 14.3% 85.7% 16.7% 83.3% 

< 25 

 

 Column % .3% 1.4% .2% 1.1% 

Count 48 81 86 96 

Row % 37.2% 62.8% 47.3% 52.7% 

25 - 39 

 

 Column % 13.6% 18.3% 21.3% 20.3% 

Count 207 242 233 281 

Row % 46.1% 53.9% 45.3% 54.7% 

40 - 64 

 

 Column % 58.6% 54.8% 57.7% 59.5% 

Count 97 113 84 90 

Row % 46.2% 53.8% 48.3% 51.7% 

65+ 

 

 Column % 27.5% 25.6% 20.8% 19.1% 

 The age ranges of respondents from each Phoenix neighborhood are shown in Table 33. 

Approximately 30 percent of the respondents from Moon Valley were 65 or older as were 

approximately 18 percent of those from Sweetwater. For Clarendon, pre-program 65+ 

respondents represented 34.4 percent of the pre-program respondents in contrast to 27.8 percent 

of the follow-on respondents. Clarendon showed a significant difference in pre-program and 

follow-on ages of the respondents. Since the measures were close together, this is likely just 

chance and should have no meaningful bearing on the results. Mean pre-program and follow-on 

ages for Sweetwater respondents were 52 and 51 years, respectively. For Moon Valley 

respondents, mean pre-program and follow-on ages were both 57 years. The mean age for 

Clarendon pre-program respondents was 58 years and that for follow-on respondents was 53 

years. 

Table 32. Age of Respondents by Neighborhood (Peoria) 

Peoria Neighborhoods 

Age range 95th Ave Desert Harbor/91st Ave Bell Park/84th Ave 

PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 1 2 0 0 0 3 

Row % 33.3% 66.7% 0% 0% 0% 100% 

< 25 

 

 Column % .8% 1.3% 0% .\0% 0% 1.9% 

Count 31 35 17 27 36 33 

Row % 47.0% 53% 38.6% 61.4% 52.2% 47.8% 

25 - 39 

 

 Column % 23.7% 22.6% 15.5% 17% 22.4% 21.2% 

Count 51 67 76 108 106 105 

Row % 43.2% 56.8% 41.3% 58.7% 50.2% 49.8% 

40 - 64 

 

 Column % 38.9% 43.2% 69.1% 67.9% 65.8% 67.3% 

Count 48 51 17 24 19 15 

Row % 48.5% 51.5% 41.5% 58.5% 55.9% 44.1% 

65+ 

 

 Column % 36.6% 32.9% 15.5% 15.1% 11.8% 9.6% 
 54 

Table 33. Age of Respondents by Neighborhood (Phoenix) 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Age Range Sweetwater Moon Valley/Coral Gables Clarendon* 

 

 

PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 1 1 0 0 0 5 

Row % 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 100% 

< 25 

 

 Column % .8% .6% 0% 0% 0% 4.3% 

Count 21 34 15 19 12 28 

Row % 38.2% 61.8% 44.1% 55.9% 30% 70% 

25 - 39 

 

 Column % 17.1% 20.9% 11.2% 11.6% 12.5% 24.3% 

Count 78 98 78 94 51 50 

Row % 44.3% 55.7% 45.3% 54.7% 50.5% 49.5% 

40 - 64 

 

 Column % 63.4% 60.1% 58.2% 57.3% 53.1% 43.5% 

Count 23 30 41 51 33 32 

Row % 43.4% 56.6% 44.6% 55.4% 50.8% 49.2% 

65+ 

 

 Column % 18.7% 18.4% 30.6% 31.1% 34.4% 27.8% 

*Clarendon chi square significance = .020 

The gender of respondents from the two cities is shown in Table 34. The table shows that 

there were slightly more females than males in the survey samples with the largest difference 

being the follow-on measurement in Phoenix. 

 The gender of respondents from each Peoria neighborhood is given in Table 35. Similar 

data for Phoenix neighborhoods are provided in Table 36. Although there is variability across 

neighborhoods and between the two cities, the magnitude of the differences is not particularly 

noteworthy. When viewing the gender and age data, it is important to remember that the surveys 

were addressed to “Respondent.” Therefore, anyone within a household could therefore 

complete the questionnaire. 

Table 34. Gender of Respondents (Phoenix and Peoria) 

Phoenix Peoria 

 Respondent Gender 

 PreProgram Follow-On 

PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 177 200 197 235 

Row % 46.8% 53.1% 45.6% 54.4% 

Male 

 

 Column % 49.2% 44.1% 48.2% 49% 

Count 183 254 212 245 

Row % 42% 58.1% 46.4% 53.6% 

Female 

 

 Column % 50.8% 55.9% 51.8% 51% 
 55 

Table 35. Gender of Respondents by Neighborhood (Peoria) 

Peoria Neighborhoods 

Respondent Gender 95th Ave Desert Harbor/91st Ave Bell Park/84th Ave 

PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 52 75 56 87 88 72 

Row % 40.9% 59.1% 39.2% 60.8% 55% 45% 

Male 

 

 Column % 39.7% 47.2% 50.9% 53.7% 53% 45.9% 

Count 79 84 54 75 78 85 

Row % 48.5% 51.5% 41.9% 58.1% 47.9% 52.1% 

Female 

 

 Column % 60.3% 52.8% 49.1% 46.3% 47% 54.1% 

Table 36. Gender of Respondents by Neighborhood (Phoenix) 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Respondent Gender Sweetwater Moon Valley/Coral Gables Clarendon 

PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 67 79 67 68 43 53 

Row % 45.9% 54.1% 49.6% 50.4% 44.8% 55.2% 

Male 

 

 Column % 53.2% 47.6% 48.9% 39.8% 44.3% 45.3% 

Count 59 87 70 103 54 64 

Row % 40.4% 59.6% 40.5% 59.5% 45.8% 54.2% 

Female 

 

 Column % 46.8% 52.4% 51.1% 60.2% 55.7% 54.7% 

5.2.4 Awareness of Activities to Control Speeds 

Table 37 shows respondent awareness of activities to control speeds disaggregated by 

Peoria neighborhoods. It shows significant differences in the rate of survey returns and 

substantial increases in awareness for all three neighborhoods. The lowest pre-program 

awareness (29%) was reported for the 95th Avenue neighborhood, where the follow-on 

awareness was 86.3 percent. The data for Desert Harbor were 46.4 percent and 71.4 percent, 

respectively, and those for Bell Park were 47.6 percent and 88.1 percent, respectively. 

Table 38 shows respondent awareness of activities to control speeds by Phoenix 

neighborhoods. It indicates significant differences in the rate of survey returns for both the 

Sweetwater and Moon Valley/Coral Gables neighborhoods. Both of these neighborhoods show 

substantial changes in the percentage of pre-program and follow-on awareness. In the 

Sweetwater neighborhood, for example, 34.1 percent of the pre-program respondents reported 

awareness of activities to control speeds in contrast to 92.5 percent of the follow-on respondents. 

These data for the Moon Valley/Coral Gables neighborhood were 42.8 percent and 96.5 percent, 

respectively. In contrast, almost three-fifths (58.6 percent) of the respondents from the 

Clarendon neighborhood reported a pre-program awareness of activities to control speeds. This 

large percentage of pre-program awareness may have been due to the existing speed humps on 

this road. The Clarendon resident follow-on awareness decreased slightly to 55.5 percent. This 
 56 

is likely the result of a combination of the high baseline rate of awareness and the absence of an 

organized neighborhood group in the Clarendon area to distribute the Heed the Speed literature. 

Table 37. Awareness of Activities to Control Speeds in Neighborhoods by Study Wave 

(Peoria) 

Peoria Neighborhoods 

95th Ave* Desert Harbor/91st Ave** Bell Park/84th Ave*** 

Awareness of 

Activities to Control 

Speeds 

 PreProgram Follow-On 

PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 38 138 51 115 79 140 

Row % 21.6% 78.4% 30.7% 69.3% 36.1% 63.9% Yes 

 

 Column % 29% 86.3% 46.4% 71.4% 47.6% 88.1% 

Count 93 22 59 46 87 19 

Row % 80.9% 19.1% 56.2% 43.8% 82.1% 17.9% No 

 

 Column % 71% 13.8% 53.6% 28.6% 52.4% 11.9% 

Count 131 160 110 161 166 159 

Row % 45% 55% 40.6% 59.4% 51.1% 48.9% Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 *95th Avenue chi square significance = .000 

 **Desert Harbor chi square significance = .000 

***Bell Park chi square significance = .000 

Table 38. Awareness of Activities to Control Speeds in Neighborhoods by Study Wave 

(Phoenix) 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Sweetwater* 

Moon Valley/Coral 

Gables** Clarendon 

Awareness of 

Activities to Control 

Speeds PreProgram Follow-On 

PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On 

Count 43 160 59 167 58 66 

Row % 21.2% 78.8% 26.1% 73.9% 46.8% 53.2% Yes 

 

 Column % 34.1% 92.5% 42.8% 96.5% 58.6% 55.5% 

Count 83 13 79 6 41 53 

Row % 86.5% 13.5% 92.9% 7.1% 43.6% 56.4% No 

 

 Column % 65.9% 7.5% 57.2% 3.5% 41.4% 44.5% 

Count 126 173 138 173 99 119 

Row % 42.1% 57.9% 44.4% 55.6% 45.4% 54.6% Total 

 

 Column % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 *Sweetwater chi square significance = .000 

**Moon Valley chi square significance = .000 

5.2.5 Awareness of Program Activity Categories 

Table 39 shows the category or type of awareness by Peoria neighborhood and survey 

wave, that is, awareness of program publicity, police involvement and roadway treatments. 

Significant increases in awareness of publicity from pre-program to follow-on respondents were 

obtained in all three Peoria neighborhoods. Publicity awareness increased from 10.5 percent to 

51.4 percent in the 95th Avenue neighborhood, from 33.3 percent to 66.7 percent in Desert 

Harbor, and from 40.5 percent to 68.1 percent in Bell Park. 
 57 

Table 39. Category of Awareness by Neighborhood (Peoria) 

Peoria Neighborhoods 

95th Ave 

Desert Harbor/ 

91st Ave Bell Park/84th Ave 

Category of Awareness – Publicity, 

Police Involvement, and Roadway 

Treatment 

 PreProgram 

FollowOn PreProgram FollowOn PreProgram FollowOn 

Yes Count 4 71 17 76 32 94 

 Column % 10.5% 51.4% 33.3% 66.7% 40.5% 68.1% 

No Count 16 28 21 10 20 12 

 Column % 42.1% 20.3% 41.2% 8.8% 25.3% 8.7% 

Count 18 39 13 28 27 32 

Did Any of 

These 

Activities 

Include Any 

Publicity?* 

 

 

Don't Know 

 Column % 47.4% 28.3% 25.5% 24.6% 34.2% 23.2% 

Yes Count 19 51 38 45 15 61 

 Column % 50% 37% 74.5% 39.5% 19% 44.2% 

No Count 7 21 3 20 24 15 

 Column % 18.4% 15.2% 5.9% 17.5% 30.4% 10.9% 

Count 12 66 10 49 40 62 

Were the 

Police 

Involved in 

Any of These 

Activities?** 

 Don't Know 

 Column % 31.6% 47.8% 19.6% 43% 50.6% 44.9% 

Yes Count 9 106 7 51 50 133 

 Column % 23.7% 77.9% 14% 45.1% 64.1% 95.7% 

No Count 20 17 38 51 19 3 

 Column % 52.6% 12.5% 76% 45.1% 24.4% 2.2% 

Count 9 13 5 11 9 3 

Did Any of 

These 

Activities 

Include Any 

Changes to the 

Road or the 

Physical 

Environment? 

*** 

Don't Know 

 Column % 23.7% 9.6% 10% 9.7% 11.5% 2.2% 

 *Chi square significance for all neighborhoods = .000 

 **Chi square significance for Desert Harbor and Bell Park = .000 

***Chi square significance for all neighborhoods = .000 

Table 39 also shows a significant increase in awareness of roadway treatments for Peoria 

neighborhoods. Awareness increased from 23.7 percent to 77.9 percent for 95th Avenue, from 

14.0 percent to 45.1 percent for Desert Harbor and from 64.1 percent to 95.7 percent for Bell 

Park. The relatively low level of awareness of road treatments for 91st Avenue in comparison to 

the other two neighborhoods is consistent with the fact that no road treatments were implemented 

in that neighborhood. The very large awareness of road treatments for Bell Park is likely the 

result of the speed humps that existed on 85th Lane when the pre-program survey was done and 

the speed tables and 3-D markings that were installed on 84th Avenue as part of the Heed the 

Speed program. 

 It is interesting to note that there was a decrease in awareness of police activities among 

both 95th Avenue and Desert Harbor respondents. There was a non-significant drop from 50 

percent to 37 percent in 95th Avenue and a significant drop from 74.5 percent to 39.5 percent in 

Desert Harbor. In Bell Park there was a significant increase from 19 percent to 44.2 percent . 

There is no apparent explanation for these changes in awareness of police activities as they are 

not consistent with the special enforcement data presented earlier. 

Table 40 provides similar data on the awareness of the different types of program 

activities by neighborhood and survey wave for Phoenix residents. This table shows a 
 58 

significant increase in awareness of publicity from pre- program to follow-on respondents for 

Sweetwater from 14.3 percent to 62.8 percent and a non-significant increase from 44.1 percent 

to 55.4 percent for Moon Valley. For Clarendon, a decrease in publicity awareness from 35.1 

percent to 24.2 percent was noted. As indicated previously, this is likely due to the high 

baseline rate of awareness and the absence of an organized group in the Clarendon area to 

distribute program literature. 

Table 40. Category of Awareness by Neighborhood (Phoenix) 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Sweetwater 

Moon Valley/ 

Category of Awareness – Publicity, Police Coral Gables Clarendon 

Involvement, and Roadway Treatment 

 PreProgram

FollowOn PreProgramFollowOn PreProgramFollowOn 

Yes Count 6 98 26 92 20 16 

 Column % 14.3% 62.8% 44.1% 55.4% 35.1% 24.2% 

No Count 28 27 16 30 21 27 

 Column % 66.7% 17.3% 27.1% 18.1% 36.8% 40.9% 

Count 8 31 17 44 16 23 

Did Any of These 

Activities Include 

Any Publicity?* 

 Don't Know 

 Column % 19% 19.9% 28.8% 26.5% 28.1% 34.8% 

Yes Count 15 106 23 98 7 12 

 Column % 35.7% 66.3% 39% 58.3% 12.1% 18.2% 

No Count 16 12 13 18 19 23 

 Column % 38.1% 7.5% 22% 10.7% 32.8% 34.8% 

Count 11 42 23 52 32 31 

Were the Police 

Involved in Any of 

These Activities?** 

 

 Don't Know 

 Column % 26.2% 26.3% 39.0% 31% 55.2% 47% 

Yes Count 33 115 24 133 52 60 

 Column % 76.7% 71.9% 41.4% 80.6% 89.7% 88.2% 

No Count 10 31 28 23 3 6 

 Column % 23.3% 19.4% 48.3% 13.9% 5.2% 8.8% 

Count 0 14 6 9 3 2 

Did Any of These 

Activities Include 

Any Changes to the 

Road or the 

Physical 

Environment? 

*** 

Don't Know 

 Column % 0% 8.8% 10.3% 5.5% 5.2% 2.9% 

 *Chi square significance for Sweetwater = .000 

 **Chi square significance for Sweetwater = .000 and for Moon Valley = .018 

***Chi square significance for Moon Valley = .000 

 With regard to police involvement, all Phoenix neighborhoods showed an increase in 

awareness from pre-program to follow-on study waves. There were significant increases in the 

Sweetwater neighborhood from 35.7 percent to 66.3 percent and in the Moon Valley 

neighborhood from 39 percent to 58.3 percent. There was a non-significant increase in 

Clarendon from 12.1 percent to 18.2 percent. 

 Finally, with regard to roadway treatments, only residents of the Moon Valley 

neighborhood reported an increased awareness in roadway treatments. This was a large and 

statistically significant increase from 41.4 percent to 80.6 percent. Both the Sweetwater and 

Clarendon respondents reported a decrease in awareness of roadway treatments from preprogram to follow-on waves. However, they both reported a very high awareness of roadway 

treatments in both waves. Sweetwater respondents indicated a 76.7 percent pre-program 

awareness of roadway treatments and a 71.9 percent follow-on awareness. These data for 

Clarendon were 89.7 percent and 88.2 percent, respectively. These results are fully consistent 

with actual program activities as reported earlier. Moon Valley received new treatments during 
 59 

the program and had no pre-existing treatments. Sweetwater had pre-existing treatments on the 

side streets and received no new vertical treatments during the program. Clarendon had speed 

humps on the street itself when the program began and received no other roadway treatments. 

5.2.6 Awareness of Specific Publicity Activities 

 Respondents who indicated that they were aware of activities to control speeds in their 

neighborhoods were asked if the activities included any publicity and, if so, what specific 

publicity. The open-ended comments made by follow-on respondents were coded as being 

definitely, probably or not related to the Heed the Speed program. The results for the two cities 

are tabulated in Table 41. The percentages in that table are based on the number of respondents 

who indicated that they had been aware of publicity activities. Respondents could (and did) 

make more than one comment. 

 The table shows that respondents tended to indicate the source of the publicity, not the 

specific information included. In all, only nine respondents referred specifically to the entire 

Heed the Speed campaign as a publicity source – six from Phoenix and three from Peoria, but it 

was clear from many of the other responses that the program had to be the source of the 

respondent’s information. 

 Table 41 shows that, by far, the largest number of respondents from both cities referred to 

signs as a publicity item or source. The comments included lawn signs as well as traffic signs. It 

should be noted again that the coding of program relationship was conservative. In order to be 

coded as “definitely program related,” there needed to be something on the survey form that 

indicated that it was a program sign. As an example, the word “sign” alone would have merited 

a “probably program related” code. The words “yellow signs” (the color of the yard signs that 

were widely distributed) would have merited a “definitely program related” code. Signs were 

indicated as definitely or probably program related by 73.8 percent of the Phoenix respondents 

and 58.9 percent of the Peoria respondents. 

 The next most frequent comment made by respondents from both cities identified flyers, 

bulletins and newsletters as the source of publicity. Homeowner’s associations were often 

identified as the source of these materials. In Peoria, 21.2 percent of these comments were coded 

as definitely or probably program related in contrast to 13.6 percent in Phoenix. Other relatively 

frequent sources of publicity identified by Peoria residents and coded as definitely or probably 

program-related were mail/letters (19.9%) and newspapers (16.1%). Far fewer indications of 

these publicity sources were noted among Phoenix residents (9.8% and 2%, respectively). This 

is not surprising since the neighborhood association for the Desert Harbor neighborhood in 

Peoria was particularly active in distributing the program’s printed materials. 
 60 

Table 41. Comments on Publicity Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents (Phoenix 

and Peoria)* 

Phoenix Peoria Total Publicity Category** Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Definitely Program-Related 131 63.6% 70 29% 201 45% 

Probably Program-Related 21 10.2% 72 29.9% 93 20.8% Signs 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 2 1% 1 .4% 3 .7% 

Definitely Program-Related 14 6.8% 7 2.9% 21 4.7% 

Probably Program-Related 14 6.8% 44 18.3% 58 13% Flyers, 

Bulletins, 

Newsletters 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 1 .5% 0 0% 

1 .2% 

Definitely Program-Related 10 4.9% 7 2.9% 17 3.8% 

Mail/Letters Probably Program-Related 10 4.9% 41 17% 51 11.4% 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 1 .4% 1 .2% 

Definitely Program-Related 4 1.9% 1 .4% 5 1.1% 

Meetings Probably Program-Related 11 5.3% 15 6.2% 26 5.8% 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program Related 3 1.5% 3 1.2% 6 1.3% 

Probably Program Related 1 .5% 36 14.9% 37 8.3% Newspapers 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 1 .4% 1 .2% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 6 2.9% 0 0% 6 1.3% Canvassing/ 

Petitions 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 1 .5% 0 0% 1 .2% 

Definitely Program-Related 3 1.5% 1 .4% 4 .9% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 7 2.9% 7 1.6% Television, 

Radio 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 

0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 6 2.9% 3 1.2% 9 2% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Heed the Speed 

Campaign 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Base Number of Respondents 206 100% 241 100% 447 100% 

 *Percentages are based on the number of respondents in each city who indicated an awareness of program publicity as shown in 

the last row of the table. 

**Respondents could make more than one comment. 

 Specific publicity mentions by follow-on respondents in the Peoria neighborhoods are 

shown in Table 42. Again, the percentages are based on those who responded positively to an 

awareness of publicity in the neighborhood. 

The table shows that signs were noted by more than 50 percent of the neighborhood 

respondents who indicated an awareness of publicity. The percentage of sign mentions coded as 

definitely or probably program-related was 52.1 percent for the 95th Avenue respondents, 68.5 

percent for the Desert Harbor respondents and 54.2 percent for the Bell Park respondents. The 

corresponding percentages for flyers, bulletins, and newsletters were 25.3 percent, 18.4 percent, 

and 20.2 percent, respectively. The percentages for newspapers were 15.5 percent, 15.8 percent, 

and 17.1 percent, respectively. These results are consistent with observations of yard sign 

deployments during the program. 
 61 

Table 42. Comments on Publicity Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents by 

Neighborhood (Peoria)*

Peoria Neighborhoods 

95th Ave 

Desert Harbor/ 

91st Ave 

Bell Park/84th 

Ave Publicity Category** 

 

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Definitely Program-Related 23 32.4% 29 38.2% 18 19.1% 

Probably Program-Related 14 19.7% 23 30.3% 33 35.1% Signs 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 1 1.4% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 3 4.2% 2 2.6% 2 2.1% 

Probably Program-Related 15 21.1% 12 15.8% 17 18.1% Flyers, Bulletins, 

Newsletters 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 7 7.4% 

Probably Program-Related 9 12.7% 1 1.3% 30 31.9% Mail/Letters 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 1 1.3% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 1 1.1% 

Probably Program-Related 4 5.6% 1 1.3% 10 10.6% Meetings 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 1 1.4% 1 1.3% 1 1.1% 

Probably Program-Related 10 14.1% 11 14.5% 15 16% Newspapers 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 1 1.3% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Canvassing/Petitions 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 1 1.4% 0 0% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 3 4.2% 1 1.3% 3 3.2% Television, Radio 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 1 1.4% 1 1.3% 1 1.1% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Heed the Speed

Campaign 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Base Number of Respondents 71 100% 76 100% 94 100% 

 *Percentages are based on the number of respondents in each neighborhood who indicated an awareness of program publicity as 

shown in the last row of the table. 

**Respondents could make more than one comment. 

Specific publicity references made by follow-on respondents in Phoenix neighborhoods 

are shown in Table 43. Again, the percentages are of those who responded positively to an 

awareness of publicity in the neighborhood. 

Table 43 indicates that signs were mentioned very frequently in Phoenix except for the 

Clarendon neighborhood. This is fully consistent with observations during the program. The 

percentages in which they were coded as definitely or probably program related were 82.7 

percent for Sweetwater and 75 percent in Moon Valley. The percentage for Clarendon was 12.5. 

For Clarendon, the largest percentage (25%) was for flyers, bulletins, and newsletters. The 

percentages for Sweetwater and Moon Valley for this category were 5.1 percent and 20.7 

percent, respectively. For mail and letters, Clarendon had a percentage of 6.3 in contrast to 15.3 

percent for Sweetwater and 4.4 percent for Moon Valley. Aside from meetings, with a 

percentage of 16.3 percent for Moon Valley returns, other mentions of publicity categories were 

small. 
 62 

Table 43. Comments on Publicity Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents by 

Neighborhood (Phoenix)* 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Sweetwater 

Moon Valley/ 

Coral Gables Clarendon Publicity Category** 

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Definitely Program-Related 73 74.5% 58 63% 0 0% 

Signs Probably Program-Related 8 8.2% 11 12% 2 12.5% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 1 1% 0 0% 1 6.3% 

Definitely Program-Related 4 4.1% 10 10.9% 0 0% 

Flyers, Bulletins, Probably Program-Related 1 1% 9 9.8% 4 25% 

Newsletters 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 1 6.3% 

Definitely Program-Related 7 7.1% 3 3.3% 0 0% 

Mail/Letters Probably Program-Related 8 8.2% 1 1.1% 1 6.3% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 4 4.3% 0 0% 

Meetings Probably Program-Related 0 0% 11 12% 0 0% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 3 3.3% 0 0% 

Newspapers Probably Program-Related 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Canvassing/Petitions Probably Program-Related 0 0% 5 5.4% 1 6.3% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 1 6.3% 

Definitely Program-Related 2 2% 1 1.1% 0 0% 

Television, Radio Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 4 4.1% 2 2.2% 0 0% 

Heed the Speed Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Campaign 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Base Number of Respondents 98 100% 92 100% 16 100% 

 *Percentages are based on the number of respondents in each neighborhood who indicated an awareness of program publicity as 

shown in the last row of the table. 

**Respondents could make more than one comment. 

5.2.7 Awareness of Police Activities 

Respondents who indicated that they were aware of activities to control speeds in their 

neighborhoods were asked if the activities included any police involvement and, if so, what 

specific activities. The comments made by follow-on respondents in the two cities are shown in 

Table 44. The percentages in that table are based on the number of respondents who indicated 
 63 

that they had been aware of police activities. Respondents could (and did) make more than one 

comment. 

Table 44. Comments on Police Involvement Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

(Phoenix and Peoria)* 

Police Involvement Category** Phoenix Peoria Total 

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Definitely Program-Related 4 1.9% 9 5.7% 13 3.5% 

Probably Program-Related 112 51.9% 83 52.9% 195 52.3% Enforcement 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 2 .9% 1 .6% 3 .8% 

Definitely Program-Related 3 1.4% 0 0% 3 .8% 

Radar Checks Probably Program-Related 81 37.5% 31 19.7% 112 30% 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 1 .5% 0 0% 1 .3% 

Probably Program-Related 8 3.7% 29 18.5% 37 9.9% Deployment of 

Speed Trailers 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 1 .6% 1 .3% 

Definitely Program-Related 1 .5% 3 1.9% 4 1.1% 

Probably Program-Related 4 1.9% 12 7.6% 16 4.3% Attendance at 

Meetings 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 3 1.9% 3 .8% 

Probably Program-Related 1 .5% 0 0% 1 .3% Miscellaneous 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 2 .9% 1 .6% 3 .8% 

Base Number of Respondents 216 100% 157 100% 373 100% 

 *Percentages are based on the number of respondents in each city who indicated an awareness of program police involvement as 

shown in the last row of the table. 

**Respondents could make more than one comment. 

Table 44 shows that large percentages of respondents who were aware of police activities 

in both cities noticed police enforcement and radar checks. In Phoenix, enforcement was 

definitely or probably program-related in 53.8 percent of the mentions. The value for Peoria was 

58.6 percent of the comments. Respondents mentioned radar checks proportionately more 

frequently in Phoenix (38.9%) than in Peoria (19.7%). The speed trailer was noticed 

proportionately more frequently in Peoria (18.5%) than was the photo speed enforcement trailer 

in Phoenix (4.2%). Attendance at meetings was cited in 9.5 percent of the cases in Peoria and in 

2.4 percent of the cases in Phoenix. 

 Specific comments on police involvement broken down by Peoria neighborhoods are 

shown in Table 45. Even though the number of comments is quite small, the table shows some 

interesting patterns. For example, large percentages of respondents in all neighborhoods were 

aware of police enforcement activities. The observations of 62.7 percent of the 95th Avenue 

respondents, 60.6 percent of Bell Park residents and 51.1 percent of Desert Harbor residents 

were definitely or probably program related. Radar checks were noticed most frequently in Bell 

Park (24.6%) and Desert Harbor (20%). Curiously, deployment of the speed trailer was noticed 

most frequently in Desert Harbor (26.7%) even though it was deployed least in that 

neighborhood (eight times in 95th Avenue, six times in Bell Park, and three times in Desert 

Harbor). 
 64 

Table 45. Comments on Police Involvement Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

by Neighborhood (Peoria)* 

Peoria Neighborhoods 

95th Ave 

Desert Harbor/ 

91st Ave Bell Park/84th Ave Police Involvement Category** 

 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 3 6.7% 6 9.8% 

Enforcement Probably Program-Related 32 62.7% 20 44.4% 31 50.8% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 1 1.6% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Radar Checks Probably Program-Related 7 13.7% 9 20% 15 24.6% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Deployment of Probably Program-Related 7 13.7% 12 26.7% 10 16.4% 

Speed Trailers 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 1 2.2% 2 3.3% 

Attendance at Probably Program-Related 4 7.8% 3 6.7% 5 8.2% 

Meetings 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 2 4.4% 1 1.6% 

Miscellaneous Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 

Base Number of Respondents 51 100% 45 100% 61 100% 

 *Percentages are based on the number of respondents who indicated an awareness of program police involvement as shown in 

the last row of the table. 

**Respondents could make more than one comment. 

The equivalent neighborhood breakdown of comments on police involvement made by 

Phoenix residents is shown in Table 46. The table shows that over 50 percent of the responses 

received from both Sweetwater and Moon Valley residents included comments on police 

enforcement that were either definitely or probably related to the program. These percentages 

were 55.1 percent for Moon Valley and 51.9 percent for Sweetwater. As for radar checks, 46.2 

percent of the Sweetwater comments and 35.7 percent of the Moon Valley comments were 

definitely or probably program-related. A small number of residents in Moon Valley (8.2%) 

noted deployment of the photo speed enforcement trailer. There were too few comments from 

Clarendon residents in all categories to be meaningfully tabulated. 

5.2.8 Awareness of Roadway Treatments 

Respondents who indicated that they were aware of activities to control speeds in their 

neighborhoods were asked if the activities included any changes to the roadway or physical 

environment and, if so, what specific changes. The comments made by follow-on respondents in 

the two cities are shown in Table 47. The percentages in that table are based on the number of 

respondents who indicated that they had been aware of roadway changes. Respondents could 

make more than one comment. 
 65 

Table 46. Comments on Police Involvement Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

by Neighborhood (Phoenix)* 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Sweetwater 

Moon Valley/ 

Coral Gables Clarendon Police Involvement Category** 

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Definitely Program-Related 3 2.8% 1 1% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 52 49.1% 53 54.1% 7 58.3% Enforcement 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 2 16.7% 

Definitely Program-Related 2 1.9% 1 1% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 47 44.3% 34 34.7% 0 0% Radar Checks 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 8 8.2% 0 0% Deployment of 

Speed Trailers 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 4 4.1% 0 0% Attendance at 

Meetings 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% Miscellaneous 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 1 1% 1 8.3% 

Base Number of Respondents 106 100% 98 100% 12 100% 

 *Percentages are based on the number of respondents who indicated an awareness of program police involvement as shown in 

the last row of the table. 

**Respondents could make more than one comment. 

The table shows that 46.9 percent of the Peoria respondents made comments on speed 

humps or tables that were definitely or probably program-related. In contrast, 23.4 percent of 

Phoenix residents made similar comments. Comments on road signs that were definitely or 

probably program-related were made by 15.2 percent of the Phoenix respondents and by 42.4 

percent of the Peoria respondents. The 3-D markings were mentioned by 42.4 percent of the 

Peoria residents in contrast to 10.3 percent of the Phoenix residents. Road pavement changes 

(e.g., TyregripTM) were noted by 44.1 percent of the Phoenix residents. This product was not 

used in Peoria. A small number of individuals in both cities mentioned the tubes – likely a 

reference to the speed measurement devices used for the evaluation. 

A breakdown by neighborhood of the specific comments on roadway changes made by 

follow-on respondents in Peoria neighborhoods is shown in Table 48. The table indicates an 

awareness of Heed the Speed roadway changes that were made in the various Peoria 

neighborhoods. In fact, 91 percent of the responses in Bell Park that mentioned road 

humps/tables were judged to be definitely or probably related to the Heed the Speed program. 

The 13.2 percent mentioned for humps/tables for 95th Avenue may well have been a reference to 

the 3-D markings, which were prevalent on the street, instead of the humps themselves. In fact, 

78.3 percent of the responses made for 95th Avenue for 3-D markings were judged to be 

definitely or probably program-related. Signs were mentioned often by residents of 91st Avenue 

(68.6% definitely or probably program-related) followed by 95th Avenue (51.9% definitely or 

probably program-related) and Bell Park (24.8% definitely or probably program-related). 
 66 

Table 47. Comments on Roadway Changes Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

(Phoenix and Peoria)* 

Phoenix Peoria Total Road Change Category** Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Definitely Program-Related 63 20.5% 47 16.2% 110 18.4% 

Speed Humps/Tables Probably Program-Related 9 2.9% 89 30.7% 98 16.4% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 53 17.2% 4 1.4% 57 9.5% 

Definitely Program-Related 34 11% 63 21.7% 97 16.2% 

Road Signs Probably Program-Related 13 4.2% 60 20.7% 73 12.2% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 5 1.6% 2 .7% 7 1.2% 

Definitely Program-Related 30 9.7% 104 35.9% 134 22.4% 

Probably Program-Related 2 .6% 19 6.6% 21 3.5% 3-D Markings 

 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 119 38.6% 0 0% 119 19.9% 

Road Pavement Probably Program-Related 17 5.5% 0 0% 17 2.8% 

Changes 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 .0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Speed Measurement Probably Program-Related 6 1.9% 9 3.1% 15 2.5% 

Tubes 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Miscellaneous Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 9 2.9% 3 1% 12 2% 

Base Number of Respondents 308 100% 290 100% 598 100% 

 *Percentages are based on the number of respondents in each city who indicated an awareness of roadway changes as shown in 

the last row of the table. 

**Respondents could make more than one comment. 

The neighborhood-by-neighborhood listing of comments on roadway changes made by 

Phoenix residents is shown in Table 49. As might be expected, 52.6 percent of the Moon Valley 

responses identifying speed humps/tables as road changes were rated as definitely or probably 

program-related. A very large number of similar codes for Clarendon (85%) were coded as 

unrelated to the program since they referred to existing humps. Residents of Moon Valley 

mentioned the 3-D markings (24.1% were coded as definitely or probably program-related). 

Both Moon Valley and Sweetwater residents mentioned roadway pavement changes (3-D 

marking and TyregripTM – 36.1% and 76.5%, respectively coded as definitely or probably 

program-related). 

5.2.9 Ratings of Neighborhood Speed 

 Residents were asked the question, “Compared to six months ago, how would you rate 

the speeds in your neighborhood?” They were offered the response categories of “much slower,” 

“a bit slower,” “the same,” “a bit faster,” and “much faster.” Responses are given in Table 50, 

which shows that respondents from both cities perceived a drop in speeds over the six months 

preceding the survey. Percentages in all of the categories changed in the desired direction – the 

perceptions of slower speeds increased, while those of the same speeds and those of faster speeds 

decreased. 
 67 

Table 50 shows that, from pre-program to follow-on periods, there was an increase in the 

percentage of individuals who felt that speeds have decreased. The percentages increased from 

18.3 percent to 48.3 percent in Phoenix and from 14.2 percent to 44.2 percent in Peoria. Over 

the same period, the percentages of individuals who felt that speeds remained the same decreased 

– from 46.0 percent to 37.9 percent in Phoenix and from 45.9 percent to 35.1 percent in Peoria. 

Finally, there was a decrease in the percentage of individuals who felt that speeds had increased. 

From pre-program to follow-on periods, these percentages decreased from 35.8 percent to 13.7 

percent in Phoenix and from 40 percent to 20.7 percent in Peoria. 

Table 48. Comments on Roadway Changes Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

by Neighborhood (Peoria)* 

 Peoria Neighborhoods 

95th Ave 

Desert Harbor/ 

91st Ave 

Bell Park/84th 

Ave 

Road Change Category** 

 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Definitely Program-Related 3 2.8% 0 0% 44 33.1% 

Speed Probably Program-Related 11 10.4% 1 2% 77 57.9% 

Humps/Tables 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 1 .9% 3 5.9% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 28 26.4% 26 51% 9 6.8% 

Road Signs Probably Program-Related 27 25.5% 9 17.6% 24 18% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 1 2% 1 .8% 

Definitely Program-Related 67 63.2% 0 0% 36 27.1% 

Probably Program-Related 16 15.1% 0 0% 2 1.5% 3-D Markings 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Road Pavement Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Changes 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 .0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Speed Measurement Probably Program-Related 2 1.9% 5 9.8% 2 1.5% 

Tubes No/Unknown Program 

Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Miscellaneous Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

 No/Unknown Program 

Relation 1 .9% 1 2.0% 1 .8% 

Base Number of Respondents 106 100% 51 100% 133 100% 

 *Percentages are based on the number of respondents in each neighborhood who indicated an awareness of roadway changes as 

shown in the last row of the table. 

**Respondents could make more than one comment.
 68 

Table 49. Comments on Roadway Changes Made by Follow-On Survey Respondents 

by Neighborhood (Phoenix)* 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Sweetwater 

Moon Valley/ 

Coral Gables Clarendon Road Change Category** 

 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 62 46.6% 1 1.7% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 8 6% 1 1.7% Speed 

Humps/Tables 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 2 1.7% 0 0% 51 85% 

Definitely Program-Related 19 16.5% 15 11.3% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 7 6.1% 6 4.5% 0 0% Road Signs 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 3 2.6% 0 0% 2 3.3% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 30 22.6% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 2 1.5% 0 0% 3-D Markings 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 73 63.5% 46 34.6% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 15 13.0% 2 1.5% 0 0% Road Pavement 

Changes 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 1 .9% 4 3% 1 1.7% Speed Measurement 

Tubes 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Definitely Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Probably Program-Related 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Miscellaneous 

 

 No/Unknown Program Relation 8 7% 0 0% 1 1.7% 

Base Number of Respondents 115 100% 133 100% 60 100% 

 *Percentages are based on the number of respondents in each neighborhood who indicated an awareness of roadway changes as 

shown in the last row of the table. 

**Respondents could make more than one comment. 

Table 50. Rating of Neighborhood Speeds (Phoenix and Peoria) 

Compared to Six Months Phoenix* Peoria** 

Ago, How Would You Rate 

the Speeds in Your 

Neighborhood? 

PreProgram Follow-On PreProgram Follow-On 

Much Slower Count 19 39 10 54 

 Percent 5.3% 8.6% 2.5% 11.4% 

A Bit Slower Count 47 179 47 155 

 Percent 13% 39.7% 11.7% 32.8% 

The Same Count 166 171 185 166 

 Percent 46% 37.9% 45.9% 35.1% 

A Bit Faster Count 80 29 103 55 

 Percent 22.2% 6.4% 25.6% 11.6% 

Much Faster Count 49 33 58 43 

 Percent 13.6% 7.3% 14.4% 9.1% 

 *Phoenix chi-square significance = .000 

 **Peoria chi-square significance = .000 
 69 

Table 51 shows the speed ratings made by Peoria respondents as a function of 

neighborhood. The results for the three neighborhoods follow the pattern established for the city 

as a whole with the exception that proportionately more follow-on than pre-program Desert 

Harbor respondents felt that speeds remained the same. 

Table 51. Rating of Neighborhood Speeds by Neighborhood (Peoria) 

Peoria Neighborhoods 

95th Ave* 

Desert Harbor/ 

91st Ave** Bell Park/84th Ave*** 

Compared to Six Months 

Ago, How Would You 

Rate the Speeds in Your 

Neighborhood? PreProgram 

FollowOn PreProgram FollowOn PreProgram FollowOn 

Much Slower Count 4 19 1 7 5 28 

 Percent 3.1% 12.2% .9% 4.4% 3.1% 17.8% 

A Bit Slower Count 8 49 13 37 25 67 

 Percent 6.2% 31.4% 11.9% 23.4% 15.4% 42.7% 

The Same Count 59 55 43 68 82 43 

 Percent 45.4% 35.3% 39.4% 43% 50.6% 27.4% 

A Bit Faster Count 41 18 33 24 29 13 

 Percent 31.5% 11.5% 30.3% 15.2% 17.9% 8.3% 

Much Faster Count 18 15 19 22 21 6 

 Percent 13.8% 9.6% 17.4% 13.9% 13.0% 3.8% 

 *95th Avenue chi square significance = .000 

 **Desert Harbor chi square significance = .005 

 ***Bell Park chi square significance = .000 

The ratings of perceived speed changes made by Phoenix respondents for each of their 

neighborhoods are shown in Table 52. With the exception of the Clarendon neighborhood, the 

results are significant and follow the pattern for the city as a whole. Clarendon showed no clear 

pattern across the two survey waves in their ratings of neighborhood speed. This is not 

inconsistent with the speed data discussed below and the fact that speed humps had been in place 

on Clarendon for some time before the program began. 

5.2.10 Respondent Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program 

 Two variables were subjectively coded from the information collected by the 

questionnaire as indicators of likely respondent exposure to the Heed the Speed program. One 

simply provided an indication of whether or not the respondent referred to the Heed the Speed

program by name. The other came from an examination of the entire survey and provision of an 

overall assessment of whether or not the individual had definitely been exposed to the program, 

probably been exposed to the program, or not been exposed to the program (including exposure 

unknown). The resulting Tables 53-58 are based on follow-on data only since there was no 

possible exposure to Heed the Speed prior to the program. 
 70 

Table 52. Rating of Neighborhood Speeds by Neighborhood (Phoenix) 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Sweetwater* 

Moon Valley/ 

Coral Gables** Clarendon 

Compared to Six Months 

Ago, How Would You 

Rate 

the Speeds in Your 

Neighborhood?

PreProgram FollowOn PreProgram FollowOn PreProgram FollowOn 

Much Count 6 14 0 16 13 9 

Slower 

 Percent 4.8% 8.4% 0% 9.4% 13.3% 7.9% 

A Bit Slower Count 14 72 9 74 24 33 

 Percent 11.2% 43.4% 6.5% 43.3% 24.5% 28.9% 

The Same Count 63 62 72 73 31 36 

 Percent 50.4% 37.3% 52.2% 42.7% 31.6% 31.6% 

A Bit Faster Count 23 9 37 5 20 15 

 Percent 18.4% 5.4% 26.8% 2.9% 20.4% 13.2% 

Much Faster Count 19 9 20 3 10 21 

 Percent 15.2% 5.4% 14.5% 1.8% 10.2% 18.4% 

 *Sweetwater chi square significance = .000 

 **Moon Valley chi square significance = .000 

 Whether or not the respondent used the words Heed the Speed on the survey form is 

shown for the two cities in Table 53. A respondent’s survey was coded as “yes” if the 

respondent used the same or similar words. No respondents mentioned Heed the Speed during 

the pre-program survey. The table shows that 28.5 percent of the follow-on Phoenix respondents 

referred to the program by name as did 23 percent of the follow-on Peoria respondents. 

Table 53. Respondent Follow-On Mention of Heed the Speed (Phoenix and Peoria) 

City 

Phoenix Peoria 

Did Respondent 

Mention Heed the 

Speed? 

Count Percent Count Percent 

Yes 130 28.5% 111 23% 

No 325 71.5% 372 77% 

 Use of the program slogan as a function of Peoria neighborhoods is shown in Table 54. It 

shows that the program was mentioned by respondents from all neighborhoods – most frequently 

by respondents from Desert Harbor (31.5%), followed by respondents from 95th Avenue (25%), 

and respondents from Bell Park (12.6%). 

Use of the program slogan in questionnaire responses by Phoenix neighborhoods is 

shown in Table 55. Again, it shows that respondents from all neighborhoods mentioned the 

program, although the number of mentions from Clarendon was extremely small. The slogan 

was mentioned most frequently by respondents from Sweetwater (43.6%), followed by 

respondents from Moon Valley (30.6%) and Clarendon (1.8%). 
 71 

Table 54. Respondent Follow-On Mention of Heed the Speed (Peoria) 

Peoria Neighborhoods 

95th Ave 

Desert Harbor/91st 

Ave Bell Park/84th Ave 

Did Respondent 

Mention Heed the 

Speed? 

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Yes 40 25% 51 31.5% 20 12.6% 

No 120 75% 111 68.5% 139 87.4% 

 

Table 55. Respondent Follow-On Mention of Heed the Speed (Phoenix) 

Phoenix Neighborhoods 

Sweetwater 

Moon Valley/ 

Coral Gables Clarendon 

Did Respondent 

Mention Heed the 

Speed? 

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

Yes 75 43.6% 53 30.6% 2 1.8% 

No 97 56.4% 120 69.4% 109 98.2% 

 Clearly the materials associated with the speed reduction program made a sufficient 

impression to have a large proportion of respondents volunteer the program slogan – Heed the 

Speed – on the questionnaire. It must be remembered that the data presented above represent 

totally unaided responses. There was no mention of Heed the Speed in the questionnaire or the 

cover letter on its reverse side. 

 Each returned survey was also coded based on a project staff member’s overall 

impression from reading all of the responses it contained of whether or not the respondent had 

been definitely exposed to the Heed the Speed program, probably exposed to the program or not 

exposed to the program. The follow-on results for the two cities are given in Table 56, which 

shows that approximately 70 percent of respondents from both cities were judged to have been 

definitely or probably exposed to some aspect of the program. 

Table 56. Respondent Follow-On Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program (Phoenix 

and Peoria) 

Was Respondent Exposed City 

to the Heed the Speed

Program? Phoenix Peoria Total 

Count 261 210 471 

Row % 55.4% 44.6% 100% Yes, Definitely 

 

 Column % 57.2% 43.5% 50.2% 

Count 56 132 188 

Row % 29.8% 70.2% 100% Yes, Probably 

 

 Column % 12.3% 27.3% 20% 

Count 139 141 280 

Row % 49.6% 50.4% 100% No 

 

 Column % 30.5% 29.2% 29.8% 
 72 

 Follow-on exposure broken down by Peoria neighborhoods is provided in Table 57. That 

table shows that the largest proportion of respondents who were definitely or probably exposed 

to the program came from the Bell Park neighborhood (83.6%). It was followed by 95th Avenue 

(68.2%) and Desert Harbor (60.5%). 
 73 

Table 57. Respondent Follow-On Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program by 

Neighborhood (Peoria) 

Was Respondent Exposed Peoria Neighborhoods 

to the Heed the Speed

Program? 95th Ave 

Desert 

Harbor/ 

91st Ave 

Bell Park/84th 

Ave 

Count 79 53 77 

Row % 37.8% 25.4% 36.8% Yes, 

Definitely 

 Column % 49.4% 32.7% 48.4% 

Count 30 45 56 

Row % 22.9% 34.4% 42.7% Yes, Probably 

 

 Column % 18.8% 27.8% 35.2% 

Count 51 64 26 

Row % 36.2% 45.4% 18.4% No 

 

 Column % 31.9% 39.5% 16.4% 

 Similar data for Phoenix neighborhoods are given in Table 58. That table shows that the 

largest proportion of respondents who were definitely or probably exposed to the program came 

from the Moon Valley neighborhood (91.3%) followed by the Sweetwater neighborhood 

(84.3%). Only 12.6 percent of the follow-on Clarendon respondents indicated an awareness of 

the program. 

Table 58. Respondent Follow-On Exposure to the Heed the Speed Program by 

Neighborhood (Phoenix) 

Was Respondent Exposed Phoenix Neighborhoods 

to the Heed the Speed

Program? 

Sweetwater 

Moon Valley/ 

Coral Gables Clarendon 

Count 118 141 2 

Row % 45.2% 54% .8% Yes, Definitely 

 

 Column % 68.6% 81.5% 1.8% 

Count 27 17 12 

Row % 48.2% 30.4% 21.4% Yes, Probably 

 

 Column % 15.7% 9.8% 10.8% 

Count 27 15 97 

Row % 19.4% 10.8% 69.8% No 

 

 Column % 15.7% 8.7% 87.4% 

5.2.11 Survey Summary 

 Neighborhood surveys were mailed to half of a sample of residents of each of the six 

study neighborhoods in two waves – before the start of the program and following the 

completion of the program in Peoria and following installation of roadway treatments in 

Phoenix. Pre- and follow-on returns in Peoria were 58.1 percent and 62 percent, respectively. 

Comparable returns for Phoenix were 60.2 percent and 63.4 percent. This is an extremely high 
 74 

response rate for a mailed survey, particularly one addressed to “Resident.” This high response 

suggests an interest in the subject of speeding and a population willing to assist a neighborhood 

safety program. 

 All neighborhoods in both cities exhibited a significant increase in follow-on awareness 

of program publicity except for the Clarendon neighborhood in Phoenix, the neighborhood 

among the six with no neighborhood association or vocal spokespeople and a large number of 

Spanish-speaking residents. It is curious that Clarendon respondents did not indicate increased 

awareness because there was increased enforcement in the neighborhood that resulted in 

significantly lower speeds (see below). In the balance of the studied neighborhoods, there was a 

significant increase in awareness of publicity related to speeding with three neighborhoods 

showing a doubling or more in the percentage of people indicating they were exposed to 

publicity on speed control. 

 The specific publicity item that received the largest proportion of follow-on mentions 

judged to be definitely or probably related to the program in both cities consisted of the program 

signs with reports ranging from 52.1 percent to 82.7 percent of the respondents) except 

Clarendon where the percentage was 12.5. Flyers, bulletins, and newsletters were also 

mentioned, as were mail/letters, meetings, and newspapers, although the mentions for some 

neighborhoods were not large. 

 With regard to police involvement, the specific activities mentioned most frequently and 

considered to be definitely or probably program related were visible enforcement (ranging from 

51.1% to 62.7%) and radar checks (ranging from 13.7% to 46.2%). Deployment of the speed 

trailer was noted in all Peoria neighborhoods. The photo speed enforcement trailer was noted in 

the Moon Valley neighborhood of Phoenix. 

With regard to roadway treatments, signs again were mentioned frequently by 

respondents from all neighborhoods except Clarendon. In addition, respondents in each 

neighborhood noticed the roadway treatments that were installed in that neighborhood as part of 

the program. For example, speed humps/tables were mentioned and classified as definitely or 

probably related to the Heed the Speed program by 91 percent of the respondents in the Bell Park 

neighborhood of Peoria and in 52.6 percent of the respondents in Moon Valley; 3-D markings by 

all neighborhoods in Peoria and in Moon Valley in Phoenix; and pavement treatments 

(TyregripTM) by both Sweetwater and Moon Valley respondents in Phoenix. A small number of 

respondents in each community noticed the tubes used by the program to measure neighborhood 

speeds. 

Respondents were asked to rate the speeds in their neighborhoods compared to six 

months ago. With the exception of Clarendon, all neighborhood respondents reported a 

perceived decrease in speeding in their neighborhoods in the last six months. 

An evaluation of each survey respondent’s form led to the judgment that a large 

proportion of the survey respondents had definitely or probably been exposed to the Heed the 

Speed program. Thus, there was significant evidence from the survey that the countermeasure 

program was active and successful in conveying its message. This suggests that there is a basis 

for attributing any significant speed reductions in the test neighborhoods across the study period 

to the effects of Heed the Speed.
 75 

5.3 Speed Data 

The ultimate criterion measure for the present study was the speed of vehicles on the test 

street segments before and after the various countermeasures were implemented. This section 

details the speed data collection and data management methods, the analytic approach adopted 

and the results. 

5.3.1 Data Collection and Management 

All speed data for the study were collected using traffic counters. These devices use 

multiple pneumatic tubes placed on the roadway to record the presence of a vehicle and its 

speed. The speed data collection was accomplished for the project by the regular traffic count 

contractors for Phoenix and Peoria as part of the contribution of the two cities to the study effort. 

All counts were for a consecutive 48-hour period. Multiple counters were placed on each 

test segment with the number of counters used dependent on both the length of the segment and 

the features of interest along it. For example, an attempt was made to acquire counts adjacent to 

newly installed vertical treatments and coincident with the positions of 3-D markings and 

TyregripTM installations. The counters on each segment, although deployed at approximately the 

same time, did not have their internal timers synchronized. They were put in place, started and 

subsequently retrieved. Then, during downloading of the data, 48 hours of information was kept 

and the rest discarded for purposes of these analyses. Counters were located at the same place on 

each road segment during each measurement period. 

The counters used by the Peoria contractor recorded an entry for each detected vehicle. 

This record included the time of the measurement, the vehicle’s speed and an estimate of the 

class or type of vehicle based on the axle length inferred from the data. This vehicle class 

information was validated as highly accurate by the contractor and the manufacturer of the 

counter for passenger cars and light trucks. The validity of data for larger vehicle classes such as 

heavy trucks and buses was suspect. There are many known technical reasons for this pattern of 

results. For example, if the counter recorded the front wheels of a lead car but missed the rear 

wheels, the front wheels of a closely trailing vehicle could be erroneously interpreted as the rear 

wheels of a large truck or bus. Because of this known problem and the fact that there are 

typically relatively few trucks and buses except delivery vehicles on the test road segments, only 

cars and light trucks were included in the Peoria data analysis set. 

In Phoenix, a different type of counter was used that only collected speeds in “bins” or 

class intervals. The output of these counters was an hourly count of the number of vehicles in 

the following speed ranges: 
 76 

• 0-15 mph 

• 16-20 mph 

• 21-25 mph 

• 26-30 mph 

• 31-33 mph 

• 34-35 mph 

• 36-37 mph 

• 38-40 mph 

• 41-45 mph 

• 46-50 mph 

• 51-55 mph 

• 56-80 mph 

It can be seen that these speed class intervals are not of equal size and become tighter in the 30 to 

40 mph range. 

 In order to support an analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach to data analysis (see 

below), the Phoenix data had to be expressed in terms of individual vehicles in the same manner 

as the Peoria information. This was accomplished by generating a record for each vehicle 

counted in each interval. The vehicle was assigned a time at the midpoint of the hour in which it 

was recorded and a speed at the midpoint of the interval in which it was placed by the counter. 

For example, a vehicle counted in the 26-30 mph (actually 26.00 to 30.99) mph interval from 

noon to 12:59 p.m. would be assigned a speed of 28.5 mph and a time of 12:30 p.m. This 

approach disaggregated the class interval data into a set of individual vehicle records for 

analysis. The effect of this approach is to suppress variance somewhat in the raw data since 

many speed values (i.e., those not at the midpoint of one of the intervals) simply cannot exist in 

the data. 

 The data from each city were aggregated into separate databases for analysis. This 

resulted in files of 435,421 vehicles for Phoenix and 363,143 vehicles for Peoria. These files 

were imported into the SPSS® Release 11.5 software for analysis.8

5.3.2 Analytic Approach 

The objective of the speed analysis was to uncover any changes in the speeds of vehicles 

on the test segments between the first wave of measurement when no countermeasures had been 

mounted by this program and the subsequent data collection waves. Two decisions concerning 

the nature of the analyses conducted were essentially dictated by the data themselves and the 

particulars of the test. First, it was decided not to compare the results from Phoenix and Peoria 

in the same analysis. Combining the data from the two cities would have been of questionable 

validity because of the different underlying variances as a result of the use of the bin counters in 

Phoenix. 

The second decision was to address the speed analysis as a set of 10 case studies based on 

each of the 10 test segments described earlier. As shown in Table 59, the widely varying 

 

8

 SPSS, Inc. Chicago, Illinois 
 77 

countermeasures applied across the segments suggested that aggregate, citywide analyses would 

be largely uninformative with respect to the efficacy of individual specific interventions. 

Table 59 also references the table number in which the speed results for each segment can be 

found. 

 Since the primary objective of the statistical analysis was to assess the relationship 

between the various speed countermeasures and reductions in speed, ANOVA was the indicated 

primary statistical technique. The ANOVAs for the study were executed through the General 

Linear Model routine in SPSS® Release 11.5. This technique provided parameter estimates and 

hypotheses tests of the main and interactive effects of the various countermeasures or 

experimental factors. Statistically significant main effects and interactions were followed by 

inspection of the respective subgroup and cell means involved in those effects. All pairwise 

comparisons of the individual means were evaluated by the Sidak Test. This is a multiple 

comparison technique for adjusting t-tests for alpha inflation that results when a large number of 

contrasts are tested. All hypotheses were tested at p≤.05. That is, any difference that would be 

expected by chance less than 5% of the time was considered to be a true effect. 

 Chi-square tests were used to evaluate effects on certain binary and nominal transforms 

of the speed scale (e.g., proportion driving seven or more miles over the speed limit). 

 The complexity of the experimental plan and absence of countermeasures for some of the 

waves of measurement required several ANOVA models based on different subsets of the data. 

For example, in Phoenix waves two and three of measurement were only done on one road 

which was of particular interest to the participating city personnel. Therefore, these two waves 

were deleted for some of the ANOVAs so that there would be a full replication of measures at all 

test locations. 

 The final analytical strategy involved conducting separate wave x road segment 

ANOVAs for each city with speed as the dependent variable. The expectation was that road 

would show a significant main effect since the test segments within each city were quite different 

as described earlier. A significant main effect of wave would suggest that speeds had changed in 

the city over the various measurement periods. A significant wave x road segment interaction 

would suggest that any speed effect was differential across the test sites. 

 The ANOVAs for both Phoenix and Peoria yielded main effects of wave and road 

segment as well as a wave x road segment interaction that were significant with a P<.0001. 

Thus, it was meaningful to examine the pairwise comparisons in light of the known changes on 

each roadway. This was accomplished by combining the wave and road variables into a single 

variate and re-running the ANOVAs to produce a comparison of all wave and road pairs. The 

result was a mean speed differential between each pair of waves on each test segment along with 

a test of the significance of that difference. 
 78 

Table 59. Summary of Countermeasures Implemented on Each Test Segment 

COUNTERMEASURE TYPE 

TEST 

SEGMENT 

Education (as 

Reported by 

Participants) 

Special 

Enforcement 

(as Reported 

by Police) 

PreExisting 

Vertical 

Treatments 

On Test 

Road 

PreExisting 

Vertical 

Treatments 

On 

Adjacent 

Roads 

New 

Vertical 

Treatments 

on Test 

Road 

3-DTM 

Marking TyregripTM

Phoenix 

Sweetwater 

(Table 65)* 

Intensive by 

Active Residents 

Very High 

Prompted by 

Citizen 

Complaints 

√ √

Clarendon 

(Table 64) 

Mostly by Police 

and City 

Personnel 

English and 

Spanish 

High √ √ 

Moon 

Valley 

East/West 

(Table 66) 

 

Moon 

Valley 

North/South 

(Table 67) 

 √ 

Coral 

Gables 

East/West 

(Table 68) 

 √ 

Coral 

Gables 

North/South 

(Table 69) 

Very Active and 

Involved 

Neighborhood 

Association 

High 

 √

Peoria 

Bell Park 

84th Ave. 

(Table 60) 

High Before 

Vertical 

Treatments 

Installed 

√ √ √ 

Bell Park 

85th Lane 

(Table 61) 

Moderately 

Active 

Neighborhood 

Association 

Moderate – 

Quiet Side 

Street Without 

a Speed 

Problem 

√ √ 

Desert 

Harbor 

91st Ave. 

(Table 62) 

Very Active, 

Innovative and 

Involved 

Neighborhood 

Association 

Very High 

Prompted by 

Citizen 

Complaints 

 

95th Ave. 

(Table 63) 

Some Citizen 

Involvement 

With Direct 

Efforts of City 

Personnel 

High √ 

*Location of speed results 
 79 

5.3.3 Speed Results 

The descriptions and tables below present the speed results by road segment. Before 

turning to the results themselves, however, it is important to highlight several points with respect 

to the analyses. 

 

There were five waves of speed data taken, but not all roads were included in each wave. 

Almost all Peoria sites had five measurements. In Phoenix, every site was included in Waves 1, 

4, and 5. Waves 2 and 3 were done in Phoenix at only one location before and immediately after 

3-D markings were installed. This permitted the assessment of the additive influence of these 

markings above any effect of the education and enforcement countermeasures previously 

deployed. 

 Wave 1 was in October 2002 before any countermeasures were implemented. The 

remaining waves were taken monthly in the succeeding months with Wave 5 in the 

February/March 2003 time period. 

 The measures used to examine speed were: 

• Average speed on the road segment (“Mean Speed”). Using the mean was judged to be 

more illustrative for this research effort than the 85th percentile speed that is commonly 

used in assessing traffic calming efforts because the present study was also utilizing 

several other measures of the highest speeds. 

• Mean difference in speed from the Wave 1 (baseline) value. This measure indicates the 

change in mean speed from the value before the study. In addition to a statistically 

significant decline, changes were sought that would be meaningful for safety. 

• Average speed above the speed limit (“Mean Above Limit”). This is the average of each 

vehicle’s speed minus the prevailing speed limit. A reduction in this measure could 

indicate either a moderation of high speeds or both a change in high speeds and a 

lowering of the speeds of those driving below the limit. For example, in a 30 mph zone 

with four cars doing 25, 25, 40 and 50, this average would be 5 mph (-5, -5, 10, 20). If 

the speeds changed to 20, 25, 40, 45, the average would be 2.5 mph (-10, -5, 10, 15). 

This same value would result if the new speeds were 25, 25, 40, 40 (-5, -5, 10, 10). 

• Average speed of those exceeding the speed limit (“Mean of Speeders”). This average 

excludes all vehicles going the speed limit or below. In the example above, the values 

would be 15 mph (10, 20), 12.5 mph (10, 15) and 10 mph (10, 10). This measure focuses 

in on the extent of excessive speed. 

• The percentage of drivers going: the speed limit or less; over the limit but less than 7 mph 

over; 7 mph or more over the limit. This last category is the aberrant group that flouts the 

law and compromises safety. The cutoff of 7 mph was selected because both the expert 

panel and the involved Phoenix and Peoria police indicated that this was the threshold at 

which they became concerned and would typically issue tickets. 

Basically, changes in the mean were used to assess whether the speed profile on a road 

segment had changed significantly while the other measures were included to assess the nature or 
 80 

profile of any speed change that did occur. This is consistent with the findings from the 

literature discussed earlier that indicate that the largest safety benefit would arise from 

eliminating the upper or fastest tail of the speed distribution. 

Each of the 10 roadway studies is summarized in terms of these measures in the sections 

that follow. 

5.3.3.1 Peoria – 84th Avenue 

The 84th Avenue test segment is part of the Bell Park neighborhood. It is a typical 

residential street with a 25 mph speed limit. It received a moderate-to-high education effort 

consisting of many of the yard and street signs and some literature distributed locally by the 

neighborhood association. The police focused their special enforcement around the time of 

Wave 2, which was before any physical changes in the roadway. Prior to Wave 3, both speed 

tables and 3-D markings were installed. Speed was then measured in Waves 3, 4, and 5. The 

results are shown in Table 60.9

Table 60. Peoria 84th Avenue Speed Results 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

From 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and 

% At or

Under 

Limit 

N and % 

< 7 mph 

Over 

N and 

% 7+ 

mph 

Over 

Total 

N 

1 25.962 .963 3.932 5031 

42.7% 

5703 

48.4% 

1042 

8.8% 11,776

2 26.037 0.07510 

ns

11

1.0372 

ns

12

3.773 

ns 

4812 

42.9% 

5574 

49.7% 

823 

7.3% 11,209

3* 22.874 -3.088 (.000) -2.126 

(.000)

2.901 

(.000)

7037 

74.4% 

2236 

23.6% 

182 

1.9% 9,455 

4* 23.857 -2.106 (.000) -1.143 

(.000)

3.070 

(.000)

5779 

64.3% 

2943 

32.7% 

268 

3% 8,990 

5* 23.335 -2.627 (.000) -1.665 

(.000)

3.540 

(.000)

5810 

70.2% 

2266 

27.4% 

205 

2.5% 8,281 

*Speed humps and 3-D Markings in place 

 The results on 84th Avenue are quite dramatic. The initial drop in mean speed at Wave 3 

(3.088 mph) is almost completely sustained two months later. Also, the drop is largely the result 

of elimination of the highest speeds. The percentage of those going 7+ mph over the limit drops 

from 8.8 percent to 2.5 percent, a 71.6-percent decrease. This is not unexpected from the 

installation of vertical treatments (the speed tables). Figure 8 displays the percentage of cars in 

 

9

 Speed data are reported in this and subsequent tables to three decimal points. This has been done for convenience 

since this is the format of the output of the statistical routines employed. It is neither intended to imply that speeds 

were measured with this degree of precision nor that this level of precision was required to test statistical 

significance. 

10 In this and all of the speed result tables positive mean differences indicate an increase in mean speed from 

baseline (wave 1) to the particular wave’s value and negative results indicate a speed reduction. 

11 ns= not significant; exact probabilities are shown in parenthesis for significant results with .000 indicating p < 

.001 

12 Significance here and for mean of speeders is related to the Wave 1 value. 
 81 

the three speed categories (at or under the limit, less than 7 mph over the limit and 7 or more 

mph over the limit). It depicts the major drop in the faster vehicles in favor of those going at or 

below the speed limit. 

42.7 42.9

74.4

70.2

48.4 49.7

23.6

32.7

27.4

8.8 7.3

1.9 3.0 2.5

64.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

12345

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 8. Speed Classes on Peoria – 84th Avenue 

The number of cars counted in each wave declined somewhat on this test segment after 

the installation of the speed humps. This is not an unusual result when vertical treatments are 

installed. Some drivers simply do not want to contend with them and find other routes. The 

effect of this diversion, which reached 23.7 percent of the traffic between Waves 1 and 5 on this 

segment, represents a further reduction in risk for this specific roadway. If the diverted drivers 

speed on other roads, however, this safety benefit might be partially offset. 

5.3.3.2 Peoria – 85th Lane 

 This is a quiet side street off 84th Avenue in Bell Park with a 25 mph speed limit. It had 

three speed humps installed well before the study began, but the residents were still not happy 

and wanted another hump. Since an additional vertical treatment was not warranted, other 

elements of Heed the Speed were employed. There was some limited education on this street 

prior to Wave 2 from the yard and fixed signs but little enforcement because of the low traffic 

volumes. The 3-D markings were installed prior to Wave 3. Five waves of data were collected 

with the results shown in Table 61 and Figure 9. 

There was no meaningful change on 85th Lane, which is not surprising given the low 

baseline speeds and the extremely small proportion of drivers going 7 or more miles over the 

limit. It is curious that the residents were complaining to the city prior to the study as the 

baseline (Wave 1) speed profile seems quite benign. The quiet nature of the test segment is also 

clearly indicated by the relatively low volume of traffic. The 48-hour volumes on 85th Lane were 

just over 10 percent of the number of vehicles seen on 84th Avenue, an adjacent street. Also, the 

traffic volume is largely steady from wave-to-wave suggesting no significant diversion. 
 82 

Table 61. Peoria – 85th Lane Speed Results 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

from 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and 

% At or

Under 

Limit 

N and % 

< 7 mph 

Over 

N and % 

7+ mph 

Over Total

N 

1* 19.675 -5.325 2.391 1048 

86.7% 

156 

12.9% 

5 

0.4% 1,209 

2 21.078 1.403 (.000) -3.922 

(.000)

3.879 ns 790 

82.5% 

149 

15.6% 

19 

2% 958 

3** 20.285 0.610 ns -4.715 ns 3.829 ns 942 

86.4% 

131 

12% 

17 

1.6% 1,090 

4** 19.720 0.045 ns -5.280 ns 2.429 ns 977 

89.6% 

110 

10.1% 

3 

0.3% 1,090 

5** 20.294 0.619 ns -4.706 ns 2.897 ns 907 

88.8% 

108 

10.6% 

6 

0.6% 1,021 

*3 Speed humps installed well before the project began 

**3-D Markings in place 

86.7

82.5

86.4 88.8

12.9 15.6

12.0 10.1 10.6

0.4 2.0 1.6 0.3 0.6

89.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

12345

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 9. Speed Classes on Peoria – 85th Lane 

5.3.3.3 Peoria – 91st Avenue 

 The 91st Avenue test segment is part of a neighborhood known as Desert Harbor. It is a 

relatively wide street that is conducive to high speeds and has a 30 mph speed limit. No roadway 

treatments of any kind were applied as part of Heed the Speed. The education program, 

however, was intensive and sustained because of the high level of effort by the neighborhood 

association. Enforcement was also applied because of the known propensity for speeding. Five 

waves of data were collected. The results are shown in Table 62. 
 83 

Table 62. Peoria – 91st Avenue speed results 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

from 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and % 

At or 

Under 

Limit 

N and 

% < 7 

mph 

Over 

N and % 

7+ mph 

Over Total 

N 

1 33.749 3.749 

(.000)

5.611 9407 

21.7% 

23548 

54.2% 

10490 

24.1% 43,445

2* 32.466 -1.283 (.000) 2.466 

(.000)

4.645 

(.000)

13369 

29.7% 

24901 

55.3% 

6733 

15% 45,003

3* 33.424 -0.325 (.000) 3.424 

(.000)

5.735 

(.023)13

10303 

26.4% 

19539 

50.1% 

9122 

23.4% 38,964

4* 32.771 -0.978 (.000) 2.771 

(.000)

5.010 

(.000)

10443 

28.5% 

19687 

53.8% 

6449 

17.6% 36,579

5* 33.261 -0.488 (.000) 3.261 

(.000)

5.347 

(.000)

11043 

25.4% 

23426 

53.9% 

9005 

20.7% 43,474

*Ongoing education and enforcement efforts 

The initial education and enforcement efforts produced a significant although small 

effect. After a return toward baseline in Wave 3, the renewed efforts of the neighborhood 

association and police revived a larger impact. This is demonstrated clearly in Figure 10. 

Although the effect is relatively small compared with the streets that had physical changes, it is 

encouraging that it appears to come almost entirely from drivers in the highest speed class. 

Those going over the limit but less than 7 miles over stayed virtually constant while those at or 

under the limit increased and those 7+ over the limit decreased. The mean speed above the speed 

limit was also down significantly in all follow-on waves. 

The number of vehicles using this test segment was approximately equal in Waves 1, 2 

and 5. The reduction in counts in Waves 3 and 4 is likely the result of vehicle counter equipment 

malfunctions rather than a traffic diversion. The count contractor reported specific problems and 

lost data in Wave 3 and also suspected some problems from equipment malfunctions or 

vandalism during Wave 4. 

 

13 Increase from baseline 
 84 

21.7

29.7

26.4 25.4

54.2 55.3

50.1

53.8 53.9

24.1

15.0

23.4

17.6

20.7

28.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

12345

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 10. Speed Classes on Peoria – 91st Avenue 

5.3.3.4 Peoria – 95th Avenue 

 This is a straight roadway with a 30 mph speed limit. Only four waves of data were 

collected on this street. Wave 3 data were lost due to equipment failure. In addition to a 

moderate to high level of education and moderate enforcement, five sets of 3-D markings were 

placed on the roadway prior to Wave 4. The resulting speed profiles are shown in Table 63 and 

Figure 11. 

On 95th Avenue, the initial education and enforcement produced a noteworthy effect with a 

drop in mean speed and a particularly large drop in the number of high-speed drivers and the 

mean of their speeds. This effect increased in Wave 4 with the addition of the 3-D markings and 

was still evident, although somewhat diminished, at the end of the data collection period. It is 

unfortunate that data for Wave 3 were lost due to an equipment malfunction as they would have 

shed some light on the short-term persistence of the education and enforcement efforts before the 

installation of the 3-D markings. It is promising, however, that a meaningful reduction in mean 

speed with almost a halving of drivers in the 7+ mph over the limit category could be achieved 

by moderate education and enforcement alone. 

The vehicle counts are quite consistent for Waves 1, 2, and 4 and then increase markedly 

in Wave 5 for no apparent reason. The fact that the speeds remain significantly below the 

baseline in spite of this increase in traffic suggests that the countermeasures were still working. 
 85 

Table 63. Peoria – 95th Avenue Speed Results 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

from 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and % 

At or 

Under 

Limit 

N and 

% < 7 

mph 

Over 

N and % 

7+ mph 

Over Total 

N 

1 31.949 1.945 

(.000)

4.727 

(.000)

7386 

35.3% 

10488 

50.1% 

3052 

14.6% 20,926

2* 30.581 -1.369 (.000) .5808 

(.000)

3.856 

(.000)

11154 

47.0% 

10715 

45.1% 

1885 

7.9% 23,754

3* 

4** 30.017 -1.933 (.000) .0169 

(.000)

3.759 

(.000)

11354 

52.9% 

8698 

40.6% 

1405 

6.5% 21,457

5** 30.921 -1.029 (.000) .9208 

(.000)

3.997 

(.000)

15025 

43.6% 

16393 

47.6% 

3044 

8.8% 34,462

*Education and enforcement efforts 

**3-D Markings added to education and enforcement 

35.3

47.0

52.9

50.1

45.1

40.6

47.6

14.6

7.9 6.5

8.8

43.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1245

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 11. Speed Classes on Peoria – 95th Avenue 

5.3.3.5 Phoenix – Clarendon 

 Clarendon is a through street with a 25 mph speed limit that has had speed humps for 

some time. The test was conducted there not only to see what would happen to speeds overall 

but also to determine if a change could be induced on the sections between the humps. As stated 

earlier, residents were complaining that the existing vertical treatments were spaced too far apart 

thereby prompting motorists to speed between the humps. 
 86 

There is no neighborhood association for Clarendon, and much of the population is 

Spanish-speaking. As a result, the education campaign likely had moderate intensity even 

though many of the materials were translated into Spanish. Police enforcement was applied at a 

level the police administrators considered commensurate with the low baseline mean speeds. 

 The data collection procedure on Clarendon had counters installed coincident with each 

of the three existing speed humps as well as two additional counters between them (see 

Appendix E). Three waves of measurements were taken (Waves 1, 4, and 5). The mean speed at 

the three existing speed humps actually went up slightly across the waves from 11.164 mph 

(Wave 1) to 11.515 mph (Wave 4) and 12.005 mph (Wave 5). These speeds are still half of the 

prevailing speed limit. Thus, there was no correctable issue with the speeds at the humps, and 

therefore no detailed results are presented for the measurements taken directly at the speed 

humps. 

The speeds at the two locations between the humps, however, showed a significant drop as 

indicated in Table 64 and Figure 12. These data for measurements taken at the two sensors 

between the speed humps show a distinct drop in speeds that is sustained through both post 

waves. The reduction in drivers going 7+ mph over the prevailing 25 mph limit is particularly 

noteworthy. The pattern in Table 64 suggests that the original complaints of the residents may 

have been caused either by the large differential in average speed between the humps and the 

inter-hump areas or as a result of the surprisingly large percentage of drivers (16.7%) going 7+ 

mph above the limit between the speed humps during the baseline (Wave 1). 

Table 64. Phoenix – Clarendon Speed Results (Only Sensors Between the Existing 

Speed Humps) 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

From 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and 

% At or

Under 

Limit 

N and % 

< 7 mph 

Over 

N and % 

7+ mph 

Over Total

N 

1 23.069 -.431 3.099 2804 

64.4% 

825 

18.9% 

727 

16.7% 4,356 

2 

3 

4* 20.563 -2.506 (.000) -2.937 

(.000)

1.235 

(.000)

3395 

80.2% 

670 

15.8% 

170 

4% 4,235 

5* 20.556 -2.513 (.000) -2.944 

(.000)

1.333 

(.000)

3256 

79.8% 

619 

15.2% 

207 

5.1% 4,082 

*After the application of education and enforcement 

 The number of vehicles measured on Clarendon between the humps stayed relatively 

constant across the measurement waves. This suggests that there was no meaningful diversion of 

traffic from the road as a result of the education and enforcement efforts. 
 87 

64.4

80.2 79.8

18.9

15.8 15.2 16.7

4.0 5.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

145

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 12. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Clarendon Between the Speed Humps 

5.3.3.6 Phoenix – Sweetwater 

 Sweetwater received intensive education and enforcement spurred by the efforts of a 

vocal and active neighborhood association. In addition, the TyregripTM material was installed 

prior to Wave 5 of measurement. Three waves of speed measurement in total were collected 

(Waves 1, 4 and 5). The results are shown in Table 65 and Figure 13. 

Table 65. Phoenix – Sweetwater Speed Results 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

from 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and % 

Under 

Limit 

N and % 

< 7 mph 

Over 

N and % 

7+ mph 

Over Total 

N 

1 36.675 8.175 10.049 3198 

12.5% 

7349 

28.8% 

14959 

58.6% 25,506

2 

3 

4* 33.065 -3.610 (.000) 4.565 

(.000)

8.017 

(.000)

6354 

29.8% 

8032 

37.7% 

6908 

32.4% 21,294

5** 33.462 -3.213 (.000) 4.962 

(.000)

7.634 

(.000)

5556 

26.9% 

8735 

42.3% 

6353 

30.8% 20,644

* After the application of education and enforcement 

**After the installation of TyregripTM 

The Sweetwater results show almost a 50-percent reduction in the number of drivers 

going 7 mph or more over the limit. The reduction is largest in the last wave. The mean speed 

of the speeders also was reduced markedly as well as statistically significantly in both post 
 88 

waves when compared with the Wave 1 baseline. The reduction in the mean of speeders from 

8.017 mph in Wave 4 to 7.634 mph in Wave 5 is also statistically significant (p<.001). 

It should be noted that across the three waves of measurement the shift in speeds is 

largest to the lowest category (under the speed limit). This category more than doubles from 

Wave 1 to Wave 4 and is still more than double in Wave 5. At the same time, the intermediate 

category of people going less than 7 mph above the limit goes from 28.8 percent to 42.3 percent, 

an increase of 46.9 percent. Thus, the distribution shifts from the 7+ miles over the limit 

category to the two lower class intervals. 

12.5

29.8

26.9

28.8

37.7

42.3

58.6

32.4 30.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

145

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 13. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Sweetwater 

 The mean of speeders shows continued improvement from Wave 4 to Wave 5. This 

suggests that the TyregripTM installation may have yielded a further moderation in the most 

aberrant speeds even though the mean speed rose slightly. Since there was only a single wave of 

measurement after the appearance of the TyregripTM, no inference can be drawn concerning its 

long-term effectiveness. 

 The data for Sweetwater show a drop in traffic volume of 16.5 percent from Wave 1 to 

Wave 4. This volume reduction increases slightly from Wave 4 to Wave 5. This could be 

indicative of a small diversion of traffic to other parallel through streets. This is consistent with 

the opinion of the neighborhood association members who felt that many of the speeders were 

people cutting through the neighborhood on east/west trips. It is also supported by the police 

stop data shown previously in Table 23 which indicated that Sweetwater had the lowest 

percentage in Phoenix of people stopped who lived in or near the neighborhood. If there was a 

diversion, however, it cannot explain the marked reduction in those traveling 7+ miles over the 

limit. This number dropped by 8,606 between Wave 1 and Wave 5 while the total sample only 

decreased by only 4,862 vehicles. 
 89 

5.3.3.7 Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive East/West Segment 

 Moon Valley Drive is a 25 mph speed limit road with a segment that runs east and west 

on which only education and enforcement were applied. Three waves of speed measurement 

were collected (Waves 1, 4, and 5). 

 Table 66 and Figure 14 show that significant speed reductions were achieved on the 

east/west section of Moon Valley Drive without the use of any physical measures. The 

magnitude of the reduction is not as great as on Sweetwater, but the pattern is somewhat the 

same – a reduction in average speed and a shift to the lower class intervals from the 7+ miles 

over the limit category. A particularly interesting aspect of the results at this site was that the 

effect was maintained and even increased significantly between Waves 4 and 5. This suggests 

the possibility of some persistence of the education plus enforcement approach. 

Table 66. Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive East/West Segment Speed Results 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

from 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and 

% At or

Under 

Limit 

N and % 

< 7 mph 

Over 

N and % 

7+ mph 

Over Total

N 

1 29.234 5.734 9.457 2162 

26.4% 

2248 

27.4% 

3785 

46.2% 8,195 

2 

3 

4* 28.393 -0.841 (.000) 4.893 

(.000)

8.689 

(.000)

2311 

29% 

2512 

31.6% 

3137 

39.4% 7,960 

5* 27.656 -1.578 (.000) 4.156 

(.000)

8.286 

(.000)

2660 

34.5% 

2497 

32.4% 

2544 

33% 7,701 

*After the application of education and enforcement 

 Although the number of vehicles observed dropped slightly from the baseline to the post 

waves, this drop cannot explain the observed pattern of results. For example, the total number of 

vehicles observed in Wave 5 was only 494 less than seen in Wave 1. Across the same 

measurement periods, the reduction in those going 7+ miles over the limit was 1,241, almost four 

times as great. 
 90 

26.4

29.0

34.5

27.4

31.6

32.4

46.2

39.4

33.0

25

30

35

40

45

50

145

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 14. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive East/West Segment 

5.3.3.8 Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive North/South Segment 

 The segment of Moon Valley Drive running north and south received essentially the 

same education and enforcement as the east/west segment but also had two speed humps 

installed between Waves 4 and 5. The speed limit on this segment is also 25 mph. 

 The results shown in Table 67 and Figure 15 indicate that the effect of education and 

enforcement alone on speed on this roadway through Wave 4, although significant, is somewhat 

less than on the east/west segment of Moon Valley Drive. The influence of the addition of a 

speed hump before Wave 5 is large and consistent with what was seen on 84th Avenue in Peoria. 

 As with the East/West segment on Moon Valley and at Sweetwater, there is a slight 

reduction in the overall vehicle count between Wave 1 and Waves 4 and 5. The magnitude of 

this drop (484) from Wave 1 to Wave 4 could possibly account for the reduction of 468 in the 

number of cars observed going 7+ over the limit across these waves if all the diversions were 

speeders. The overall reduction in vehicles from Wave 1 to Wave 5 (518), however, cannot 

explain the extremely large drop in those going 7+ over the limit across those time periods 

(1,398). 
 91 

Table 67. Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive North/South Segment Speed Results 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

from 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and 

% At or

Under 

Limit 

N and % 

< 7 mph 

Over 

N and % 

7+ mph 

Over Total

N 

1 30.084 6.584 9.040 763 

18.0% 

1307 

30.8% 

2171 

51.2% 4,241 

2 

3 

4* 29.391 -0.693 (.014) 5.891 

(.000)

8.608 

(.036)

781 

20.8% 

1273 

33.9% 

1703 

45.3% 3,757 

5** 26.851 -3.233 (.000) 3.351 

(.000)

6.976 

(.000)

1458 

39.2% 

1492 

40.1% 

773 

20.8% 3,723 

* After the application of education and enforcement 

**Speed humps added prior to Wave 5 

18.0

20.8

39.2

30.8

33.9

40.1

51.2

45.3

20.8

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

145

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 15. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Moon Valley Drive North/South Segment 

5.3.3.9 Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive East/West Segment 

 The east/west segment of Coral Gables Drive was treated with 3-D and TyregripTM 

materials as well as education and enforcement. Five waves of measurement were made to be 

sure to encompass the installation of all of the pavement treatments. The 3-D markings were 

installed between Waves 2 and 3 at the east end of the segment. The TyregripTM was installed 

between Waves 4 and 5 at the west end of the roadway. This section of Coral Gables passes a 

school and park. 
 92 

 Table 68 and Figure 16 show that overall speed was significantly below baseline by in 

excess of 2 mph in all post waves. The number of drivers exceeding the limit by 7 mph or more 

dropped almost threefold from Wave 1 to Wave 5. The increase in the mean speed of speeders 

in Wave 3 is curious because the proportion of the sample in the lowest category increased and 

the number and percent of drivers in the highest speed category stayed virtually steady. In any 

event, the reversal was transitory, and Waves 4 and 5 show markedly lower speeds by speeders. 

The addition of TyregripTM was associated with a significant increase of 0.489 mph in overall 

speed from the preceding wave but a significant decrease of 0.434 mph in the mean speed of 

speeders between Waves 4 and 5. The Wave 5 mean speed of 30.006 mph, however, was still 

well below the baseline speed of 33.683 mph. 

Table 68. Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive East/West Segment Speed Results 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

from 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and % 

At or 

Under 

Limit 

N and 

% < 7 

mph 

Over 

N and % 

7+ mph 

Over Total 

N 

1 33.683 5.183 8.332 9167 

25.6% 

12840 

35.9% 

13798 

38.5% 35,805

2* 31.509 -2.174 (.000) 3.009 

(.000)

7.416 

(.000)

16166 

39.5% 

14866 

36.3% 

9924 

24.2% 40,956

3** 31.294 -2.389 (.000) 2.794 

(.000)

9.499 

(.000)14

21887 

49.1% 

11800 

26.5% 

10858 

24.4% 44,545

4** 29.517 -4.166 (.000) 1.017 

(.000)

7.048 

(.000)

22806 

45.5% 

17858 

35.6% 

9432 

18.8% 50,096

5*** 30.006 -3.677 (.000) 1.506 

(.000)

6.614 

(.000)

24255 

49.6% 

17408 

35.6% 

7201 

14.7% 48,864

* After the application of education and enforcement 

**After addition of 3-D material to education and enforcement 

***After addition of TyregripTM material to education, enforcement and 3-D material 

 There was clearly no diversion of traffic on this segment of Coral Gables Drive. The 

vehicle counts for every post wave are well above the count for the baseline. There is no ready 

explanation for why the traffic volume would have increased to the extent measured. It is 

possible that the novelty value of the innovative markings actually attracted traffic. Even if this, 

in fact, occurred, the desired speed reductions were nevertheless achieved. 

 

14 Significant increase from Wave 1 
 93 

25.6

49.1 49.6

35.9 36.3

26.5

35.6 35.6

38.5

24.2 24.4

28.8

14.7

45.5

39.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

12345

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 16. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Coral Gables East/West Segment 

5.3.3.10 Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive North/South Segment 

 The north/south portion of Coral Gables Drive is wide and lined with expensive single 

family homes. This segment received enforcement and education as well as a TyregripTM 

installation between Waves 4 and 5. Only three waves of data (Waves 1, 4, and 5) were 

collected. The speed results for this segment are presented in Table 69 and Figure 17. 

Table 69. Phoenix – Coral Gables Drive North/South Segment Speed Results 

Measure 

Wave 

Mean 

Speed 

(mph) 

Mean 

Difference 

From 

Wave 1 

(mph) 

Mean 

Above 

Limit 

(mph) 

Mean of 

Speeders 

(mph) 

N and % 

At or 

Under 

Limit 

N and 

% < 7 

mph 

Over 

N and % 

7+ mph 

Over Total 

N 

1 32.937 4.437 7.773 7627 

28% 

10807 

39.6% 

8837 

32.4% 27,271

2 

3 

4* 32.513 -0.424 (.000) 4.013 

(.000)

7.330 

(.000)

9223 

33.3% 

11274 

40.7% 

7183 

26% 27,680

5** 31.467 -1.470 (.000) 2.967 

(.000)

6.545 

(.000)

10603 

39.6% 

11374 

42.5% 

4776 

17.9% 26,753

* After the application of education and enforcement 

**After addition of TyregripTM material to education and enforcement 
 94 

In addition to the significant drop in mean speed in each successive wave, there was a notable 

reduction in the number of vehicles traveling 7+ miles over the limit. This drop of over 4,000 

cars is far in excess of the overall reduction in vehicles counted of only 518 between Wave 1 and 

Wave 5. Thus, diversion cannot possibly explain the observed results. Also, the marked effect 

of the addition of the TyregripTM material on mean and excessive speeds is noteworthy. 

28.0

33.3

39.6

39.6

40.7

42.5

32.4

26.0

17.9

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

145

Measurement Wave

Percent of Vehicles

≤ Limit

< 7 mph Over limit

7+ mph Over Limit

Figure 17. Speed Classes on Phoenix – Coral Gables North/South Segment 

5.3.3.11 Summary of Speed Results 

The large samples of speed data indicated a consistent pattern of reductions in all 

neighborhoods and on all test segments except 85th Lane in Peoria. The general pattern of results 

is a decrease in mean speed accompanied by a moderate to large reduction of drivers exceeding 

the speed limit by 7 mph or more and a concomitant increase in drivers proceeding at the speed 

limit or less. The mean speed above the speed limit and the mean speed of speeders also decline 

significantly at all sites except 85th Lane in Peoria where the mean speed above the limit declines 

significantly from Wave 1 to Wave 2 but then returns to baseline in the subsequent measurement 

waves. 

5.3.3.12 Summary of Traffic Volume Results 

 Traffic volumes varied across the various study measurements without a consistent 

pattern. At six of the study segments (85th Lane, 91st Avenue, Clarendon, Moon Valley 

East/West and North/South and Coral Gables North/South), the volume was essentially equal 

between the baseline and the last applicable measure. There was a meaningful decrease in traffic 

volume at two segments (84th Avenue and Sweetwater) and a notable increase in traffic at two 

others (95th Avenue and Coral Gables East/West). The decrease in volume on 84th Avenue after 

the installation of speed humps is not surprising and has been previously noted when these 
 95 

vertical treatments were installed. The other decrease and the two increases cannot be readily 

explained but are likely just normal variability. 

 Importantly, there is nothing in the traffic volume results that suggests that the observed 

speed reduction effects were the result of diverting higher speed drivers to other, non-studied 

streets where they would continue to be a hazard. On 84th Avenue, volume dropped 29.7 percent 

from the first (baseline) wave to the last measurement. Over the same time period, the number 

of vehicles traveling 7+ mph over the speed limit decreased by 80.3 percent. On Sweetwater, the 

number of vehicles counted declined by 4,862 from the baseline to the last measurement while 

the number of vehicles measured at 7+ mph over the limit dropped by 8,606. 

5.4 Process Assessment 

 Following completion of the program, a joint meeting was held with the Peoria and 

Phoenix traffic engineering and police personnel who had served on the steering committee for 

the study The purpose of the meeting was to obtain their opinions on the effectiveness of the 

program and its components as well as suggestions for program improvement. Information was 

also sought on whether or not committee members would recommend that specific program 

components be included in a national guide for reducing speeds in neighborhoods. 

Similar discussions were held with representatives from the neighborhoods under study. 

Two of these latter discussions were held by telephone. There was no discussion with 

representatives from the Clarendon Avenue neighborhood since the lack of either a homeowner’s 

association or a vocal group of citizens prevented identifying residents to speak for the 

neighborhood. 

Specific information obtained from these discussions is described in the following 

paragraphs. 

5.4.1 Program Conduct and Coordination 

 When the two cities agreed to participate in the study, a committee was established to 

oversee the conduct of the program. It consisted of police and traffic representatives who met 

approximately monthly to oversee program activities. The committee members felt that the 

frequency of these meetings was adequate. They provided an opportunity for all involved to 

review accomplishments achieved to date, discuss and resolve any problems encountered since 

the last meeting, and make plans for the future. 

It was noted that there was a great deal of media attention to the program at the 

beginning, and then it tapered off. It was suggested that adding a public information person to 

the basic committee might have been helpful in maintaining a higher level of earned media for 

the program. 

5.4.2 Selection of Program Neighborhoods 

 All of the neighborhoods selected for study had previously requested city support for a 

speeding problem. Some had complained frequently to the police about speeders. In Peoria, 

both Desert Harbor and 95th Avenue were considered by the police to be good selections for the 

program. Police representatives considered Desert Harbor to be best in terms of interest. There 
 96 

was a designated neighborhood coordinator for that site, many yard signs were displayed, and 

there was a great deal of neighborhood involvement In contrast, the residents of Bell Park, 

although vocal and persistent, concentrated on their desire for the installation of speed tables and 

appeared to be less interested in the other program activities. 

 In Phoenix, police representatives considered that Moon Valley and Sweetwater were 

good test sites – residents wanted them there. There was not much interest evident in the 

Clarendon neighborhood. Contributing to this problem was the lack of a homeowner’s 

association. Police also felt that the existing speed humps on Clarendon slowed their movements 

and that it may not have been a good idea to select a test neighborhood with existing speed 

humps. This sentiment, however, was expressed before the foregoing speed results were 

available showing a marked decrease in speeds on the stretches of Clarendon between the speed 

humps. 

 Police representatives recommended that, in selecting neighborhoods for a model 

program, there should be evidence that the speeders are local and that the neighborhood residents 

want a police presence there. As stated previously, the latter was a requirement for the present 

study. It is not clear how a committee or decision-maker could determine the residence location 

of the speeders in a particular neighborhood unless the police made a series of stops such as 

those conducted in the present program as one test of the suitability of a neighborhood for 

participation in a Heed the Speed effort. 

5.4.3 Neighborhood Speed Watch 

Police in both cities trained a small group of volunteers to participate in a neighborhood 

speed watch program. The police reported that, although the concept of a neighborhood speed 

watch is good, the residents of the study neighborhoods did not show much interest once the 

training was completed. In Peoria, apparently a fair number of people signed up for training but, 

except for one resident, no reports documenting their efforts subsequent to the training were 

submitted to the police department. In fact, only the one resident in Desert Harbor actually made 

speed measurements, and that person was still making the measurements after the program 

ended. He felt that the neighborhood speed watches were good at reducing speeds. Police 

representatives reported that it is good to offer the training as a tool, but there may be better ways 

to use resources. This is especially true because most departments will have to invest in 

additional portable radars in order to support neighborhood speed watches. 

 Some neighborhood representatives reported that a speed watch “is not my job.” They 

considered it to be a police function and that photo radar should be used instead.15 Residents 

reported that they did not actually make speed measurements after being trained to do so because 

they could not find another person to work with as called for in the protocol. They also noted 

that it was not fun anymore after the initial training. Other respondents felt that speed watches 

should be included in a model program since they teach people who the speeders are and that the 

problem may not be as big as it is perceived to be. Speed watches get the speeders and educate 

the neighborhood. 

 

15 In Phoenix, photo radars or other automated speed enforcement techniques are not permitted at all locations and 

are limited to school zones at the direction of the City Council. 
 97 

5.4.4 Police Enforcement 

Peoria focused the first two weeks of police enforcement only in Bell Park. They then 

concentrated on 91st and 95th Avenues, and finally went back to Bell Park. They went out during 

rush hours and stopped as many speeders as they could. In Phoenix, assignment of 

neighborhoods was random. They tried to improve police visibility so they tried to be out there 

at rush hour and at school lunch time. They saturated the entire neighborhood in an attempt to 

get as much education out as possible. 

 The police liked the idea of stopping people for speeding but not ticketing them except in 

extreme cases because of the time it takes to issue and process a ticket – although some felt it 

was important to “hit them in the pocketbook.” They noted that warnings could effectively be 

used the first week of a campaign, and that no one going 5 to 10 miles over the posted speed 

should be ticketed just for speeding. The courts in the area are not heavily overloaded, but any 

massive increase in speeding citations could tip the scales. It was noted that the Phoenix City 

Council likes a warning phase for programs of this type – it makes the program more acceptable 

to the public. It was noted that speeders just over the speed limit who receive warnings are not 

the problem. 

Police reported that the forms provided by the project were easy to complete and were 

filled out on virtually all stops. During the stops, some officers gave a little talk on Heed the 

Speed, some read information to the driver from the flyer and some used data in the flyer to show 

how long it would take for the driver to stop at the speed the driver was traveling. Police liked 

the literature-education phase and the ticket concept for an established (not a transient) 

neighborhood. 

 Police felt the following should be added to this study’s police stop form if it were ever to 

be used again as part of a Heed the Speed evaluation: 

• Posted speed 

• Actual speed 

• Type of ticket(s) issued (e.g., speeding, lack of insurance, etc.) 

• Any unusual activity. 

Near the end of the study, police reported that people were aware of the program. They 

saw changes in the roadway. Some people stopped and asked how to get the program in their 

neighborhoods. Some asked if they could get something for the officers (like breakfast) and 

thanked them for being there. The citizens appeared to appreciate why the police were there. 

There were lots of “thumbs up” as cars drove by. Officers felt that education should be included 

to get the community interest. 

Both police and neighborhood representatives felt that it would be a good idea to double 

the fine for speeding in residential neighborhoods as is done in road work zones in many states. 

An area could be designated as a Heed the Speed neighborhood for double fines. It would need 

to be done through the legislature or as an administrative action of the motor vehicle authority 

depending on the particular state. It was noted that the big financial impact of a ticket is the 

resulting increase in insurance rates. The cost of the fine is small compared to long-term 

increases in insurance rates. 
 98 

Neighborhood representatives found the police involvement to be very good and felt that 

the police stops decreased speeds. Some felt that all resources should be given to enforcement. 

In addition, they recommended that a police car be parked on the street on a regular basis. 

5.4.5 Signs 

The yellow program lawn signs were reported to be very conspicuous and to contribute to 

program awareness. At the beginning of the program many signs were displayed, but their use 

tapered off. Some just disappeared – particularly at Halloween. Keeping them up was a 

challenge. Use appeared to vary by neighborhood and seemed to be positively correlated with 

the presence of a strong neighborhood association. Phoenix and Peoria representatives were still 

getting requests for them long after the program ended. Neighborhood representatives liked 

them. They reported that their visibility is good, they are lightweight and easy to carry around, 

they are legible, they have a clear message and the quality and appearance are “great.” It was 

recommended that the signs be moved around occasionally because after a while people don’t 

see them when they remain in the same place. Children loved them and took them to school for 

“Show and Tell.” 

Neighborhood residents liked the metal street signs at the entry points to the 

neighborhood but would have preferred them to be more eye-catching so that they would stand 

out from other traffic signs. Some felt that they should be yellow to match the lawn signs. It 

was suggested that they be larger and more conspicuous. Also, some residents said they would 

like more of them. Police representatives also reported that they would like more of them. They 

said that, if a sign is there when the officer is writing a ticket or explaining the program, the 

officer can point to it. 

5.4.6 Other Publicity 

Comments on other publicity were varied. Some thought the printed materials were 

“great,” one said they were not very effective, and one said he hadn’t seen any of them but had 

seen an article in the newspaper. One neighborhood coordinator found them to be “good basic 

materials.” That person found the material for car dealers to be the most helpful and claimed to 

have noticed a big decrease in test drives in the neighborhood after the flyer (that was designed 

specifically for car dealerships) had been delivered. The materials were reported to be 

worthwhile particularly in making people aware of the speeding problem. One neighborhood 

coordinator received permission from the school board to distribute materials to the children to 

take home to their parents. That person felt that, if the children are educated, the parents will 

follow. One coordinator paid children to deliver the program materials in the neighborhood. 

5.4.7 Traffic Calming 

 At the start of the program, there were existing speed humps on 85th Lane in Peoria and 

on Clarendon Avenue in Phoenix. Added as part of the Heed the Speed program were speed 

tables on 84th Avenue in Peoria and speed humps on Moon Valley Drive in Phoenix. Comments 

on these traffic calming techniques were positive. They were installations that had been 

requested by neighborhood residents and had been approved through a prescribed consensus 

process. 
 99 

5.4.8 Roadway Visual Treatments 

The committee felt that the 3-D markings and TyregripTM installations probably had no 

effect on speed except for the first time they were observed. Curiously, this opinion is not 

supported by the speed data which show some persistence of effect, although the follow-on 

measurement period is not very long. Neighborhood representatives confirmed this observation. 

They reported that the illusions fooled people for a while. One resident reported that they may 

have worked for about a week. One said they caused a few near rear-end collisions. Some 

drivers swerved to avoid them. Neighborhood residents did not see people slowing down for 

TyregripTM. 

Both the committee members and neighborhood representatives stated that these roadway 

treatments drew attention to the program. Suggestions were made to replace these treatments 

with striping or possibly road reflectors that make a noise when a vehicle goes over them. It was 

also noted that, if yellow is used in the signs, it also should be used in the roadway treatments. 

The word “SLOW” could be written in the road. 

It was noted by engineering representatives that roadway treatments might beneficially 

have been incorporated earlier to draw attention to the program. These treatments were applied 

late in the program and were labor intensive. Certain directions of light caused glare and 

affected how the 3-D markings were noticed. Possibly a different pattern and more markings in 

the pattern would have been a better choice. Possibly signs could have been placed beside them 

as warnings that they were there. 

 It must be noted that these comments were made in the absence of the speed results 

presented earlier. It would be interesting to determine if some of these opinions might change 

after exposure to the speed findings. In particular, there is an apparent persistence, at least short 

term, of the speed reductions associated with the roadways visual treatments beyond one or two 

exposures. This may suggest that these markings produce two different effects. At first they 

trick the senses into believing there is an impediment in the roadway that requires a reduction in 

speed. After the motorist becomes familiar with them and realizes they do not impede motion, 

they may still serve as a reminder that the neighborhood is actively attempting to control speeds. 

This is supported by the compelling visual signal presented by both the 3-D and TyregripTM 

materials even when the viewer knows they are present and is aware of what they are. 

5.4.9 Program Suggestions 

 Several suggestions were made for program materials/concepts in future Heed the Speed

efforts. These included: 

• It would be helpful to have a video to show on local TV that demonstrates the 

consequences of sudden stops due to excess speed, e.g., rear-end collisions. 

• Possibly a different slogan should be used for Hispanic communities since Heed the 

Speed loses its alliterative character when translated. 

• All program countermeasures should be implemented at once. 

• There should be more police involvement. 
 100 

• There is a need for a train-the-trainer guide that contains both how-to and content. The 

information could be put on a pamphlet or in a CD-ROM. It is helpful to have all 

materials in one package. It would be good to “come back again” with different angles, 

e.g., e-mail, signs, video, neighborhood-oriented press release, etc. 

• The program needs a maintenance schedule. Otherwise, speeding will go back to where 

it was. 

5.4.10 Citizen Comments 

 The following comments were made by neighborhood residents: 

• Speeds have decreased in the neighborhoods, particularly high end speeds. There has 

been no change in volume. Complaints have gone down. 

• There are many neighborhoods that have requested the program. 

• The program brought the community together – got them talking. 

• The best part of the program was the police involvement and the signs. 

• Overall the program was good and the program worked. 

• The most important part of the program was increased enforcement. 

• Presentations of police and street transportation representatives at homeowner’s 

association meetings were very effective. 

• Police were noticed many times – police were wonderful. 

• Best parts of the program were the speed humps and the police. Also the signs were 

great. 

• The overall program was good. There was a net benefit to the neighborhood. It was the 

“first time the neighborhood ever got anything done.” 

• Speeds were reduced by speed humps and the police. 

• It’s hard to keep people motivated. We would like to keep the program going. 
 101 

5.4.11 Process Data Summary 

The Heed the Speed program elicited mostly positive and constructive comments from 

both those who helped mount it and the citizens it affected. Together with the survey data 

presented earlier, these follow-up commentaries on the process suggest that the concept of a 

multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted neighborhood speed reduction program is well accepted and can 

likely be improved in future implementations based on the experiences in Phoenix and Peoria 

and the suggestions made by the participants and citizens. 
 102 

6. DISCUSSION 

The primary objective of the present study was to develop and test a behavior based 

program to reduce motorist speed in residential areas by adding education and enforcement to 

engineering. The Heed the Speed program that was mounted consisted of education, special 

police enforcement, application of innovative pavement markings and conventional vertical 

traffic calming treatments. It was evaluated by two waves of a knowledge and opinion survey, 

police data collection during stops for speeding and up to five waves of 48-hour speed 

measurements. 

6.1 General Results 

In addition to demonstrating speed reductions, in order to conclude that the Heed the 

Speed program was effective, it is necessary to show that one or more of its components was 

applied with sufficient intensity to yield a speed reduction. Further, it must be shown that the 

affected populations in the six test neighborhoods were aware of the countermeasures and likely 

responded to them. Thus, positive survey and process results are necessary for a conclusion that 

any observed decreases in the speed data were the result of Heed the Speed efforts. 

The process data clearly indicate that the program countermeasures were applied with 

sufficient vigor to have been noticed by the residents of the test neighborhoods. The large 

number of police stop reports and high quantities of literature and signs distributed as well as the 

physical changes applied – both new vertical treatments and 3-D and TyregripTM markings – are 

compelling evidence of the activity levels of the Phoenix and Peoria Heed the Speed programs. 

This was confirmed by the survey results that showed large increases in awareness and in the 

perception that neighborhood speeds had moderated. 

In the context of the survey, an additional point is noteworthy. The survey response rate 

of almost 61 percent is extremely high for a mailed questionnaire, particularly one addressed to 

“Resident.” This is likely the result of a strong prevailing interest in traffic safety in general and 

speed management in particular among those dwelling in the test neighborhoods. This is not 

surprising as the participating cities selected the test sites based on previously expressed interest 

in achieving a speed reduction. 

The number of police stops, both with and without the issuance of citations for speeding, 

suggests that the increased awareness of police activities can be attributed to Heed the Speed. It 

is unfortunate that there is no accurate record of the patrol hours assigned to each test road 

segment as that would have supported a more detailed examination of the relationship between 

increased enforcement presence and speeding. 

The police stop data provide two other interesting findings. First, the vast majority of 

those stopped for speeding were residents of the test neighborhoods or regular users of its streets. 

This dispels any notion that aberrant speeding behavior stems primarily from outsiders who do 

not have a stake in the safety of the neighborhoods through which they travel. It also suggests 

that localized programs such as Heed the Speed can be effective because most of the targeted 

drivers will be exposed repeatedly to any deployed countermeasures. 
 103 

The second interesting finding from the police stop data is the high rate of safety belt use. 

It is counterintuitive and contrary to much of the safety literature to find 85 percent safety belt 

use among drivers who are speeding. The neighborhood locale of the stops and the relatively 

high socioeconomics of the test sites may have contributed to the high observed safety belt rate. 

Regardless of its origin, however, the existence of such a high safety belt use rate suggests that 

the target population for speed countermeasures, at least in residential neighborhoods such as the 

six used in this study, is likely safety conscious and desirous of being law-abiding. Thus, safety 

messages and the other types of activities employed by Heed the Speed should be more 

influential with this group than with a population less concerned with safety. 

6.2 Effect of the Heed the Speed Program 

The results presented earlier show conclusively that Heed the Speed produced significant 

changes in speeding behavior in the six test neighborhoods. Nine of the 10 individual road 

segment analyses showed statistically significant and operationally meaningful reductions in 

speed after the application of the Heed the Speed countermeasures. The one segment that did not 

show a reduction, 85th Lane in Peoria, had baseline mean speeds almost 5 mph below the speed 

limit. 

On all nine segments that showed speed reductions, speeds (compliance with the limit 

and speeds 7+ over the limit) were still statistically lower than prior to the Heed the Speed

countermeasures at Wave 5, almost five months after the program began. 

6.3 Effect of Individual Countermeasures 

The design of this study was not intended to isolate the effects of the individual 

countermeasures employed. Rather, the objective was to mount a multi-pronged effort focused 

on achieving speed reductions in the test neighborhoods. The realities of the implementation of 

the Heed the Speed program, however, afforded some insights into the effects of some of the 

individual interventions. This was because the various countermeasures were phased in as they 

were ready while periodic speed measurements were being made. The discussion that follows 

refers back to the speed data by test segment contained in the tables in Section 5.3.3. The focus 

in this discussion will be on mean speed changes since the other speed measures appeared to be 

consistent with changes in the average observed speed. 

6.3.1 Enforcement Alone 

There were no pre/post speed measurements collected when the only intervention 

mounted was enforcement. Several education measures, such as the traffic and lawn signs, were 

implemented at the outset and therefore were coincident with the special enforcement efforts. 

The survey and follow-up discussions with neighborhood leaders, however, suggest that the 

enforcement effort was visible and appreciated by the residents who were interested in better 

control of speeds. The large number of stops recorded also supports a conclusion that the 

enforcement efforts contributed meaningfully to the speed reduction results achieved. 

Although not in total isolation, enforcement was a primary countermeasure in operation 

at the Clarendon Avenue test site in Phoenix. This neighborhood had no organized residents’ 

association, and the predominance of Spanish-speaking residents limited the penetration of some 

of the educational materials. Thus, the reduction of approximately 2.5 mph in mean speed 
 104 

between the speed humps on Clarendon can be largely attributed to the special police 

enforcement and its deterrent effect. 

The Peoria police used essentially a neighborhood rotation approach to enforcement 

while Phoenix employed a more random deployment. The evaluation data do not provide any 

clear insights on which of these approaches is preferable. Perhaps a combined strategy in which 

there is a strong effort followed by random “boosters” would be best. 

6.3.2 Education Alone 

As with enforcement, there was no “pure” application of education in the test. The 

closest situation was likely the change between Wave 1 and Wave 2 at both 91st Avenue and 95th

Avenue in Peoria. During this period, the Peoria police were focusing their enforcement 

primarily on 84th Avenue in Bell Park. Taking this view, the education efforts on 91st and 95th

Avenues can be credited with the observed reductions of 1.283 mph and 1.369 mph, respectively, 

in mean speeds and reductions of 37.8 percent and 45.9 percent, respectively, in the percent of 

drivers going 7+ mph over the speed limit. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the Heed 

the Speed education materials contributed positively to the overall program effectiveness. 

6.3.3 Education and Enforcement Together 

The data provide many replications of wave-to-wave speed measurements in which the 

operative countermeasures applied over the transition were education and enforcement in 

combination. These were the only countermeasures deployed at the outset of Heed the Speed

because there was a delay in achieving the installation of the planned vertical treatments and 

innovative street markings. 

The combination of education and enforcement only failed to yield a significant speed 

reduction in one instance – between Waves 1 and 2 at 84th Avenue in Peoria. This may have 

been a result of the almost single-minded focus of the neighborhood leaders on getting speed 

tables installed as soon as possible. As a result, they devoted most of their effort to lobbying the 

city rather than on distributing literature to the neighborhood. In all of the other cases in which 

education and enforcement operated alone, a significant mean speed reduction was achieved. 

The largest observed decline in mean speed under these conditions was 3.610 mph on 

Sweetwater Avenue in Phoenix between baseline (Wave 1) and the next measurement wave 

(Wave 4). The smallest (but still statistically significant) decline in mean speed for education 

and enforcement alone was 0.693 mph observed between the baseline (Wave 1) and second 

measurement wave (Wave 4) on the North/South segment of Moon Valley Drive in Phoenix. 

These results lead to the conclusion that combining education and enforcement can 

provide synergism under the proper conditions. The decline in mean speed in excess of 3.5 mph 

on Sweetwater is similar in magnitude to the reductions achieved by vertical treatments, although 

likely not as enduring. It is greater by far than what was apparently achieved by either education 

or enforcement alone. 

6.3.4 Vertical Treatments 

The study included two new installations of vertical roadway treatments – speed tables on 

84th Avenue in Peoria between Waves 2 and 3 of the speed measurements and speed humps on 
 105 

the North/South segment of Moon Valley Drive in Phoenix between Waves 4 and 5. The former 

was associated with a drop in wave-to-wave mean speed of 3.163 mph while the latter wave-towave reduction was 2.540 mph. It must be remembered that these reductions are in addition to 

any changes in speed from the previous waves. On 84th Avenue, there was no significant change 

in speed from Wave 1 to Wave 2. On Moon Valley, however, there was a significant drop of 

0.693 mph in mean speed from baseline (Wave 1) to Wave 4 (the first wave after the program 

start). Thus, the 2.540 mph decline after the installation of the speed humps was actually a total 

mean speed reduction of 3.233 mph from baseline. 

It is not surprising to find that vertical engineering treatments are effective in achieving 

traffic calming. This has been reported before (e.g., Ewing, 1999). Their application within this 

study, however, provides both a replication of the effects reported in the literature and a 

benchmark against which to compare the other countermeasures used. 

6.3.5 Innovative Pavement Markings 

The study employed two types of innovative pavement markings – 3-D markings and 

TyregripTM surfacing. The phasing of the installations provided some opportunities to examine 

the additive effects of these materials in some degree of isolation. 

The 3-D marking was the only physical change installed on 85th Lane where there was no 

significant change in speeds as discussed earlier. The baseline speeds on this quiet road were so 

low, that no reasonable speed reduction approach could be expected to work. The same material, 

however was installed on 95th Avenue in Peoria and on the East/West segment of Coral Gables 

Drive in Phoenix after Wave 2 of measurements. For 95th Avenue, the first available postinstallation measurement was Wave 4 because of a failure of the data collection equipment 

during Wave 3. The Wave 4 measurements show a statistically significant decrease from Wave 

2 of 0.564 mph on top of the previously observed decline of 1.369 mph for a total reduction in 

mean speed of 1.933 mph. On Coral Gables, the decline after Wave 2 is 0.215 mph on top of the 

2.174 mph decline observed between Wave 2 and baseline (total decline of 2.389 mph). The 

apparent effect of the 3-D installation, however, continues to climb with an additional reduction 

of 1.777 mph in mean speed from Wave 3 to Wave 4 for a total Wave 4 reduction of 4.166 mph. 

The TyregripTM material was installed between Waves 4 and 5 of speed measurement on 

three test segments in Phoenix – Sweetwater Avenue and both segments (East/West and 

North/South) of Coral Gables Drive in Phoenix. On Sweetwater, Wave 5 showed slightly higher 

mean speeds than Wave 4 but was still 3.213 mph below baseline (Wave 1). Although no 

additional speed reduction was achieved, the TyregripTM installation may have slowed a return to 

higher speeds by keeping the increase to 0.397 mph. A similar phenomenon was observed on the 

East/West segment of Coral Gables Drive where a small (0.489 mph) increase in mean speed 

was observed after TyregripTM was installed. It must be remembered that this segment was 

already associated with the previously discussed decline of 4.166 mph and the prior installation 

of 3-D markings. 

Perhaps the least confounded test of the TyregripTM material took place on the 

North/South segment of Coral Gables Drive. On this test road where TyregripTM was the only 

installed physical change, it was associated with a mean speed reduction of 1.045 mph from 

Wave 4 to Wave 5 (1.470 mph decline from baseline). 
 106 

Based on these findings, it is reasonable to conclude that innovative pavement markings 

such as the ones tested as part of Heed the Speed are a viable addition to the speed reduction 

techniques available to program managers and merit serious consideration, particularly when 

used in combination with other types of speed reduction countermeasures. It might have been 

even more effective to integrate the innovative markings more closely with the remainder of the 

program, particularly the education materials. This could help give the innovative markings a 

dual purpose as both the illusion of an impediment in the roadway and as a symbolic reminder to 

slow down. 

6.4 Countermeasure Persistence 

The present study was only able to examine very short term persistence of the 

countermeasures. Even over this limited period there were conflicting findings. In four of the 

nine successful tests mean speed reductions were higher in the last measurement wave than in 

any of the preceding waves. In the remaining five tests, the last measurement represented some 

increase in speed from the lowest mean value obtained. In one of these five, although the last 

wave was not the slowest, it was significantly slower than the immediately preceding wave. 

This pattern of results suggests that the present study simply did not have a good view of 

countermeasure persistence – short, intermediate or long term. New countermeasures were still 

being implemented on test segments just prior to the last speed measurement. Comments from 

the members of the Heed the Speed steering committee indicated that they believed 

reapplications of enforcement and education would be needed to sustain their effects. The 

consensus was that the vertical treatments would continue their effectiveness as they represent a 

true physical barrier to excess speed. Feelings were split with respect to the innovative 

markings. Some believed their effect would fade rapidly as motorists learned that they were 

merely illusions and not true barriers. Others felt that they would continue to have some 

effectiveness as a reminder that the neighborhood was trying to control speeds. Additional 

research would be needed to yield a definitive resolution of how long Heed the Speed continued 

to be successful. 

6.5 Traffic Diversion 

One potential counterproductive effect of traffic calming is the diversion of traffic to 

neighboring streets that have not been calmed. This is a natural behavior as drivers seek the path 

of least resistance to get to their destination quickly. In this study, there was no consistent 

pattern of reduced traffic flow after the implementation of any of the types of countermeasures 

deployed. Traffic on a few road segments went down while traffic on others increased. Most 

importantly, however, in the context of the current research is the clear finding that the speed 

reduction results observed could not possibly have been the result of diversion of higher speed 

traffic. Simply, in all cases, the reduction in cars going 7+ mph over the limit was either in 

excess of any concomitant decrease in traffic volume or so large that it would have necessitated 

all or most of the fastest vehicles to have been diverted. Thus, while there may have been some 

minor diversion, particularly on 84th Avenue in Peoria after the installation of speed tables, there 

is no reasonable possibility that this diversion confounded the speed results reported herein. 

It is also worth noting that no speed measurements were taken on the streets bordering 

the 10 test segments. It is theoretically possible that the fastest drivers simply changed their 

travel routes to avoid the enforcement activities or physical changes on the test segments. 
 107 

However, since there was not a major reduction in traffic volumes, this hypothesis could only be 

supported by a net increase in traffic in the test neighborhoods together with a significant 

diversion of high speed drivers from the test segments. The process data and anecdotal reports 

from the police strongly suggest that this did not happen. In particular, it must be remembered 

that survey respondents were drawn generally from the six neighborhoods and not just from the 

streets that were test segments. These survey respondents generally reported that they perceived 

lower speeds in their neighborhoods. It is likely that at least some responses would have noted a 

shift in the locus of speeding if, in fact, one had occurred. 

6.6 Safety Implications 

It is of interest to attempt to assess the safety benefits of the observed speed reductions. 

Unfortunately, as discussed in Section 2.1.2, there do not appear to be any simple formulas for 

estimating either crash reduction or the lessening of injury severity that will result from lowered 

vehicle speeds in residential neighborhoods. Even the fatality probabilities cited from the study 

in the United Kingdom (Department of Transport, 1997) cannot be directly applied to aggregate 

data such as those collected by this study because they only deal with the conditional case in 

which a crash has occurred. Although the current study documented a significant and 

operationally meaningful reduction in the number of vehicles traveling at the highest speeds on 

the test segments, there is no way to estimate how many of these vehicles would actually have 

been crash-involved. Any such estimate would have to include consideration of many other 

factors such as the environment on any particular street (e.g., the existence of visual screens, the 

prevailing speeds before the application of countermeasures). It would also have to include 

some measure of the likely pedestrian behavior on the street and the age distribution of the 

pedestrians. 

The absence of any formulas to translate shifts in the speed distribution of vehicles to 

crash and injury effects means that any safety implications must necessarily be subjective. One 

way to accomplish this is by determining which of the previously proved conditions for safety 

improvements were, in fact, achieved by Heed the Speed. For example, Tester et al. (2004) 

showed that the speed reductions associated with traffic calming engineering treatments were 

associated with reduced child pedestrian crash risk. The level of speed change studied by Tester 

et al. (2004) was likely achieved on 84th Avenue in Peoria and the Moon Valley North/South 

segment as a result of the installation of speed tables or speed humps. Likewise, speeds on 

Clarendon were reduced below what had been achieved from speed humps alone. Even 85th

Lane in Peoria, although its speeds did not change during the study, was already at a calmed 

level and therefore met the conditions studied by Tester et al. (2004). Thus, at least four of the 

test segments achieved or exceeded the speed reduction proved to alter child pedestrian crash 

probability favorably. 

The balance of the test segments also exhibited significant speed reductions. In at least 

two cases (the East/West segment of Coral Gables and Sweetwater) the reduction in mean speed 

was even greater than on the segments that had been calmed with engineering changes, but the 

starting mean speeds were also notably higher. Based on the findings of Kallberg (1997), it 

would appear likely that these segments would also have experienced reductions in both crash 

probability and resulting injury severity if a crash did occur. 

 In summary, while there is no readily apparent way to make a quantitative estimate of the 

safety benefits of the Heed the Speed efforts, the guidance from the literature suggests that the 
 108 

results were of a sufficient magnitude to yield meaningful reductions in both pedestrian crash 

risk and likely injury severity if a crash occurs. Since the desirable speed changes obtained 

typically involved thousands of vehicles per day on each segment, it is reasonable to conclude 

that safety was enhanced. It is also noteworthy that the evidence from Kallberg (1997) and 

Lindenmann (2004) among others is that the speed reduction effects would also have yielded a 

safety benefit for all traffic crashes on the treated road segments not just pedestrians. 

6.7 Lessons Learned 

The answer to the basic research question addressed by this study is that education and 

enforcement can add to the effectiveness of physical traffic calming. It was also shown that at 

least in the short term a program such as Heed the Speed can produce speed reductions of a 

significant and meaningful magnitude on through streets and other roads within traffic calmed 

areas that were not candidates for physical treatments. 

In the process of conducting this study, several principles emerged that appeared to be 

strongly associated with the success of Heed the Speed. These were: 

• A multi-disciplinary steering committee of individuals who truly believe in the benefits 

of reducing speeds in neighborhoods is essential. This committee must have 

representation from enforcement, engineering, and public relations and be fully supported 

by the local government. 

• For maximum impact, it is beneficial to have a well-organized and firmly committed 

neighborhood organization in any community where the program is to be applied. 

• Yard signs can be effective in getting the word out to residents, but participating 

homeowners need to be cautioned about potential vandalism and spare yard signs should 

be provided. 

• Using special enforcement stops for speeding as a way to train new police officers in the 

techniques for making traffic stops provides an additional benefit from the program. 

• Multi-lingual education materials are essential in communities where there are significant 

subgroups of non-English-speaking residents. 

• Addressing special groups such as car dealers or high school students can be productive 

and is worth the effort if there are data to indicate they may be part of the problem. 

• If the program is going to have a limited duration, implement all countermeasures 

together whenever possible. 

• In order to potentially give the program extended life after the major enforcement, 

education, and engineering countermeasures have waned, include some aspect that is 

durable in the environment. This was accomplished in Heed the Speed by including the 

fixed street signs that were left in place. 
 109 

• Consider the use of innovative approaches such as the pavement markings employed 

during Heed the Speed. If these types of approaches are used, integrate them as 

completely as possible in the program’s education material at the inception of the 

program. 

• Consider including a long-term plan for continuing to monitor and control speeds after 

the initial campaign. This should overcome any regression to the mean types of 

phenomena. 

• Include multiple, longitudinal speed measurements as part of the effort. These will 

provide valuable feedback on program effectiveness. The survey for this study also 

suggested that the deployment of speed measurement tubes is noticed and may even serve 

as a countermeasure by itself.

6.8 Guide for Future Heed the Speed Programs 

The lessons learned from this research application of Heed the Speed have been turned 

into a guide for future program implementations. This Guide is included as Appendix F to this 

report. It is important to view the recommendations in the Guide in the proper context. In 

particular, the application of Heed the Speed in six separate neighborhoods in two cities as part 

of this research clearly showed that localization is of the utmost importance. For example, 

although there was a clear benefit to the availability of an active neighborhood group, significant 

improvements were obtained even when there was no active community body. Therefore, it is 

prudent to work with the available resources and adapt Heed the Speed rather than attempting to 

change the local organization to meet any strict definition of a Heed the Speed implementation. 

All of the tests in this study were guided and overseen by local representatives from the 

engineering, enforcement, and education communities. Thus, for example, even when new 

engineering was not implemented, the countermeasure planning process had the benefit of 

engineering input. This multi-disciplinary focus appears to have been one of the factors that 

contributed to the success of the Peoria and Phoenix Heed the Speed implementations. The 

question therefore arises whether the involvement of all three disciplines is a necessary condition 

for future Heed the Speed implementations. This is difficult to answer in the absolute. On the 

one hand, a broad base of experience and resources should aid success. On the other hand, there 

almost certainly will be locales in which a viable speed reduction program can be implemented 

without one or more of the central disciplines. For example, a strong enforcement program by 

itself should result in a reduction in speeding even if it is not as effective as the same 

enforcement effort coupled with education and/or engineering countermeasures. 

Perhaps the most universal advice for using the guide is, therefore, to begin the entire 

process with a catalog of local resources. While the ideal is for every relevant discipline to join 

willingly and eagerly in Heed the Speed efforts, the reality is that local conditions will vary 

widely. As long as some involved group – citizens, enforcement, engineering or safety 

education – is eager to proceed, a successful Heed the Speed program is likely possible. 

Soliciting the help of all of the other participants, however, is clearly desirable and should be 

attempted. Once all of the players are identified and fully committed, the information in the 

Guide in Appendix F can be viewed in the proper context and adapted appropriately. 
 110 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 111 

7. REFERENCES 

Blomberg, R.D., Cleven, A.M. Development, implementation and evaluation of a pedestrian 

safety zone for elderly pedestrians. Final report to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Contract No. DTNH22-90-C-07223, February 1998, Dunlap and Associates, 

Inc., Stamford, CT. Report No. DOT HS 808 692. 

Boyle, J., Dienstfrey, S. and Sothoron, A. National survey of speeding and other unsafe driving 

actions: Volume I – Methodology; Volume II – Driver attitudes and behavior; Volume III – 

Countermeasures, DOT HS 808 748, 808 749 and 808 750, 1998. 

Cambridge’s traffic calming program: Pedestrians are the focus (Watkins). Paper presented at 

the Institute of Transportation annual meeting, August 2000. 

Davis, G.A. Method for estimating effect of traffic volume and speed on pedestrian safety for 

residential streets. Transportation Research Record 1636, Transportation Research Board, paper 

98-1330, 1998. 

Department of Transport. Killing Speed and Saving Lives, U.K., 1997. 

Ewing, R. Traffic calming: State of the practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 

Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-135, August 1999. 

Kallberg, V. Speed can endanger your health. Nordic Road & Transport Research, Vol. 9 

(1997), No.2, p. 9-12. ISSN 1101-5179 

Leaf, W.A. and Preusser, D.F. Literature review on vehicle travel speeds and pedestrian 

injuries. Final report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Contract 

DTNH22-97-D-05018, Task Order 97-03, October 1999. Preusser Research Group, Inc., 

Trumbull, CT. Report No. DOT HS 809 021. 

Lindenmann, H. P. Safety in numbers. Traffic Technology International. October/November 

2004, pp. 94-98. 

Managing speed: Review of current practice for setting and enforcing speed limits. 

Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 254, National Research Council, National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1998. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. May 2003 Click It or Ticket safety belt 

mobilization evaluation. Final Report available at universal resource locator (URL) 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/clickit_ticke03/ciotreport04/CIOT%20May%202003/index.htm. 

Navin, F., Chow, K. and Kwan, T. Speed and probability of a crash. Transportation Research 

Board Paper 01-0532, 2001. 
 112 

Organization for Traffic Safety, South Holland County. 3D Roadmarking: Research results of 

the effects of 3-dimensional roadmarking. Final Report, De Bilt, The Netherlands, May 3, 2001. 

Stuster, J., Coffman, Z and Warren, D, Synthesis of safety research related to speed and speed 

management. Publication No. FHWA-RD-98-154, July 1998. 

Tester, J.M., Rutherford, G.W., Wald, Z. and Rutherford, M.W. A matched case-control study 

evaluating the effectiveness of speed humps in reducing child pedestrian injuries. American 

Journal of Public Health, (94:4) pp. 646-650, April 2004. 
 113 

APPENDIX A 

LITERATURE REVIEW REPORT 

Appendix A – Literature Review Report 

 This memorandum report was prepared early in the study and is described in Section 2 of 

this report. 
 114 

 Letter Report 

Pilot Test of Novel Speed Reducing Program

Contract No. DTNH22-99-D-05099, Task Order 2 

October 11, 2000

SUPPLEMENTAL LITERATURE REVIEW

 The purpose of this effort was to update the literature review performed for NHTSA’s 

vehicle speed report (1). It was therefore initiated with a review of the speed report itself. 

Searches were then made of the Transportation Research Board Transportation Research 

Information Services (TRIS) database to identify studies published from 1998 to the present on 

the topics of traffic calming, speed, enforcement, education, and pedestrian safety. In addition, 

contact was made with selected NHTSA/FHWA representatives, with bicycle/pedestrian 

professionals, and with contributors to the vehicle speed report to request additional references 

and materials. Finally, Web sites of cities with known traffic calming programs were accessed to 

obtain additional reports and information. 

 

 In all, over 175 documents were identified and abstracts of each were read. Those for 

which hard copies were obtained and reviewed are listed at the end of this supplemental review. 

The subject matter of the reviewed documents ranged widely and included descriptions of 

specific traffic calming techniques, legal aspects of traffic calming, crime issues, property value 

issues, and others. Although all hard-copy documents that were received were read, the major 

interest was in identifying evaluative studies of methods of traffic calming, especially those 

involving education and enforcement. Very few evaluative studies were located. However, 

reports that summarized and quoted results of evaluative studies were found and proved useful. 

 The supplemental research information is based largely on two major documents that 

were produced since publication of NHTSA’s speed report. One is the ITE report on the state of 

the practice of traffic calming (2). Among other topics, it provides a brief history of traffic 

calming, a toolbox of traffic calming measures, engineering and aesthetic issues, impacts of 

traffic management measures, legal authority and liability issues, warrants, project selection 

procedures, public involvement, traffic calming on other than neighborhood and collector streets, 

and traffic calming in new developments. Twenty United States traffic calming programs are 

featured in the document. Specifications proposed by certain jurisdictions or professional groups 

for selected measures are included. A second major input to the supplemental review is the 

FHWA synthesis of safety research related to speed and speed management (3). That report 

covers speed-safety relationships, factors influencing speed, speed limits and speeds, speed limits 

and safety, enforcement and engineering measures. 

 In the following paragraphs, brief summaries of the information included in the vehicle 

speed report are presented first and followed by any additional or confirming information 

obtained from the above two documents and from other materials identified in the supplemental 

review. A brief summary of the review is included at the end of this letter report along with a 

listing of the documents reviewed. 
 115 

Engineering Measures

Vehicle speed report: NHTSA’s vehicle speed report noted that speed humps can be 

successful in reducing both average and very high speeds and the result is often a reduction in 

crashes and crash severity. It noted the problem that humps affect different vehicles (e.g., trucks, 

buses, emergency vehicles) in different ways. Humps can be perceived as obstructions in the 

roadway. Roads that are narrower and less straight encourage lower speeds. Speeds through 

chicanes are reduced. Traffic islands and roundabouts also reduce vehicle speeds and have been 

shown to improve safety. 

Supplementary Information: Additional or confirming information obtained on specific 

types of engineering traffic calming measures follows. 

 The ITE (2) report included speed, volume and crash data for many before and after 

studies in which various traffic calming techniques were used. ITE reported that speed humps 

have the greatest impact on 85th percentile speeds of all traffic calming measures tested. Raised 

intersections, long speed tables and circles have the least impact. It reported that an international 

survey showed that traffic circles and chicanes had the most favorable impacts on safety. 

Although there are complaints about noise, traffic calming measures actually reduce noise levels. 

There have been legal threats, lawsuits and damage claims against communities for traffic 

calming and some jurisdictions have banned them. 

 FHWA (3) reported that the most effective traffic calming measures involve vertical 

shifts in the roadway. However, effectiveness is dependent on spacing. Greater reductions in 

speeds and crashes occur when combinations of measures are implemented systematically over 

an area wider than a single neighborhood. 

 The State of Delaware Department of Transportation (59) has produced a traffic calming 

design manual that provides guidance to state engineers regarding the appropriate use, design, 

and signing and marking of physical traffic calming measures. It does not cover measures that 

may improve street appearance (for example, planting streets on the roadway), nor does it cover 

education and enforcement measures. The manual outlines the procedural steps involved in 

effecting traffic calming in Delaware including a priority rating system. It describes appropriate 

volume and speed control measures, provides design guidance for each, and provides guidance 

on appropriate signing and marking for traffic calming measures 

 The City of Portland (24) reported that installation of 14-foot speed humps reduced 85th

percentile speeds by 6.9 mph to 25.8 mph, and speeds were not increased on parallel untreated 

streets. Twenty-two foot humps reduced 85th percentile speeds by 8.2 mph to 29.9 mph. Traffic 

was often diverted to collector streets and arterials. Twenty percent of the motorists traveled 

greater than 25 mph after installation compared to 60 percent of motorists traveling above that 

speed prior to installation. Reductions in frequency were due largely to reductions in volume. 

Crashes were reduced 39 percent from 1.39 to 0.85 per year. Crash frequency increased on 

parallel streets. The crash rate was reduced 5 percent. Injury crashes were reduced 46 percent (a 

statistically significant reduction). 
 116 

 The City of Portland (45) joined forces with Recycled Technology in the development of 

a rubber speed hump. It was designed for use on streets with frequent maintenance needs – it 

can be easily removed for street resurfacing, worn sections can be removed and replaced, inlaid 

markings are possible. It also has temporary uses, e.g., to slow vehicles in construction zones or 

near street fairs where there is high pedestrian activity. It is comparable in effectiveness to the 

asphalt hump. 

 The City of Portland (46) tested split 22-foot speed humps spaced 28 feet apart for their 

effect on emergency vehicles. They created a chicane effect that emergency vehicles could pass 

around. The split humps were effective in slowing speeds on the roadway without delay to 

emergency vehicles. The spacing between humps did not seem to influence driver behavior. 

Especially on high volume streets, drivers showed no tendency to cross over the center line to 

avoid the hump. 

 San Antonio (22) achieved an average speed reduction of 12 mph at the hump and 7 mph 

between pairs of humps on the 10 streets on which 12-foot speed humps were installed. From 

questionnaires distributed to residents of the streets involved, the worst features of the humps 

were reported to be that they were noisy (19%), that the height was too low (18%) and that there 

were too few humps (11%). The best features were that they reduced speed (67%) and made 

streets safer (5%). 

 In NHTSA’s national survey (20), 78 percent of the respondents reported that “road 

design changes/speed bumps” were very or somewhat effective in reducing speeding but only 63 

percent approved of road changes to reduce speeding. 

 In a summary report, San Francisco, California, (49) stated that the city had generally 

positive experiences with chokers, medians, and traffic circles while experiences with speed 

bumps, diverters, and street closures were less positive. The bumps jolted cars and bicyclists, 

and the city stopped installing them. The city has installed a few speed humps but there are 

concerns about proliferation, emergency vehicle delay and traffic diversion. The city’s 

experience with chokers didn’t result in much of a speed reduction. Their experience with traffic 

circles has been limited but fairly successful. No data were given. 

 In a pilot program, the City of San Leandro, California, (26) installed speed humps on 

five of six parallel neighborhood streets and traffic circles on five of the six streets. One street 

did not receive a hump and one did not receive a circle. Results were that noise increased, 

steeper humps (3 inches versus 2.5 inches) were considered better, residents and pedestrians did 

not like the traffic circles although they reduced speed by an average of 7 mph, no differences in 

vehicle volume were noted, residents who wanted the humps didn’t want them “in my 

backyard,” speed complaints on other streets increased when word got around about the speed 

humps, and a citywide policy is needed before traffic calming measures are installed. 

 In a series of case studies (31), it was shown that several jurisdictions have received 

complaints about traffic calming measures, particularly speed humps. Resentment is almost 

nonexistent on humps of height less than three inches. Some overly aggressive programs have 

resulted in a single lane for two-way traffic. 
 117 

 In a survey (28) of agencies using traffic calming measures, speed humps were the most 

widely used and elicited mixed reactions – some used them successfully, some used them 

initially and then had them removed, some had policies against them. There were no reported 

crashes or litigation on use of the device. Street closures caused problems including emergency 

vehicle access, segregation of communities, minor crashes and litigation. There were no 

reported safety or legal concerns with traffic circles, diverters, and roundabouts. Gates were the 

least used of the devices. 

 A study of Watts and Seminole Profile speed humps (37) suggested variations in 

dimensions suitable for bus and non-bus routes having posted speeds of 30, 40, and 50 km/h. 

 Cambridge (7) created chicanes by shifting parking from one side of the street to the 

other. At a raised intersection and at a raised crosswalk, speeds were reduced and the number of 

drivers yielding to pedestrians tripled. In addition, Cambridge replaced a traffic light with curb 

extensions and a raised intersection because drivers were always trying to beat the light. Most 

residents found it a safety improvement. 

 Lakewood, Colorado, (8) changed a straight section of roadway. A bicycle lane was 

converted to a sidewalk. A series of medians and curbside islands were constructed to create a 

narrow serpentine alignment. Eighty-fifth percentile speeds were reduced. The project did not 

make the roadway any more or less safe. 

 ITE (2) reported crash data for various types of traffic calming measures. By far the most 

impressive data were reported for the City of Seattle which installed circles at 113 intersections. 

There were 185 intersection crashes in the calendar year before the circles were installed and 11 

in the calendar year after installation – a 94-percent reduction. Crash data for circles installed in 

other jurisdictions involved eight intersections or fewer and were less impressive than the Seattle 

data and sometimes showed a crash gain after installation. Crash data were also reported for 

humps (12 feet) that were installed on 19 roads in Omaha, Nebraska, and 15 roads in 

Montgomery County, Maryland. Before and after data for Omaha showed a 33-percent increase 

(from 30 to 40) in crashes after installation of the humps. The data for Montgomery County 

showed a 40-percent reduction (from 15 to 9) in crashes after installation of the humps. Data for 

other jurisdictions and for one other traffic calming measure (22-foot tables) involved 

installations on five or fewer roads; some showed increases and some decreases in crashes. 

 After complaining about cut-through traffic, two Michigan (27) communities conducted a 

joint survey and learned that less than 7 percent of the traffic was cut-through traffic. They then 

decided not to institute any traffic calming measures. The author states that when citizens 

complain, the response is sometimes a placebo (e.g., stop signs, speed humps or bumps, or 

“changes in road geometry to make the road less safe, so motorists will reduce speed”). 

 In New Mexico (29) the average speed at a temporary mid-block island on a paved street 

was 25 mph and the 85th percentile speed was 33 mph compared to 41 mph and 48 mph on the 

same street without the island. On an unpaved street with a mid-block island, the average speed 

was 18 mph and the 85th percentile speed was 23 mph in comparison to 28 mph and 34 mph 

without the island. It was concluded that the islands were slowing speeds as effectively as the 

humps that were located on nearby streets. 
 118 

 Idaho (30) reported on a three-year effort to plan for speed control in Boise subdivision 

designs. The proposed street width was 29 feet but, since homeowners were concerned about 

narrow streets, developers usually used 32 feet as the width. The local traffic calming program 

called for road humps a minimum of 600 feet apart. With that as the goal for a maximum sight 

distance, the desired street curve radius was set at 350 feet. Chokers creating a 28 foot street 

width had no effect on speed. Restrictions down to 20 feet were required before any appreciable 

speed reduction was noted. Chokers caused problems for larger vehicles, improved visibility for 

drivers and pedestrians, and decreased pedestrian crossing time. A revised plan relocated 

chokers to mid-block locations which reduced speeds without impacting corner turning radii. 

Median islands had similar impacts. Limited data available on block length show minimal speed 

differences for long and short block lengths. 

 A summary of traffic calming support provided to a region of Connecticut (32) involved 

identification of “best practices” in traffic calming, conduct of workshops involving citizens and 

public officials, and interviews with available local staff. Three case studies were analyzed and a 

final report was prepared that included a toolbox on traffic calming. The effort also involved 

development of a traffic calming ordinance. 

 The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (23) referenced articles in the Journal of 

Visual Impairment and Blindness that noted that some traffic calming measures may cause 

problems for blind people. These include raised crosswalks when there is no detectable warning 

and neckdowns. The journal also noted that roundabouts may be more difficult for the blind 

because traffic is not straight and there are no regular breaks in traffic flow. 

 The Local Government Commission Center for Livable Communities (58) is preparing a 

summary of the effects of various traffic calming techniques on emergency response times. 

Solutions are proposed. Those techniques reported to cause minimal or no delay are speed 

pillows, medians, and landscaping. Speed humps cause an average delay of 6 to 11 seconds. 

Roadway Perceptual Features

Vehicle speed report: The NHTSA speed report did not cover perceptual features of the 

roadway except for a study on use of transverse lines which showed that speeds were reduced 

initially, but the effects wore off in three weeks. 

Supplementary Information: Additional or confirming information on these perceptual 

features follows. 

 ITE (2) reported that results from Howard County, Maryland; Beaverton, Oregon; and 

San Antonio, Texas, have shown that vehicle speeds are as likely to increase as decrease with 

centerline or edgeline striping. However, the report noted that, even with the decreased widths, 

“pavement and lane widths remained substantial.” Speeds were unaffected in Orlando, Florida, 

where widths were taken down to nine feet. Portland, Oregon, used them in combination with 

other physical measures (speed humps and chokers) and got good results. Portland created a 

bicycle lane. 
 119 

 The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (23) reported that a study of 20,000 residentialarea automobile crashes found that annual crashes per mile increased as street width increased 

beyond 24 feet between curbs, particularly on straight streets with low traffic volumes where 

average traffic speeds tend to be highest. Crash rates were approximately 18 times higher on a 

48-foot wide street than a 24-foot wide street. 

 Smithfield (RI) (60) reported having two-way two-lane rural roads varying in width from 

18 to 22 feet with neither curbs nor berms and open shoulders. The roads were often used as 

shortcuts, and speeding was common as motorists “hugged the middle.” When double yellow 

centerlines were painted on the roads, motorists were forced to stay right of center and speeding 

was reduced. No data were given. 

 In a survey (28) of agencies using traffic calming measures, street narrowing had the 

most response of all the measures as a device to cause potential crashes and cause the most 

concern from legal departments. 

 ITE (2) reported that Eugene, Oregon, had a 5-percent speed reduction with transverse 

markings placed before a horizontal curve. Howard County, Maryland, had a 12-percent speed 

reduction with transverse markings. 

 ITE (2) reported that building setbacks seem to reduce speeds. It noted that street trees 

may or may not have the same effect. 

 ITE (2) presented a comparison of subdivision street standards proposed for the Delaware 

Department of Transportation with AASHTO standards. The proposed standards were based on 

a design speed of 20 mph for local streets and 25 mph for residential collectors, a 266-inch 

school bus as the largest vehicle to be accommodated, and priority to be given to pedestrians 

over motor vehicles. Among others, it recommends lower speeds and narrower road widths than 

those specified by AASHTO. The rationales for deviating from AASHTO standards are given. 

Education

Vehicle speed report: The vehicle speed report identified no studies that used education 

alone as a speed reduction measure. Education was usually included as a minor adjunct to 

enforcement efforts. 

Supplementary Information: Additional or confirming information on education 

follows. 

 ITE (2) noted the existence of neighborhood safety campaigns that typically consisted of 

personalized letters or general flyers distributed to residents. However, it found no empirical 

evidence regarding their impact. 

 FHWA (3) reported that a large proportion of studies mentioned some form of public 

information and education (PI&E). None attributed a significant reduction in speed, speeding, 

crashes or crash severity to any campaign that was not closely tied to an enforcement or 
 120 

engineering program. PI&E campaigns that accompany law enforcement programs increase 

positive public impressions toward police and result in safer driving habits. 

 It should be noted that cities that have established traffic calming programs, for example, 

Portland, Oregon, require neighborhood approval of a project prior to its initiation and involve 

residents in the planning process through neighborhood meetings and workshops. 

 The Safe Roads program (33) is a community traffic safety program in Massachusetts 

that is concerned with addressing the education and enforcement needs of speed management 

and transportation safety in general. A citizen speed watch pilot program was initiated on two 

streets. The program started with a one-month period of education in which citizens reported 

speeders’ license plates and the location of speeding via a dedicated phone line. Law 

enforcement personnel reviewed each message and sent informational letters to the vehicle 

owners including a pamphlet on the safety risks of speeding. A loaner program of speed 

monitoring equipment was included as part of the citizen watch program as were increased law 

enforcement patrols. Before and after data showed average speed reductions of one and two mph 

on the two streets, 85th percentile reductions of 5 mph on both streets, and reductions in those 

exceeding the speed limit of 3.8 percent and 14.1 percent. Reductions in operating speeds were 

noted nearly three months after the educational campaign. The Safe Roads program (51) 

continued in the summer of 2000 in three additional communities in Western Massachusetts. 

Each community was provided with radar equipment and speed boards. Letters regarding the 

safety aspects of speeding were written by the police to owners of speeding vehicles. 

Communities erected signs regarding the program (e.g., entering speed zone, radar in use). The 

program at one of the three communities is still ongoing and data have not yet been analyzed for 

the three programs. 

 Boulder, Colorado, (50) has a Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program that is initiated 

with a neighborhood education program. It provides a variety of materials including information 

for a newsletter, information on how to run a speed watch program, and a neighborhood speed 

pledge. If speeds are not reduced, enforcement is the second step. Data on the education 

program were not reported. 

 ITE (2) reported that, in general, neighborhood speed watch programs have not been 

effective because speed reductions are small and residents lose interest. A program in Gwinnett 

County, Georgia – in which data were collected by transportation department personnel, the 

offending residents were visited personally, names of offenders were published in a 

neighborhood newsletter, and offenders’ memberships in a swim and tennis club were suspended 

– resulted in a reduction in 85th percentile speeds from 45 mph to 35 mph. The program was 

labor intensive and fell victim to budget cuts. Tempe, Arizona, (47) and Tampa, Florida, (48) 

reported the existence of such programs. 

 In NHTSA’s national survey (20), “increased public awareness of risks” was ranked by 

72 percent of the respondents as very or somewhat effective in reducing speeding. In addition, 

83 percent of the respondents strongly or somewhat approved of implementing this 

countermeasure to reduce speeding although only 40 percent felt it had some or a lot of effect on 

their driving. 
 121 

 In NHTSA’s national survey (20), only 52 percent of the respondents felt that 

encouraging citizens to report drivers was effective in reducing speeding. It received the lowest 

ranking of any of the countermeasures investigated in the survey. Fifty-seven percent strongly or 

somewhat approved of the countermeasure as a means of reducing speeding. 

Enforcement

Vehicle speed report: The vehicle speed report discussed enforcement studies that 

involved police presence at specific points (with and without actual enforcement) and use of a 

variety of equipments including photo radar, radar and laser detectors, speed display boards, 

vehicle-activated speed reminder signs, and school warning signs. In general, all methods of 

enforcement were effective in reducing speeds at the time and place they were used, but speed 

reductions decreased when enforcement stopped. The speed report concluded that enforcement 

was most practical on high volume roadways and at specific sites (e.g., schools). 

Supplementary Information: Additional or confirming information obtained on 

specific types of enforcement follows. 

 ITE (2) stated that targeted police enforcement is impractical and expensive on lowvolume streets. Boulder, Colorado, used targeted enforcement in four zones. No speed changes 

were noted in three targeted zones and speeds went up in a fourth. 

 FHWA (3) stated that compliance with speed limits is greatest in the vicinity of police 

vehicles and that aerial enforcement has a generally positive effect on reducing speeds. 

 An article on traffic issues in smaller communities (35) listed the following questions as 

issues that need reassessment: Is on-street parking associated with higher crash rates? Does onstreet parking reduce mobility? Do we need to use one-way streets to move traffic efficiently in 

downtown areas? Are speeds on one-way streets hazardous to pedestrian movement? With the 

current cutback in traffic departments, what are alternative means of enforcement? 

 NHTSA (43) has prepared guidelines for developing a municipal speed enforcement 

program based on successful programs implemented in Modesto and San Bernadino, California. 

It makes the following suggestions, among others: select zones for study; deploy at hours of 

greatest risk, but vary the hours; use radar equipment (and laser speed measuring equipment if 

possible); use decoy vehicles at the enforcement sites and elsewhere in the community; and 

develop a public information and education program. 

 In NHTSA’s national survey (20) “more police assigned to traffic” was ranked by 85 

percent and “more frequent ticketing” by 82 percent of the respondents as very or somewhat 

effective in reducing speeding. These were the highest rankings received by any of the survey 

countermeasures. Seventy-three percent approved of adding police and 77 percent approved of 

more frequent ticketing as countermeasures to reduce speeding. 

 An abstract of a Michigan State study (21) showed that average speed on an interstate 

was reduced right before a police car’s location but, after passing the patrol car, speeds increased 

to normal and occasionally higher than normal levels. In an overview of automated enforcement 
 122 

(34), the following were listed as important to successful automated enforcement programs: 

public education and awareness, involvement of the local judiciary, and passage of enabling 

legislation. The following current issues are discussed: privacy, distribution of ticket revenue, 

and ticketing procedures. 

 FHWA (3) reported on a study in which traffic enforcement notification signs were 

placed at either end of an enforcement zone and traffic laws were strictly enforced within the 

zone. In the study, officers handed out cards identifying the dangerous intersections targeted in 

the community and asking motorists to drive more safely. There was a 30-percent reduction in 

traffic violations during the enforcement period (3 years). 

 FHWA (3) reported that speed display boards have been shown to reduce speeds at the 

placement site. 

 ITE (2) noted that San Jose, California, found speed display boards to be effective only 

when displayed, and Kirkland, Washington, found a speed reduction of 6 percent after 30 days 

on streets with traffic volumes below 600 vehicles per day where most traffic is local and the 

displays raised the consciousness of local residents. On higher volume streets, the long-term 

effects were negligible. 

 ITE (2) stated that San Jose found that speed reductions obtained with photo radar 

seemed to hold up over time without enforcement and may have spread over into nearby 

untreated streets. Because of its expense, photo radar is most cost-effective if deployed on high 

volume streets. 

 FHWA (3) reported that foreign studies have shown significant reductions in crashes 

when photo radar is in use. 

 One paper on photo radar (25) reported that it was widely used throughout Europe and 

Australia and to a limited extent in North America to supplement police enforcement efforts. For 

example, in Victoria, Australia there was a 50-percent reduction in motorist triggering of the 

devices within three months of installation. Fatalities declined by 30 percent and the percentage 

of vehicles significantly exceeding the speed limit decreased from 20 percent to 4 percent. 

 The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) (42) reported that photo radar can be 

effective on busy urban interstates. Researchers in British Columbia analyzing a program using 

30 cameras found a 7-percent decline in crashes, a 10-percent decline in daytime injuries, and up 

to 20 percent fewer deaths the first year the cameras were used. Speeding vehicles declined from 

66 percent to fewer than 40 percent a year later. 

 Using cameras to enforce speeding was reported to be not politically acceptable in 

Phoenix (18). Boulder, Colorado, (50) found no statistically conclusive evidence that photo 

radar reduced speeding. 

 In NHTSA’s national survey (20), 65 percent of the respondents reported having heard of 

photo enforcement devices. Seventy-five percent felt that photo enforcement would have some 

or a lot of effect on reducing speeding, and 71 percent thought it was a good idea to use photo 
 123 

enforcement for speeding. More women (78%) than men (63%) thought it was a good idea. The 

largest number of reasons given for feeling that photo enforcement was a bad idea (26%) was a 

concern over invasion of privacy, violation of rights, or government interference. Sixty-nine 

percent felt that photo enforcement was acceptable in school zones. Forty-three percent found it 

acceptable at sites where crashes are frequent, 36 percent at places where it is hazardous to stop, 

and 33 percent at places where stopping causes congestion. 

 FHWA (3) stated that laser guns were significantly more effective in identifying speeders 

than radar. 

 FHWA (3) reported that there was a slight reduction (of no practical use) in vehicle speed 

when drone radar was in use 

Regulatory Actions

Vehicle speed report: The vehicle speed report noted that changes in speed limits were 

found to change speeds significantly but by very small amounts. It also noted that a pavement 

marked with the word “Slow” and a large arrow placed before a sharp curve resulted in drops of 

mean speeds compared to nearby untreated curves. Other regulatory measures were not covered. 

Supplementary Information: Additional or confirming information obtained on 

specific types of regulatory actions follows. 

 FHWA (3) reported several studies where there was little or no change in speeds from 

changes in speed limits. However, U.S. and foreign studies generally show an increase in speeds 

when speeds are raised on freeways. Crash incidence or crash severity generally declines when 

limits are lowered and rises when limits are raised, especially on freeways. 

 FHWA (44) analyzed speed and crash data collected from 22 States at 100 sites (rural, 

small urban, and urban) before and after speed limits were changed. Limits were lowered at 59 

sites and raised at 41 sites. Data from 83 sites where speed limits were not altered were collected 

for comparison purposes. Results showed that neither raising nor lowering the speed limit had 

much effect on vehicle speeds. Mean and 85th percentile speeds did not change more than 1 or 2 

mph. The percent compliance improved when the speed limits were raised and decreased when 

they were lowered. 

 The Center for Livable Communities (15) noted that in many States the lowest speed that 

can be posted on a public street is 25 or 30 mph. In this regard, New York State law (19) has 

recently been changed to permit cities with populations larger than 1,000,000 to set speed limits 

as low as 15 mph on selected streets for the specific purpose of implementing physical traffic 

calming measures (not traffic signs only). 

 The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (42) reported that London has a speed limit 

system on its M25 beltway that varies with traffic and speed conditions. Electronic loops detect 

traffic volumes and speeds and roadside processors analyze the data to detect where traffic is 

slowing. Speed limits ranging from 20 to 60 mph are posted on electronic signs. Enforcement is 

handled by cameras. There were 28 percent fewer crashes involving occupant injuries during 
 124 

the first year of the program, and vehicle-damage-only crashes went down 25 percent. Injury 

crashes on a comparison road without the new traffic control system increased 2 percent during 

the same time period. 

 A study (38) was conducted to determine a method of setting speed limits by considering 

pedestrians first. Pedestrian risk factors such as visibility, vehicle stopping distances, 

consequences of collisions, and their vulnerability by age groups were analyzed. Criteria for 

street-by-street analysis were developed consisting of land-use density, motor vehicle traffic 

volumes, presence of sidewalks and boulevards, and width of pavement. Organized into flow 

charts, the criteria provide target speeds for individual streets. 

 ITE (2) stated that most studies show little or no speed reductions mid-block with stop 

signs. There are problems with compliance. 

 Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, (14) compared speeds of two streets – one with all-way 

stop signs and one with speed humps. There was a very limited area of influence around stop 

signs before drivers increased speeds to a rate faster than before the stops were installed. Speeds 

decreased with speed humps. 

 ITE (2) stated that turn restrictions are popular with neighborhoods in Phoenix. They 

appear to be most effective at peak hours. Violations run around 50 percent without 

enforcement. 

 ITE (2) reported that no before and after data are available on the use of one-way streets 

as traffic calming measures. In a survey (28) of agencies using traffic calming measures, no 

safety or legal consequences were reported. 

 Boulder, Colorado, (50) tested a “rest on red” device at one intersection. This device 

remains red until it detects a vehicle traveling within the speed limit when it turns green to 

permit the vehicle to pass. “Speed Sensitive Signal” signs were posted to alert drivers that 

speeding would influence signal operation. Photo radar enforcement was used. Colorado did not 

report the data but indicated that vehicle speeds were not changed significantly. A possible 

explanation was that the combined volumes on the intersecting streets were too high for most of 

the day for the speed sensitive programming to influence signal operation. A test of “rest on 

green” signals was planned but not implemented because of limitations in the traffic signal 

controller software. Replacement software was reported to be under development. 

 The Virginia DOT (4) reported that the State has enacted a code that permits counties to 

install “Watch for Children” and “Additional $200 Fine” signs. 

 Hampton, Virginia, (10) implemented “invisible” traffic calming methods to reduce 

speeding and cut-through traffic. The methods included elimination of a left/through overlap 

causing delay for through vehicles, reduction of maximum green time for selected lights, 

prohibition of right turns on red, and changes in left turns from protective/permissive to 

protected only. Volumes and speeds dropped. 

Pedestrian Crash Estimation
 125 

 Vehicle speed report: The NHTSA vehicle speed report did not cover this topic. 

Supplementary Information: Information obtained about pedestrian crash estimation 

follows. 

 Two papers were located that provided models for estimating pedestrian crash data. One 

paper (40) created a model to determine the probability of a pedestrian-vehicle collision since 

such collisions are rare on local streets. Both parametric and nonparametric methods are 

described, including an example in which estimates of the collision probability and the 

probability distribution of vehicle collision speeds are used to identify promising sites for traffic 

calming. The other paper (41) was used to evaluate the effect of roadway and area type features 

on injury severity of pedestrian crashes in rural Connecticut. Crashes were limited to those in 

which the pedestrian was trying to cross an uncontrolled two-lane highway. Variables that 

significantly influenced pedestrian severity were clear roadway (excludes on-street parking 

space), vehicle type, driver alcohol involvement, pedestrian age 65 or older, and pedestrian 

alcohol involvement. Speed limit was found to be a poor predictor as was average annual daily 

traffic, darkness, illumination, and weather. 

Summary

 The supplementary literature review revealed very little new information over that 

reported in NHTSA’s vehicle speed report. Most of the information obtained served to confirm 

or amplify information contained in the NHTSA report. The points that may be of interest to the 

current speed study are listed below. 

• The most effective traffic calming methods involve vertical shifts in the roadway. 

Humps have been proven to be very effective. The public finds them effective in 

reducing speeding. 

• Traffic circles as designed in Seattle have been proven to be very safe. 

• There is a rubber hump that can be used as a temporary traffic calming measure. Other 

measures can be created for temporary use (e.g., permitting parking on opposite sides of 

the street for each block to create a chicane, using planters as bulbouts). 

• Although some professional groups and jurisdictions have proposed standards, there are 

no national standards for design and use of traffic calming measures. 

• Data on the effectiveness of roadway perceptual devices are inconclusive. Although 

street narrowing decreases speeding, there are data that show that it increases crashes. 

Some data show that streets need to be 20 feet or less in width before speed reductions 

are noted. 

• No studies were found in which education alone was used as a traffic calming measure. 

Typically, education programs consist of citizen watches combined with enforcement. 

Success in reducing speeding has been reported. 
 126 

• Enforcement is impractical on low volume streets. Compliance is greatest in the vicinity 

of the police vehicle. This is also true of speed display boards. The public finds 

enforcement effective in reducing speeding. 

• Photo radar has been used very successfully in Europe. It has had some success in the 

United States but still has problems with political acceptability. The public finds photo 

radar to be effective. 

• A study was identified on a method for analyzing pedestrian risk factors and developing 

criteria that lead to target speeds for individual streets. 

• Two studies were identified that provided a means of estimating crashes in low-crash 

areas. 

• There are no commonalities for taking before and after measurements and frequently the 

time factors aren’t stated. 

• Measures are typically 85th percentile speed, average speed, percent exceeding posted 

speed, percent x mph above posted speed, and volume. Crashes are included sometimes. 

Only one study was located that used driver or pedestrian measures – it used number of 

drivers yielding to pedestrians. 

• “Rest on red” traffic lights were investigated with negative results – possibly due to the 

volume of traffic at the intersection. No study was located that investigated “rest on 

green” traffic lights. 

• Some jurisdictions use “hidden” measures for traffic calming (e.g., changes in traffic 

lights, prohibiting turns, making a “maze-like” path by creating a series of one-way 

streets). 

Documents Reviewed

1. Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries (Leaf and Preusser). 

NHTSA Report No. HS 809 021, October 1999. 

2. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice (Ewing). Institute of Transportation Engineers, 

Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-135, August 1999. 

3. Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management (Stuster, 

Coffman, and Warren). Publication No. FHWA-RD-98-154, July 1998. 

4. VDOT’s Residential Traffic Management Program (Arnold and Cottrell). Paper 

presented at the Institute of Transportation annual meeting, August 2000. 

5 Arterial Traffic Calming – Is It an Oxymoron? (West). Paper presented at the Institute of 

Transportation annual meeting, August 2000. 

6. Balancing Mobility Needs and Community Issues Using Traffic Calming Techniques

(Solarz, Jehanian, and Davis). Paper presented at the Institute of Transportation annual 

meeting, August 2000. 
 127 

7. Cambridge’s Traffic Calming Program: Pedestrians are the Focus (Watkins). Paper 

presented at the Institute of Transportation annual meeting, August 2000. 

8. Collector Street Traffic Calming: A Comprehensive Before - After (Buchholz, Baskett 

and Anderson). Paper presented at the Institute of Transportation annual meeting, August 

2000. 

9. Creating Walkable Communities: The Michigan Example (Sisiopiku). Paper presented at 

the Institute of Transportation annual meeting, August 2000. 

10. Invisible Traffic Calming - Low Cost Solution Yielding Significant Benefits (Allsbrook). 

Paper presented at the Institute of Transportation annual meeting, August 2000. 

11. The Legal Aspects of Traffic Calming - Negligence (Williams). Paper presented at the 

Institute of Transportation annual meeting, August 2000. 

12. Lessons Learned to “Calm” a Traffic Calming Program (Zoumalan and Yalda). Paper 

presented at the Institute of Transportation annual meeting, August 2000. 

13. Traffic Engineer Beware Traffic Calming Can Be Dangerous to Your Professional 

Health (Khorshid and Yalda). Paper presented at the Institute of Transportation annual 

meeting, August 2000. 

14. All-Way Stops Versus Speed Humps: Which is More Effective at Slowing Traffic Speeds?

(Clark). Paper presented at the Institute of Transportation annual meeting, August 2000. 

15. Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods (Burden, Wallwork, Sides, Trias, 

and Rue). Center for Livable Communities, Sacramento, California, January 1999. 

16. Streets and Sidewalks, People and Cars: The Citizen’s Guide to Traffic Calming 

(Burden). Center for Livable Communities, Sacramento, California, April 2000. 

17. Civilizing Traffic: The Manual - Neighborhood Traffic Calming in Honolulu (Burden). 

Walkable Communities, High Springs, Florida, May 1999. 

18. Personal communication with Michael Cynecki, Phoenix, Arizona. 

19. New York State Vehicle Code § 1642(a)26. 

20. National Survey of Speeding and Other Unsafe Driving Actions: Volume I-Methodology, 

Volume II-Driver Attitudes and Behavior, Volume III-Countermeasures (Boyle, 

Dienstfrey, and Sothoron) NHTSA report Nos. DOT HS 808 748, 749, and 750, 

September 1998. 

21. Effects of Police Presence in an Increased Speed Zone (Patel, Sisiopiku, and Taylor). 

ITE Journal, Vol. 68, No. 3, March 1998, p.12. (Abstract review only) 

22. Speed Hump Effectiveness and Public Acceptance (Ballard). ITE Journal, Vol. 68, No. 

2, February 1998, p.70. (Abstract review only) 

23. Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts (Litman). Victoria Transport Policy 

Institute, December 1999. 

24. City of Portland Speed Bump Peer Review (Robinson, Wempler, and Colyar). October 

1998. (http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/traffic_management/trafficcalming/reports/ 

 reports.htm) 

25. Automated Enforcement of Traffic Laws (Retting). TR News, Issue 201, March 1999, pp. 

15-18, 29. 

26. Growing Pains or Growing Calmer? Lessons Learned from a Pilot Traffic Calming 

Program avis and Lum). Paper presented at the Institute of Transportation International 

Conference, 1998. 

27. Does Traffic Calming Make Streets Safer? (Beaubien). Paper presented at the Institute of 

Transportation International Conference, 1998. 
 128 

28. Liabilities/Safety Issues with Traffic Calming Devices (Dabkowski). Paper presented at 

the Institute of Transportation International Conference, 1998. 

29. Recruiting Private Help for a Public Demonstration Project: Taking the “Hump” out of 

Traffic Calming (Aspelin). Paper presented at the Institute of Transportation 

International Conference, 1998. 

30. Designing Speed Controlled Subdivisions Without Road Humps (Szplett and Butzier). 

Paper presented at the Institute of Transportation International Conference, 1999. 

31. Traffic Calming - Beware of the Backlash (Cline and Dabkowski). Paper presented at the 

Institute of Transportation International Conference, 1999. 

32. A Traffic Calming Toolbox - A Technical Resource Developed for the South Western 

Region of Connecticut (Ford, Court, and Prosi). Paper presented at the Institute of 

Transportation International Conference, 1999. 

33. The Effectiveness of a Community Traffic Safety Program (Blume, Noyce, and Sicinski). 

Paper presented at the Institute of Transportation: Transportation Operations Moving into 

the 21st Century Conference, 2000. 

34. Overview of Automated Enforcement in Transportation (Turner and Polk). ITE Journal, 

Vol. 68, No. 6, June 1998, pp 20-29. 

35. Traffic issues for smaller communities (Edwards). ITE Journal, Vol. 68, No. 8, August 

1998, pp.30-33. 

36. Signs of things to come. Roads and Bridges, Vol. 38, No. 3, March 2000, pp. 60-65. 

37. Towards a North American Geometric Design Standard for Speed Humps (Weber and 

Braaksma). ITE Journal, Vol 70, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 30-33. 

38. Target Speeds for Speed Zoning and Traffic Calming in Residential Areas. Paper 

prepared for presentation at the Transportation Research Board’s 80th Annual Meeting, 

January 2001. 

39. Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe (Pucher and Dijkstra). 

Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, Summer 2000. 

40. Method for Estimating Effect of Traffic Calming Volume and Speed on Pedestrian Safety 

for Residential Streets (Davis). Transportation Research Record, Issue 1636, 1998, pp. 

110-115. 

41. Factors Influencing Injury Severity of Motor Vehicle-Crossing Pedestrian Crashes in 

Rural Connecticut (Zajac and Ivan). Paper prepared for presentation at the 

Transportation Research Board’s 80th Annual Meeting, January 2001. 

42. Who Cares About a Camera If You Are Not Speeding? (Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety) Status Report, Vol. 34, No. 6, June 19, 1999, pp.1-3. 

43. Guidelines for Developing a Municipal Speed Enforcement Program (NHTSA) Undated. 

(http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/program.htm) 

44. Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits on Selected Roadway Sections (FHWA). 

November 1998. (http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/rd97002.htm) 

45. Rubber Speed Bumps (Portland, Oregon) (http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/ 

 traffic_management/trafficcalming/devices/) 

46. Split Speed Bump (Mulder). January 1998 (http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/ 

 traffic_management/trafficcalming/reports/split.htm) 

47. Speed Alert Program (Wakefield). June 15, 1999 (http://www.tempe.gov/traffic/ 

 speed.htm) 

48. Tampa (FL) Neighborhood Speed Watch Program (http://www.ci,tampa,fl.us/ 

 dept_public_works/transportation.htm) 
 129 

49. Strategic Analysis Report on Traffic Calming (http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/sfta/final.htm) 

50. Boulder (CO) Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/ 

 publicworks/depts/tr7.html) 

51. Personal communication with Michael Blume, University of Massachusetts. 

52. Speeders See the Light (Gilbert). Traffic Safety, January/February 1999, pp. 8-9. 

53. An Economic Evaluation of Incremental Resources to Road Safety Programmes in New 

Zealand (Guria). Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 31, 1999, pp. 91-99. 

54. Traffic Calming Primer (Pat Noyes & Associates). Boulder, Colorado, 1998. 

55. Effective Traffic Calming Applications and Implementation (Saffel). Minnesota Local 

Road Research Board, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Research 

Services, St. Paul, Minnesota, October 1998. 

56. Practitioner’s Forum: Video Technology in Traffic Engineering and Transportation 

Planning (Shuldiner). Journal of Transportation Engineering, May/June 1999, pp.169-

175. 

57. Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report No. 254, 

1998. 

58. Emergency Response: Healthy Streets and Traffic Calming (Burden). Local Government 

Commission Center for Livable Communities, Sacramento, California, planned 

publication date: November 2000. 

59. Delaware State Department of Transportation Traffic Calming Design Manual. State of 

Delaware, Department of Transportation, Dover, Deleware, August 2000. 

60. Rural Traffic Calming: Returning to Basics (Suzman). International Municipal Signal 

Association Journal, Volume 37, Issue 4, p.28. 
 130 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 131

APPENDIX B 

WORKSHOP REPORT 

Appendix B – Workshop Report 

 This letter report was prepared early in the study and is discussed in Section 2 of the 

report. 
 132

Letter Report 

Pilot Test of Novel Speed Reducing Program

Contract No. DTNH22-99-D-05099, Task Order 2 

July 3, 2001

THE SPEED WORKSHOP: FEASIBLE COUNTERMEASURES

 A panel of 14 experts was assembled for a speed workshop. The panel included 

individuals from areas with and without innovative speed reduction activities. It also included 

individuals who were specialists in research on speed countermeasures, research on pedestrian 

safety, state-of-the-practice of traffic calming, enforcement, and education. The workshop was 

held on May 10 and May 11, 2001, at the Federal Highway Administration Learning Center in 

Arlington, Virginia. The panel members are listed in Appendix A. 

 The NHTSA Task Order Manager explained that the purpose of the study was to develop 

a behavior-based supplement to engineering approaches to reduce speeding in neighborhoods. 

The program will be tested to determine if education and enforcement techniques produce an 

added benefit when added to traffic calming. 

 The study principal investigator explained that workshop participants will be challenged 

to identify candidate test conditions, evaluation paradigms and possible test locations. The aim 

was to identify a reasonable (in terms of cost and time) and sufficiently general test or tests that 

will shed light on the problem at hand. 

Countermeasures

 The program was initiated by having workshop participants identify speed-reducing 

techniques in the three E’s–engineering, enforcement, and education. They identified 

engineering techniques first, followed by enforcement techniques and education techniques. 

Participants were asked to consider new as well as existing techniques and were told that they 

could identify temporary as well as permanent techniques. The focus was to be on reducing 

speed, and all ideas were to be considered acceptable (that is, there were no bad ideas). When 

they ran out of ideas, participants were asked to identify anything in the roadway that had made 

them slow down recently. Over 250 different ideas were documented. They are appended to this 

letter report (Appendices B, C, and D). The ideas in the appendices are listed in the section 

(engineering, enforcement, education) in which they were identified regardless of whether or not 

they were appropriate to that section. 

 The various countermeasures in each set were noted on index cards and random 

selections were made from each set. Constraints and positive aspects were then noted for each. 

These data are summarized in Table 1. The table shows the following principles and 

considerations that emerged from this activity that would be applicable to the project: 
 133

Table 1

Randomly Selected Triples 

Engineering Enforcement Education Constraints 

Construction zone Peer trial Manually operated 

pedestrian walking sign 

Deceit; ugliness; don’t devalue neighborhood; unwillingness to be bad guy; no teeth in sanctions 

OK to 

Irregular shaped sidewalks 

Red light running cameras 

Windshield wiper flyers 

Few red lights in residential areas; litter; nuisance; annoyance; Engineering may not need any education 

Targets 

In-car cameras Positive reinforcement 

for speed compliance 

Utility pole posters Utility pole posters are illegal; 

tough to target cameras; high cost; privacy; don’t want to feel watched 

Generareinfor

Adequate lighting Educating police about 

the importance of speed control 

Having elementary school children take things home 

Cost; dark sky issues Reduce

for kid

Medians Neighborhood speed 

watch program 

Use of GIS tools Can be ugly; street has to be 

sufficiently wide; limits access; must fasten things to roadway; GIS is probably only good for crash not speed data 

Can be social cmediangood fo(e.g., cdemoguse crainfo; gsometh
 134

• The countermeasure can trick the senses, but it can’t be deceitful (e.g., an artificial 

construction zone). 

• The countermeasure can’t be ugly or devalue the neighborhood (e.g., an artificial 

construction zone, a poorly designed median). 

• The countermeasure should improve the neighborhood (e.g., a well-designed median). 

• Neighbors might not like to be the bad guy (e.g., participate in a trial by peers). 

• There should be teeth in the sanctions (a trial by peers may not have teeth). 

• There must be places in the area to mount the countermeasure (e.g., there are few red 

lights in residential areas). 

• The countermeasure must not contribute to neighborhood litter (e.g., windshield wiper 

flyers). 

• The countermeasure must not be annoying (e.g., windshield wiper flyers). 

• The countermeasure must be legal (e.g., mounting flyers on utility poles is illegal). 

• The countermeasure must be easily targeted (in-car cameras are tough to target). 

• The cost must be reasonable (cameras are expensive). 

• There should be no privacy issue (people don’t want to feel watched). 

• Providing a good model for children is desirable (e.g., sending materials home from 

school). 

• Crime reduction can be an added benefit (e.g., assuring adequate lighting). 

• Sufficient space must be available (e.g., a street wide enough to install a median). 

• It is preferable that a residential countermeasure not limit access to homes and driveways 

(as would a median; however, short medians could be installed). 

• Temporary engineering measures, if used, must be attached to the roadway. 

• Appropriate data must be available or collectible (GIS data may be good for locating 

facilities, providing crash data as a surrogate for speed data). 

• Neighborhood involvement is advisable (as in a neighborhood speed watch program). 

• Good engineering may not need education. 

 
 135

 As an assignment, participants were asked to identify one or more of each type of 

countermeasure that they would recommend for the study. The countermeasures could be 

selected from the lists developed by workshop participants or could be ones not previously 

identified. In effect, the participants were asked to select the engineering, enforcement, and 

education countermeasures that they would recommend for the NHTSA program. Participants 

were advised that they did not necessarily need to choose the most widespread traffic calming 

implementations. They were advised that the project needs an engineering technique that has 

been shown to produce some speed reduction without education or enforcement. Twelve 

participants responded. Their recommended programs are shown in Table 2. 

 

 Participants were then asked to vote for their preferred program but were not allowed to 

vote for the ones they recommended. There was no consensus among participants. Two 

programs (numbers 2 and 8 in Table 2) received two votes each. All others received one vote or 

no votes. 

 

 With regard to types of countermeasures, engineering activities included primarily 

standard interventions (e.g., speed humps, roundabouts, diverters, bulbouts, curb extensions, 

medians). Some participants did not feel that speed humps represent good current practice. 

Enforcement activities included police patrols, radar trailers, and neighborhood watches. One 

participant recommended judicial support. Participants noted that highlighting police presence 

can be impractical in small neighborhoods. Education activities were localized and included 

door hangers, signs, brochures/flyers brought home by school children, community meetings, 

street parties, newspaper articles, and printing of violators. 

 

Evaluation/Measurement Considerations 

 

 With regard to temporary versus permanent engineering measures, participants were 

unanimous in recommending that the project work with permanent installations. The following 

principles were noted: 

 

Temporary installations devalue treatment; there is no ownership; they convey the wrong 

message (“we’re not sure” or “we want to see if you like it”). 

• Installations must have public acceptance. 

• It is hard to generalize from temporary to permanent installations. 

• Temporaries provide no permanent change. 
 136

Table 2

Participant-Selected Triples

# Engineering Enforcement Education 1 Neighborhood entrance choker point Routine police patrol–go 

there and work it. Regular but not increased. 

Door-to-door delivery of a door hanger–before, during building, after. 

Nefor spslo

2 Roundabouts; diverters as appropriate; 

encourage on-street parking 

Not much beyond normal patrol. Some heightened emphasis on worst street. Speeding cameras. 

Signs at entrances to calmed neighborhood. School info for kids. Newspapers/media coverage. 

GranDethe wo

3 Median on a curve (with good visibility) 

on a school route. Landscaping, trees, planter strips, and post-mounted delineators. 

Radar trailer. Police auto dial to get the word out. 

Signs, kids as spokespersons, brochures, and door hangers in the neighborhood (speed versus pedestrian fatality graph); school take-home materials. 

Finmean

4 Roundabouts, bulbouts/curb extensions Routine. Neighborhood 

watch. 

Homeowners’ associations, signs, and community meetings. 

Blbu

5 Speed humps and medians (standard 

recognized interventions rather than new ideas) 

Police officers in the neighborhood on an intermittent basis. 

Neighborhood door-to-door campaign with petitions; flyers and appropriate signage. 

Need

6 Engineer street for max speed of 25 mph Change philosophy with 

respect to traffic. Make it a crucial component of the policing function. 

Door hangers, flyers, utility bills, telephone bills. M

eff

7 Roundabout with bench and bronze 

person in center of area. Put name of neighborhood or safety message on truck apron of roundabout. Playground on vacant lot. Define a gateway. 

Periodic enforcement with letters to violators. 

Speed signs showing enforcement speed with feedback of actual speed. Known spokesperson who will do messages on risk of speed and fatalities (race drivers?). Include drivers, pedestrians, and pets. TV, print, cable. Follow-up with kids in the neighborhood. 

NIintenan
 137

Table 2 (continued) 

# Engineering Enforcement Education How 8 Residents select the 

engineering technique reviewed by engineers for safety and feasibility 

Judicial support–heavy-handed fines. 

Street party. Must involve people in 

select itself. It has to apresidents). Make sure thboth provided and paid commitment from themengineering technique rsafety and feasibility. 

9 1 lane flat top speed 

table with curb extensions to act as a choker (300-2500 average daily vehicle travel) 

24-hour speed box (nothing in it). Yellow box painted in the street. Apparent lens and strobe unit. 

Neighborhood street festival to gain signatures for petition to gain support for the treatment 

10 Two-lane arterial with 

high speeds. Install bike lane to effectively narrow 

Some spot speed enforcement. Pre-installation activity to understand 

why this is being done. Community paper to explain. 

Measure speed; major elower resistance and gaiMaryland 

11 Speed humps Increase enforcement and police 

presence-display boards and cars in neighborhood. Positive police presence at street parties, homeowners meetings, and community meetings. 

Identify community resources and build program on those. Publish newspaper articles and include violation counts. Door hangers. Mount a sign at the gateway “entering speed zone.” Slow signs between the humps. 

12 Speed humps Radar trailer rotated in one day a 

week at random. 

Signs that say “Speed Kills Pedestrians” and slow down signs between the humps. 
 138

 With regard to process, it was considered desirable that the project start from the 

beginning and look at transition from a non-calmed to a calmed neighborhood. The time to 

reach a steady state would be examined. Police play a role in the transition. The process is 

critical. Perceptions of prevailing speeds should be measured before the neighborhood is 

selected. On the other hand, it was acknowledged that this might not be possible under the 

constraints of the study. Using an already calmed location with available “before” data was 

considered viable. 

 

 In a discussion of meaningful speed and volume reductions, the following measures of 

effectiveness were noted: 

 

• Impact on pedestrian traffic 

• Volume 

• Cut-throughs 

• Speed (speed tube technology, stopwatch distance approaches) 

 

 With regard to speed, it was agreed that 85th percentile and average aren’t good measures 

of what people are concerned about. People want the excessive speeders eliminated. The ratio 

of speed above and below the speed limit can provide a threshold. Police could give a ticket if 

the speed is seven miles per above the posted speed. For a neighborhood speed of 25 mph, one 

can provide: 

 

• A ratio of 32+ to <32 

• A ratio of 32+ to 25- 

• A speed drop of 85th to 95th percentile distribution 

 

It was agreed that the project should focus on overall comfort level and unacceptably high 

speeds. The aim is to eliminate the bizarre speeds–the outliers. Thus the project should focus on 

both the high tail, the threshold ratio, and the mean. This focus requires accurate speed data on 

each vehicle not class interval or “bin” data that are produced by some traffic counters. 

 

 The project needs to collect raw speed data. Data should show speed at the intervention 

as well as through the neighborhood. Thus, there must be multiple measurement points. 

 

 Other ideas that were posed for evaluation include: 

 

• Obtain pre- and post-project community opinions–Is the community better? Was the 

inconvenience worth it? 

• Conduct a realtor survey to determine relative value of people’s properties–What is the 

perceived value of homes? How many days do homes stay on the market before selling? 

• Survey neighborhood associations and friends. What are the number and types of 

contacts with neighbors (direct and indirect) in the last week? 

• Determine neighbor speed perceptions? Is the rate too fast, not too fast? 
 139

• Increase the number at or below the speed limit by x percent (50%). 

• Measure speed uniformity/variability. 

• What is the travel time through the neighborhood? 

 

 

Possible Test Sites 

 

 The communities listed below were recommended as possible test sites. They include 

sites where pre- and post-studies have not shown optimum results, places with good process and 

treatments pending, and those with both areas where installations have not had optimum results 

and where good process and treatments are pending. 

 

• Pre- and post- studies that have not had optimum results: 

 

 Sacramento, California 

 Kensington, Maryland 

 Salt Lake City, Utah 

 Phoenix, Arizona 

 Gainesville, Florida 

 Boca Raton, Florida 

 

• Places with good process and treatments pending: 

 

 Clearwater, Florida 

 Long Island, New York 

 Asheville, North Carolina 

 Hillsborough, Florida 

 Pinellas County, Florida 

 

• Both: 

 

 St. Petersburg, Florida 

 Cambridge, Massachusetts 

 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

 Orlando, Florida 

 Seattle, Washington 

 Bellevue, Washington 

 

Future Plans 

 

 At a brief meeting between project personnel and the Task Order Manager following the 

workshop, it was agreed that a working session should be scheduled with the Task Order 

Manager to process the data from the workshop and make a final choice requiring 

countermeasure selection. 
 140

Appendix A 

Workshop Participants

Richard D. Blomberg 

Dunlap and Associates, Inc. 

110 Lenox Avenue 

Stamford, CT 06906-2300 

203-323-8464 (tel) 

203-964-0799 (fax) 

Rdblomberg@aol.com 

Dan Burden 

Walkable Communities 

320 South Main Street 

High Springs, FL 32643 

904-454-3304 (tel) 

904-454-3306 (fax) 

Dburden@aol.com 

Arlene M. Cleven 

Dunlap and Associates, Inc. 

110 Lenox Avenue 

Stamford, CT 06906-2300 

203-323-8464 (tel) 

203-964-0799 (fax) 

Arlenecleven@aol.com 

Earl Hardy 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Code NTS-13 

400 Seventh Street SW. 

Washington, DC 20590 

202-366-4292 (tel) 

202-366-7721 (fax) 

ehardy@nhtsa.dot.gov 

Richard L. Knoblauch 

Center for Applied Research, Inc. 

9661 Fringe Tree Road 

Great Falls, VA 22066-1901 

703-759-2880 (tel) 

703-759-2992 (fax) 

rlknoblauch@erols.com 

William Leaf 

Preusser Research Group 

7100 Main Street 

Trumbull, CT 06611 

203-459-8700 (tel) 

203-459-8310 (fax) 

preusser@worldnet.att.net 

Marvin Levy 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Code NTS-31 

400 Seventh Street SW. 

Washington, DC 20590 

202-366-5597 (tel) 

202-366-7096 (fax) 

mlevy@nhtsa.dot.gov 

Leigh Matusick 

Florida Department of Transportation 

719 South Woodland Boulevard 

MS 3-564 

Deland, FL 32720 

904-943-5600 (tel) 

Lmatusick@aol.com 

Angela Mickalide 

National SAFE KIDS Campaign 

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Suite 1000 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-662-0603 (tel) 

202-393-2072 (fax) 

amickalide@safekids.org 

John M. Moffat 

Traffic Safety Commission 

1000 S. Cherry 

P.O. Box 40944 

Olympia, WA 98504-0944 

360-753-4018 (tel) 

360-586-6489 (fax) 

jmoffat@wtsc.wa.gov 

Keith Moore 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Code HEPH-30 

400 Seventh Street SW. 

Washington, DC 20590 

202-366-0524 (tel) 

202-366-3409 (fax) 

keith.moore@fhwa.dot.gov 

Sue Newberry 

Community Partners, LLC 

1407 Patrick Avenue 

Reno, NV 89509 

775-322-5839 (tel) 

775-332-5838 (fax) 

SueNewb@nvbell.net 

Ken Sides 

City of Clearwater PWA 

100 S. Myrtle Avenue, MSB220 

Clearwater, FL 33756-5520 

727-562-4792 (tel) 

727-562-4755 (fax) 

ksides@clearwater-fl.com 

Davey Warren 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Code HRDS-05 

6300 Georgetown Pike 

McLean, VA 22101-2296 

202-493-3318 (tel) 

202-493-3417 (fax) 

Davey.Warren@fhwa.dot.gov 
 141

Appendix B 

Engineering Techniques 

 

• Medians 

• Speed bumps 

• Speed humps 

• Speed tables 

• Chicanes 

• Roundabouts 

• Landscaping 

• Curb extensions 

• Bike lanes 

• Sidewalks 

• Parking management 

• Angle parking 

• Horizontal diversions 

• Angle slow points 

• Pot holes 

• Delineators 

• Street closures 

• One-way streets 

• Two-ways from one-ways 

• Traffic management 

• Narrowing lanes 

• Adequate lighting 

• Signage 

• Stop signs 

• Four-way stops 

• Differential paving color 

• Differential paving textures 

• System network 

• Rumble strips 

• Visual narrowing 

• Vista termination 

• Post-mounted delineators 

• RPMs 

• Bollards 

• Planter strips 

• Trees 

• Ambiance 

• Pedestrians 

• Striping to achieve narrowing 

• Crosswalks 

• Traffic signals 
 142

• Flashing lights/beacons 

• Speed-sensitive traffic signals 

• Staggerings/chokers 

• Gateways 

• Smart speed feedback display trailers 

• Driveway link 

• Toys in the road 

• Chalk outline of a body 

• Crosses for fatals 

• Roadside ditches 

• Roadway governors/electronic imposed 

• Adaptive speed bump–the faster you go the higher it gets 

• Posted vs. actual speed display 

• Variable speed limits 

• Encourage on street parking 

• Pedestrian malls near schools 

• Street closures 

• Woonerfs 

• Informal playgrounds/play streets 

• Picnic tables, petting zoos in street 

• Mural painted in intersection 

• District gateway 

• Car with speed chip to remind of speeding 

• Painted potholes 

• Dips 

• Swingarms/toll barriers 

• Red light that only turns green if you’re below speed limit 

• 200 “toot” car design limit 

• On-board warning transmitter to car 

• Unusual speed limits (e.g., 23 mph) 

• Tiger teeth that appear if you’re speeding 

• Portable tiger teeth 

• Zigzags before crosswalks 

• Mud baths 

• Footprint crosswalks 

• Make intersection look like room as on Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando (monotubes) 

• Embedded pavement lights in crosswalks 

• Centerline lights that flash to speeders 

• Speed pillows 

• Countdown timers/time to wait/time to cross 

• Laser closure 

• On street alert–louder as you get faster 

• Alternate streets convert to left-hand drive 

• Pinball gate–flips you to next street if going too fast 

• Inflatable speed bumps 

• Cobblestones 
 143

• Lights get brighter as you go faster 

• Hold red until crosswalk clear 

• Hologram pedestrians and police officers 

• Grass streets 

• Longitudinal treatment to effectively narrow streets 

• Tractor beam 

• Electronic school pass with so many school trips allowed 

• EZ Pass debit/credit system based on speed 

• Neighborhood speeder, “good guy” list based on EZPass 

• Weather sensitive speed activities 

• Countermeasures for aggressive driving stimulators 

• Car reporting automatically to police department 

• Teenage monitor cameras, GPS 

• Visual pacifiers/calming devices 

• Irregular shaped sidewalks 

• Limit on teenage passengers 

• Deteriorating pavement (made driver slow down) 

• Dead deer/pets (made driver slow down) 

• Mud on road (made driver slow down) 

• Tailgater (made driver slow down) 

• Feedback signs (made driver slow down) 

• Construction zones (made driver slow down) 

• Funeral processions (made driver slow down) 

• Negative superelevations as in roundabouts 

• Rebrick streets 

• Manually operated pedestrian present sign 

• Put old tires in the street as planters 
 144

Appendix C 

Enforcement Techniques 

 

• Red light running cameras 

• Hide cameras in trees 

• Neighborhood changeable message signs 

• Tickets 

• Highly visible enforcement folks–frequent reminders–be seen a lot 

• Lots of sirens 

• Bright yellow police cars 

• Affordable neighborhood cops–can write tickets, speed enforcement specialists 

• Fine on the spot 

• Automated enforcement 

• Neighborhood crime/speed watch 

• Publish names of offenders 

• Special patrols in school grounds–double fines in school zones 

• Radar speed feedback trailer 

• Feedback trailer that would also display license plate 

• Post license number of speeders 

• School police involved in traffic 

• Loss of parking privileges at school/on street if you speed 

• Positive reinforcement for speed compliance 

• Park police cars in neighborhoods 

• More local doughnut shops 

• Police service aids 

• Citizen reporting of violations and police follow-up letters 

• Drone radars to set off radar speed detectors 

• Train citizens on how to estimate speed with stopwatches and chalk lines 

• Autodial every phone in neighborhood and deliver a recorded message 

• Publicize a blitz enforcement on particular streets 

• Enlist all enforcement agencies to be involved (e.g., Sheriff, Highway Patrol) 

• Warnings 

• Speed watch neighborhood adopted by residents-double fines/graduated fines; speed 

trailers, more enforcement 

• Alternative sentencing–with speed culprit scarlet letter 

• Make violators get out of car to make them more visible 

• Violator bumper stickers/zebra tags 

• Residents mark cars so cops know that car was driven by a violator 

• Automatic speeding lights installed on cars that only police can turn off 

• Patrol area community policing kiosks to expand presence 

• Bike cops 

• Motorcycle/motor scooter cops 

• Feedback from citizens–neighborhood intelligence gathering 

• Adopt-a-cop 

• Educating the police about the importance of speed control 
 145

• Crossing guards feedback paddles 

• Recognition for individual police officer effort 

• Direct financial rewards for enforcement 

• Decoy officers/decoy offenders 

• Political permission/mandate to enforce the laws 

• Enforce all laws equally–driver/pedestrian/bicycle 

• Judicial support 

• Peer courts–community tries you 

• Variation in speed tolerance as a function of speed limit 

• Block parties with police invited–increase police contact in the neighborhood 

• Direct police/citizen contact with violators 

• Specialist speed officers remove the stigma of traffic “trophies” 

• Ticket cars parked on sidewalk to get them to move to the street and slow traffic 

• Neighborhood speed audit-trained officer conducts speed audit–publish result–get 

residents to do things to control speeds like parking in the street 

• Set speed limits by consensus of residents 

• Follow-up letters to speeding tickets from police and community association 

• Neighborhood speeding school instead of fine for ticket 

• Officers deploy speed attenuation signs/cones, scene tape to control speeds 

• Pedestrian presence reduced speed limit 

• Take home police cars allowed for personal use 

• Better graduation of penalties for speeding so that threshold does come up all of a sudden 

• Community service fines 
 146

Appendix D 

Education Techniques 

 

• Premium for people driving slow 

• Pace car 

• Pop-up policeman–speed sensitive 

• Automatic ticket machine 

• Burma Shave signs 

• High visibility materials on pedestrians 

• More graphic PSAs as in Australia 

• Public media support for police mission 

• Educate developers in design for speed control 

• Involve children as spokespersons 

• Elementary school education and take home 

• Use education to change the culture that car is king 

• Reward car nonuse around schools–walkers first 

• Target drivers rather than pedestrians 

• Involve seniors in campaigns since they are most vulnerable 

• Traffic calming does not take away your mobility–it’s responsible use 

• Drivers handbooks 

• TV 

• Radio 

• Newspapers 

• Internet ads 

• Training programs 

• Billboards 

• Utility pole signs–homemade 

• Mix safety education with regular curriculum 

• Positive messages thanking people for driving responsibly 

• Stencils 

• Special signs–“A traffic calmed neighborhood” 

• Two-sided paddle signs held by people in the neighborhood 

• Churches 

• Homeowners’ associations 

• Scouts 

• Local businesses 

• Signs 

• Tailored brochures on speeding 

• Tailored brochures signed by neighbors 

• Walk our Children to School Day 

• Neighborhood gateway entry sign showing number of people/pets killed or injured–days 

since a close call or injury 

• Sign which shows percentage of people following the speed limit and the all-time high 

percentage 

• Sign with neighborhood census showing the real population characteristics 
 147

• Convincer demos with dummies 

• Publicize increased risk of dying as speed goes up for drivers as well as peds 

• Neighborhood speed regulation made part of remedial traffic offender schools 

• Link between excess speed and community livability 

• Use GIS tools to target residential neighborhoods based on crashes 

• Find a spokesperson who was involved in a speeding-related crash 

• Cut down speed depiction in movies/TV 

• Doorhangers 

• Personal interviews 

• Homeowners’associations newsletters 

• Message under windshield wipers 

• Banner over street 

• PTA/PTO 

• Street party 

• Senior centers/community centers 

• Painting murals in the street 

• Neighborhood petition 

• Neighborhood flags 

• “We live here” 

• “No bump” sign 

• Neighborhood pace car program 

• MTV to target young adults 

• Cable 

• Consequences – insurance, wrecking a car 

• Focus on teenage driver and lifelong disability 

• Need to identify the speeders 

• Special identification of streets 

• Name street after kids or families to personify it 

• Intersection painting program 

• People waving to cars 

• Benches in front yards at curb 

• Camera boxes to watch motorists like the school bus camera 

• “Speed box” ahead 

• Ribbons for anti-speeding program 

• Watch for “ground hogs” 

• “We have no sidewalks – we depend on you for pedestrian safety” 

• Neighborhood ownership 

• Knock on doors 

• Neighborhood services department 

• Autodial “outgoing 911" 

• Retroreflective giveaway 

• Real estate agent newsletters 

• Educate realtors to indicate when house is in calmed area 

• Flags distributed (American flag) saying we don’t speed 
 148

• School contests focused on speeding 

• Come up with name for individuals who exhibit the behavior we’re trying to discourage 

(e.g., jaywalker, scofflaw) 

• Come up with better phrase than “traffic calming” 
 149

APPENDIX C 

PROGRAM COUNTERMEASURE MATERIALS

Appendix C – Program Countermeasure Materials

 This appendix contains copies of program countermeasures and supporting materials 

provided to each city in electronic form. City representatives adapted the materials as necessary 

for distribution to their neighborhoods or used them as resource material. Included are the 

following: 

 Heed the Speed – an 8-1/2 x 11 flyer for residents reproduced in English and Spanish

 A message for parents – an 8-1/2 x 11 flyer for parents reproduced in English and 

Spanish

 Now that you’re a driver – a flyer for high school students reproduced in English and 

Spanish – divided into two 4-1/4 x 5-1/2 flyers and printed on both sides

 Speed is lethal – an 8-1/2 x 11 flyer for drivers – reproduced on the reverse side of 

both the Phoenix and Peoria facsimile traffic tickets

 Speed is lethal – a 4 x 9-3/8 version of the above flyer for drivers

 A message for car dealers – an 8-1/2 x 11 flyer for car dealerships in/near the 

neighborhoods

 A two-page press release announcing the program

 A set of traffic safety facts that might be used in preparing program publicity 

materials 

 Three sets of articles prepared for inclusion in neighborhood newsletters: 

- Engineering versus education/enforcement 

- Distance to stop 

- Driver fatality likelihood

 Descriptions of problems that can be affected by speeding – prepared as a 

resource for the newsletter and other articles for the Heed the Speed program

 Radio spots:

- Heed the Speed – The consequences – 30 seconds 

- Heed the Speed – In a hurry – 15 seconds

- Heed the Speed – Station ID – Live promo

- Heed the Speed – Want to be a good neighbor? – 15 seconds

- Heed the Speed – The bumps – 15 seconds

 Topics for newspaper articles
 

Many individuals in Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the speeds that 

vehicles travel in their neighborhoods. Heed the Speed is a program that uses education and 

enforcement to reduce those speeds. The Heed the Speed program is a collaborative effort of 

the traffic and police departments of the cities of Phoenix and Peoria with support from the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Heed the Speed in your neighborhood could include: 

 Distribution of flyers 

 Display of neighborhood signs 

 Neighborhood speed watch 

 Newsletter articles 

 Feedback signs 

 Officers on bicycles 

 Police verbal warnings 

 Radar speed boards/trailers 

 Targeted enforcement 

 Presentations to residents 

 Roadway applications that simulate humps 

 Automatic enforcement trailer

You can make Heed the Speed a success by: 

Putting up signs Driving slower 

Supporting the police Asking others to slow down

For further information about Heed the Speed, please contact: 

 Phoenix: Michael Cynecki, Phoenix Street Transportation Department, 

 602-262-7217 

 Peoria: Kelly LaRosa, Peoria Traffic Division, 623-773-7652
A MESSAGE FOR PARENTS 

When cars speed in residential neighborhoods, it is your children who are at greatest risk. 

Children act impulsively and frequently run into the street without searching carefully for cars. 

This problem is compounded when cars speed. If struck by a car going 40 mph, a child is 17 

times more likely to die than when hit by a car going 20 mph. It’s important for parents to teach 

their children to be safe pedestrians by stopping and looking left-right-left before entering the 

street.

Many parents in Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the speeds that cars 

travel in their neighborhoods. Heed the Speed is a program that uses education and 

enforcement to reduce those speeds. 

Heed the Speed in your neighborhood could include: 

 Distribution of flyers 

 Display of neighborhood signs 

 Neighborhood speed watch 

 Newsletter articles 

 Feedback signs 

 Officers on bicycles 

 Police verbal warnings 

 Radar speed boards/trailers 

 Targeted enforcement 

 Presentations to residents 

 Roadway applications that simulate humps 

 Automatic enforcement trailer 

You can make Heed the Speed a success by: 

Putting up signs Driving slower 

Supporting the police Asking others to slow down

And teaching your children to search left-right-left before entering the 

street 

For further information about Heed the Speed, please contact: 

 Phoenix: Michael Cynecki, Phoenix Street Transportation Department, 

 602-262-7217 

 Peoria: Kelly LaRosa, Peoria Traffic Division, 623-773-7652
 Now that 

You’re a Driver . . .

And turn this over 

SPEED CAN B

If you hit a pedestrian 

 - At 20 mph, 5% will die  - At 30 mph, 45% will die  - At 40 mph, 85% will die  - At 50 mph, almost all will die

You need time and space 

If you get a ticket for spe

- A fine of over $100 

 - An insurance increase of hund

 - 3 points on your license

So . . .

- Drive carefully

 - Watch out for pedestrians  - And Heed the Speed

City of Phoenix 

47

88

149

0 50 100 150 

203040

YOUR SPEED (MPH)

DISTANCE UNTIL YOU STOP (FEE
SPEED IS LETHAL!

When you hit a pedestrian 

► At 20 mph 5% will die 

► At 30 mph 45% will die 

► At 40 mph 85% will die 

► At 50 mph almost all will die

You need time and space to stop 

► At 20 mph, it takes you 47 feet 

 to stop your car 

► At 30 mph, the distance almost 

 doubles (88 feet) 

► At 40 mph, it almost doubles 

 again (149 feet) 

 

For a speeding ticket, you’ll get

► A fine of over $100 

► An insurance increase of hundreds of dollars 

► 3 points on your license

Slow down and make your neighborhood safer

City of Phoenix City of Peoria 

 

Sources: Arizona Driver License Manual; Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 254: Managing Speed. 

45%

85% 100%

5% 0

20

40

60

80

100

20 30 40 50

MPH

% WHO WILL DIE

47

88

149

0 50 100 150 200

20

30

40

YOUR SPEED (MPH)

DISTANCE UNTIL YOU STOP (FEET)
SPEED IS LETHAL!

 If you hit a pedestrian

 - At 20 mph, 5% will die 

 - At 30 mph, 45% will die 

 - At 40 mph, 85% will die 

 - At 50 mph, almost all will die

 You need time and space to stop

 - At 20 mph it takes you 47 feet to stop your car 

 - At 30 mph, the distance almost doubles (88 feet) 

 - At 40 mph, it almost doubles again (149 feet) 

 For a speeding ticket, you’ll get 

 - A fine of over $100 

 - An insurance increase of hundreds of dollars 

 - 3 points on your license

 Slow down and make your 

neighborhood safer

 City of Phoenix City of Peoria 

Sources: Arizona Driver License Manual; Transportation Research 

Board Special Report No. 254: Managing Speed.
A MESSAGE FOR 

 CAR DEALERS 

When cars speed in residential neighborhoods, both drivers and pedestrians are at risk. If 

struck by a car going 40 mph, a person is 17 times more likely to die than when hit by a car going 20 

mph. When conducting test drives, people frequently drive too fast. To be safe, it’s important that 

test drives be made at reasonable speeds and that they avoid neighborhood streets when possible.

Many people in Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the speeds that vehicles 

travel in their neighborhoods. Heed the Speed is a program that uses education and enforcement 

to reduce those speeds. It is a collaborative effort of the traffic and police departments of the cities of 

Phoenix and Peoria with support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

You can help make Heed the Speed a success by: 

Asking customers to slow down 

Driving slower yourself 

Avoiding test drives on neighborhood streets 

For further information about Heed the Speed, please contact: 

 Phoenix: Michael Cynecki, Phoenix Street Transportation Department, 

 602-262-7217 

 Peoria: Kelly LaRosa, Peoria Traffic Engineering Division, 623-773-7652 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Date 

PHOENIX AND PEORIA ANNOUNCE PROGRAM TO 

REDUCE SPEEDING IN NEIGHBORHOODS

 

 Many residents of Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the speeds at which 

vehicles travel in their neighborhoods. Because of these concerns, the two cities have agreed to 

serve as test sites for a model program to reduce those speeds. Known as Heed the Speed, 

the program uses a variety of education and enforcement activities to encourage motorists to 

drive at or below the speed limit. 

Heed the Speed is a collaborative effort of the traffic and police departments of the 

cities of Phoenix and Peoria with support from the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation. It is an expanded version of 

a program of the same name that was previously implemented in the Arcadia section of Phoenix. 

Lt. Stan Hoover of the Phoenix Police Department said, “We were pleased with the results we 

obtained with Heed the Speed in Arcadia and are happy to see the program expanded.” 

There is abundant evidence that higher speeds are associated with a higher likelihood of a 

pedestrian crash and with more severe pedestrian injuries and death. There has been significant 

work on engineering approaches to reduce traffic speeds. There have, however, been few 

attempts to combine public information and enforcement techniques with engineering changes as 

a means of achieving greater speed reductions. Mike Cynecki of the Phoenix Street 

Transportation Department commented that “We can’t use engineering techniques to reduce 

speeds on all streets because of special needs. For example, some streets are routes for 

emergency vehicles and therefore aren’t candidates for treatments such as speed humps. We 

hope an enhanced education and enforcement program will be an effective way to reduce speeds 

on those streets.” 

 In serving as test sites, the two cities have agreed to implement a variety of education and 

enforcement activities that will be evaluated over a three-month period. Among others, Heed 

the Speed activities will include the distribution of flyers, display of neighborhood signs, 

conduct of a neighborhood speed watch, feedback signs, newsletter articles, police verbal 

warnings, radar speed boards/trailers, targeted enforcement, presentations to residents, and 

roadway applications that simulate humps. “We’re extremely pleased to be part of this 

innovative activity and to work with NHTSA and our colleagues in Phoenix” said Scott Nodes, 

Peoria’s Traffic Engineer. 

 The Phoenix neighborhoods that will participate in Heed the Speed include sections 

of the following roads: Sweetwater, Moon Valley and Clarendon. In Peoria, sections of the 

following roads will participate: 95th Avenue, Desert Harbor and Bell Park. The residents of the 

selected neighborhoods had all previously expressed concerns about excessive vehicle speeds. 
Heed the Speed will include an evaluation component to determine the effectiveness 

of the program in reducing speeds. If effective, it can serve as a model for other communities 

that wish to reduce speeding in their neighborhoods. The evaluation is being performed by 

Dunlap and Associates, Inc., a research-consulting firm from Stamford, CT. Richard Blomberg, 

the president of Dunlap, said “We’re pleased to be doing another study in the Phoenix area 

because of the sincere interest in traffic safety of all the agencies we’ve worked with here.” 

Contacts: 

 Phoenix: Michael Cynecki, Phoenix Street Transportation Department, 

 602-262-7217 

 Peoria: Kelly LaRosa, Peoria Traffic Division, 623-773-7652
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS 

1. Managing Speed (TRB SR 254)

In 1996, NHTSA reported that speed is a contributing factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes on U.S. 

highways. (TRB-NRC, p. 39) 

The higher the speed, the greater the fatalities, injuries, and property damage in a crash. (From Solomon 

in TRB, p. 63-64) 

When struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 mph, 5 percent of pedestrians die; at 30 mph, 45 percent of 

pedestrians die; at 40 mph, 85 percent of pedestrians die; and at 50 mph, almost all die. (TRB, p. 66) 

2. Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries (DOT HS 809 021) 

Fatalities rose from under 2 percent of struck pedestrians when speed limits were below 25 mph 

to over 22 percent when speed limits were 50 mph or more. (Leaf, p. iv) 

3. Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management (FHWA-RD98-154, p.10)

When the national speed rate changed from 55 to 65 mph, fatalities increased by 21 percent. 

(NHTSA source) 

4. Arizona Driver License Manual

How far a car travels before the driver responds and the vehicle stops. Average stopping distance (feet) 

of cars on dry, level pavement: 

 20 mph = 47 (22 + 25) 

 30 mph = 88 (33 + 55) 

 40 mph = 149 (44 + 105) 

 50 mph = 243 (55 + 188) 

 60 mph = 366 (66 + 300) 

 70 mph = 529 (74 + 455) 

Braking distance is directly related to: 

 Driver perception time 

 Driver reaction time 

 Type and condition of the pavement 

 Type and condition of the tires 

 Vehicle design and condition of the shock absorbers 

 Vehicle weight when loaded or owing 

 Type and condition of the brakes 

 Speed of the vehicle 

When the driver behind you wants to pass, reducing your speed will allow that driver to pass more 

quickly. The added distance will make it easier for the passing motorist to pull back into the lane. 
5. Deadly Crossings: American Intersections (Discovery Channel Program)

It is estimated that more than seven million people will be injured in traffic accidents worldwide this year 

– one third of them at intersections. 

In the U.S. alone, one million people will be injured crossing an intersection – 7,000 will die. 

Traffic claims 40,000 lives each year. 

One in four Americans knows someone who was killed or seriously injured in an intersection crash. 

One hundred years ago, there were 8,000 cars on the road. 

Side impacts account for 80,000 deaths and injuries each year in the U.S. 

Every 24 hours in the U.S., 10 people are killed at stop sign intersections. Another 300 are injured. The 

vast majority are side-impact collisions. 

Speed is the single most lethal element in any intersection crash and is a contributing factor in 30 percent 

of all fatal crashes. 

Signals are synchronized to move traffic. 

For every 10 mph increase in impact speed, the chance of death doubles for the driver so that the driver 

who crashes at 40 mph has twice the chance of getting killed as the driver who crashes at 30 mph. 

The ramifications of that speed are even more terrifying when applied to pedestrians. 

Forty thousand pedestrians in the U.S. are killed or injured crossing intersections each year. The 

difference between those who live and those who die is the speed of the car. 

Pedestrians hit at 20 mph have a 95-percent chance of surviving the collision. At 40 mph, the chance of 

survival drops to 13 percent. 

Red light running has increased by 20 percent since 1996. 

A driver runs a red light approximately every six minutes in the U.S. 

In only two seconds, a driver going 40 mph travels 100 feet. 

Red light camera results in 40-percent reduction in red light running and a 50-percent reduction in the 

“halo” effect (reductions in red light running at nearby intersections).
Neighborhood 1 – Engineering versus Education/Enforcement

 There is abundant evidence that higher speeds are associated with more pedestrian 

injuries and deaths. In fact, if struck by a car going 40 mph, a pedestrian is 17 times more likely 

to die than when hit by a car going 20 mph. 

 Many residents of the cities of Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the 

speeds that vehicles travel through their neighborhoods and have requested help in reducing 

those speeds. In many instances, road humps or other engineering measures have been installed 

to force cars to slow down. However, as Mike Cynecki of the Phoenix Street Transportation 

Department has said, “We can’t use engineering techniques to reduce speeds on all streets 

because of special needs. For example, some streets are routes for emergency vehicles and 

therefore aren’t candidates for treatments such as speed humps. We hope an enhanced education 

and enforcement program will be an effective way to reduce speeds on those streets.” 

 To help solve the speeding problem, the traffic departments of both Phoenix and Peoria 

are embarking on a program called Heed the Speed. It uses a variety of education and 

enforcement activities with engineering changes to encourage drivers to go slower. It is adapted 

from a program by the same name that was previously implemented in the Arcadia section of 

Phoenix. Lt. Stan Hoover of the Phoenix Police Department said, “We were pleased with the 

results we obtained with Heed the Speed in Arcadia and are happy to see the program 

expanded.” 

 Phoenix and Peoria have selected neighborhoods to participate in the program from those 

whose residents have requested help with their speeding problem. For Phoenix, the program will 

be implemented on sections of the following roads: Sweetwater, Moon Valley and Clarendon. In 

Peoria, sections of the following roads will participate: 95th Avenue, Desert Harbor, and Bell 

Park. 

 Among others, Heed the Speed activities will include the distribution of flyers, 

display of neighborhood signs, conduct of a neighborhood speed watch, feedback signs, 

newsletter articles, police verbal warnings, radar speed boards/trailers, targeted enforcement, 

presentations to residents, and roadway applications that simulate humps. 

 The program is being evaluated by Dunlap and Associates, Inc., of Stamford, 

Connecticut, under a contract with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation. If effective, Heed the Speed can serve as a model to 

reduce speeds in other residential sections of the two cities and in other communities. 
Neighborhood 2 – Distance to Stop

 There is abundant evidence that higher speeds are associated with more pedestrian 

injuries and deaths. In fact, if struck by a car going 40 mph, a pedestrian is 17 times more likely 

to die than when hit by a car going 20 mph. 

 Many residents of the cities of Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the 

speeds that vehicles travel through their neighborhoods and have requested help in reducing 

those speeds. They note that children sometimes run into the street without first searching leftright-left for cars. And sometimes pedestrians simply aren’t seen by motorists because trees, 

shrubs, and other roadway articles block their views of each other until the pedestrian steps into 

the street. Kelly La Rosa, Peoria’s Assistant Traffic Engineer, noted, “in general, it takes three 

times as much space to stop a car going 40 mph than one going 20 mph. Thus, if vehicles travel 

at slower speeds, the motorist has more time to react if a pedestrian suddenly appears in the 

roadway.” 

 To help solve the speeding problem, the traffic departments of both Phoenix and Peoria 

are embarking on a program called Heed the Speed. It uses a variety of education and 

enforcement activities with engineering changes to encourage drivers to go slower. It is adapted 

from a program by the same name that was previously implemented in the Arcadia section of 

Phoenix. Lt. Stan Hoover of the Phoenix Police Department said, “We were pleased with the 

results we obtained with Heed the Speed in Arcadia and are happy to see the program 

expanded.” 

 Phoenix and Peoria have selected neighborhoods to participate in the program from those 

whose residents have requested help with their speeding problem. For Phoenix, the program will 

be implemented on sections of the following roads: Sweetwater, Moon Valley, and Clarendon. 

In Peoria, sections of the following roads will participate: 95th Avenue, Desert Harbor, and Bell 

Park. 

 Among others, Heed the Speed activities will include the distribution of flyers, 

display of neighborhood signs, conduct of a neighborhood speed watch, feedback signs, 

newsletter articles, police verbal warnings, radar speed boards/trailers, targeted enforcement, 

presentations to residents, and roadway applications that simulate humps. 

 The program is being evaluated by Dunlap and Associates, Inc., of Stamford, 

Connecticut, under a contract with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation. If effective, Heed the Speed can serve as a model to 

reduce speeds in other residential sections of the two cities and in other communities. 
Neighborhood 3 – Driver Fatality Likelihood

 There is abundant evidence that higher speeds are associated with more pedestrian 

injuries and deaths. In fact, if struck by a car going 40 mph, a pedestrian is 17 times more likely 

to die than when hit by a car going 20 mph. 

 Many residents of the cities of Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the 

speeds that vehicles travel through their neighborhoods and have requested help in reducing 

those speeds. Not only are these high speeds dangerous to pedestrians, but drivers themselves 

have an increased chance of fatality when speeds are increased. Peoria Traffic Engineer Scott 

Nodes noted, “For every 10 mph increase in vehicle speed, the driver’s chance of death doubles. 

Thus a driver who crashes at 30 mph has twice the chance of getting killed as a driver who 

crashes at 20 mph.” 

 To help solve the speeding problem, the traffic departments of both Phoenix and Peoria 

are embarking on a program called Heed the Speed. It uses a variety of education and 

enforcement activities with engineering changes to encourage drivers to go slower. It is adapted 

from a program by the same name that was previously implemented in the Arcadia section of 

Phoenix. Lt. Stan Hoover of the Phoenix Police Department said, “We were pleased with the 

results we obtained with Heed the Speed in Arcadia and are happy to see the program 

expanded.” 

 Phoenix and Peoria have selected neighborhoods to participate in the program from those 

whose residents have requested help with their speeding problem. For Phoenix, the program will 

be implemented on sections of the following roads: Sweetwater, Moon Valley, and Clarendon. 

In Peoria, sections of the following roads will participate: 95th Avenue, Desert Harbor, and Bell 

Park. 

 Among others, Heed the Speed activities will include the distribution of flyers, 

display of neighborhood signs, conduct of a neighborhood speed watch, feedback signs, 

newsletter articles, police verbal warnings, radar speed boards/trailers, targeted enforcement, 

presentations to residents, and roadway applications that simulate humps. 

 The program is being evaluated by Dunlap and Associates, Inc., of Stamford, 

Connecticut, under a contract with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation. If effective, Heed the Speed can serve as a model to 

reduce speeds in other residential sections of the two cities and in other communities. 
DESCRIPTIONS OF PROBLEMS 

THAT CAN BE AFFECTED BY SPEEDING 

(Prepared as a resource for the preparation 

of newsletter and other articles for the Heed the Speed program) 

 Briefly described in the following paragraphs are several problem areas in which the safety 

of pedestrians in residential communities can be affected by the driver’s speed. They include 

errors made by the driver and pedestrian, conditions of both driver and pedestrian, location of the 

crash, roadway design factors, and the types of individuals involved. The problem areas are 

grouped into the following categories: pedestrian errors, motorist errors, impairment, 

visibility/conspicuity, special locations, geometrics/operations, high injury severity, and target 

group. 

 The information has been assembled as a resource for preparing newsletter and other articles 

for the Heed the Speed program. If there is excessive driver speed, each problem will be 

compounded, the likelihood of a crash will increase and the severity of the crash will increase.

Pedestrian Errors 

 1. Mid-block Dart-out/Dash. The pedestrian enters the street suddenly from a driveway, 

sidewalk, or curb and presents a short-time exposure to the motorist. The pedestrian typically 

goes into the roadway without stopping and searching adequately for motor vehicles and may be 

running. The pedestrian often enters the roadway between parked cars and is not seen by the 

motorist until it is too late for the motorist to stop. The motorist typically assumes that any 

entering traffic (including pedestrians) will yield and therefore also fails to search adequately. If 

the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. Most of 

these crashes occur to children under 15 years of age. The problem occurs frequently on 

residential roadways where small children are playing, but it can occur on any roadway. 

 2. Intersection Dash. The pedestrian enters the roadway suddenly at an intersection and 

presents a short-time exposure to the motorist. As with the mid-block dart-out, the pedestrian 

typically enters the roadway without stopping and searching adequately for vehicles and may be 

running. The motorist typically assumes that any entering traffic (including pedestrians) will 

yield and therefore also fails to search adequately. If the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may 

not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. These crashes occur frequently to children under 15 

years of age. 

 3. Intersection Negotiation. The pedestrian fails to negotiate an intersection safely. The 

pedestrian may fail to obey a traffic signal and be struck by a vehicle moving with the green 

light. The pedestrian may fail to clear the intersection before the light turns green for opposing 

traffic and therefore be trapped in the intersection. The pedestrian may misjudge the traffic gap 

and walk in front of a vehicle or walk into a vehicle. One or more motorists may stop to let the 

pedestrian pass and the pedestrian is struck by a following motorist whose view of the pedestrian 

is blocked by the vehicles that have stopped to yield to the pedestrian. If the vehicle is speeding, 

the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. 
 4. Walking in Roadway. The pedestrian walks in the roadway either on the shoulder or in a 

traffic lane usually because an adequate sidewalk does not exist. The pedestrian may be walking 

to or from a disabled vehicle. Frequently, the pedestrian walks with (rather than facing) traffic. 

The pedestrian therefore does not have a view of traffic on the side of the road on which the 

pedestrian is traveling and is not able to see and react in time to avoid an impending danger. If 

the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. This 

problem occurs most frequently on rural and residential roads. Conspicuity can be a problem – 

the pedestrian may be difficult to see, particularly at night. 

 5. Failure to Search. The pedestrian simply fails to search adequately for vehicles before 

entering the roadway. This is a particular problem when something screens the pedestrian and 

motorist from seeing each other. For example, when crossing in front of a hedge, the pedestrian 

might search but forget to search around the hedge. This pedestrian error occurs with many crash 

types. First, it occurs with intersection and mid-block darts and dashes when the pedestrian 

typically runs into the street and does not search at all. It occurs when pedestrians step into the 

roadway behind a vehicle and pay no attention to cues that the vehicle is backing. It occurs when 

pedestrians enter and exit parked or stopped vehicles and are struck by passing vehicles. It occurs 

when a pedestrian enters a traffic lane in front of a vehicle that has stopped to let the pedestrian 

pass and then is hit by a vehicle in the next lane whose driver cannot see the pedestrian because 

of the screening effect of the stopped vehicle (the multiple-threat crash). If the vehicle is 

speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. The problem occurs with 

pedestrians of all ages. 

 6. Unsafe In-Street Activities. This problem occurs when the pedestrian is playing or 

standing in the street and disregarding traffic or when the pedestrian is playing games with 

traffic. Small children sometimes play in the street unsupervised and pay no attention to traffic. 

Older children and young adults stand in the street or lean against cars without regard to traffic in 

adjacent travel lanes. Some teens and young adults jump on and off or in and out of vehicles 

without regard to other traffic. In addition, some persons (usually impaired by alcohol) actually 

lie down and sleep in the street. If the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in 

time to avoid a crash. 

Motorist Errors 

 7. Improper Turns. The motorist strikes a pedestrian while making a turn at an intersection 

or mid-block. At an intersection, the turn can be left or right, including a right turn on red. The 

motorist may run a stop sign or signal at an intersection while making the turn. The motorist can 

also be making a turn mid-block to enter or exit a driveway or alley and strike a pedestrian on the 

sidewalk or in the driveway. The critical element is that the motorist's workload is heightened by 

the turning maneuver and the motorist does not make a last check for pedestrians before starting 

the turn. In addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to 

avoid a crash. 

 8. Right Turn on Red. The motorist stops at a controlled intersection, searches for traffic 

approaching from the left and proceeds to make a right turn on a red signal without searching to 

the right. The motorist then strikes a pedestrian who is attempting to cross the street in front of 

the stopped motorist. By not searching to the right before moving, the motorist may also strike a 
pedestrian who is attempting to cross the street that the motorist is entering. In addition, if the 

vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. 

 9. Failure to Search. The motorist simply fails to search adequately for other roadway 

users, and that is the major cause of the crash problem. This motorist error is commonly 

associated with several crash types. It occurs when the motorist is proceeding straight ahead or is 

turning into or out of an intersection, driveway or alley. The turn can be left or right, including 

right turn on red. The motorist may cut the corner when making a turn and strike a pedestrian at 

the curb or on the sidewalk. The motorist frequently fails to search adequately, particularly for 

pedestrians, when entering or exiting on-street parking, when backing, and when in a nonroadway location (for example, a parking lot). The motorist may run a sign or signal without 

searching or, alternatively, the motorist may obey the sign or signal but fail to yield to a 

pedestrian because the pedestrian is not recognized. The motorist may fail to stop and search for 

pedestrians when a vehicle in the next lane has stopped (the multiple-threat crash). In addition, if 

the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. 

. 

 10. Excessive Speed. The motorist is driving too fast to respond quickly enough to avoid 

hitting a pedestrian in or entering the roadway. The pedestrian may be walking in the roadway or 

may appear suddenly in the roadway. In the latter case, the pedestrian typically runs out from a 

driveway, alley, or sidewalk mid-block, often on a play vehicle. The motorist may be overtaking 

the pedestrian and simply may not have sufficient time to see the pedestrian. The motorist may 

lose control of the vehicle due to the excessive speed. 

 11. Overtaking, Failure to See. The motorist is overtaking a pedestrian walking or running 

in the roadway and fails to see the pedestrian until it is too late to take evasive action. Although 

the problem is more frequent during darkness, it also occurs during daylight. Poor pedestrian 

conspicuity (for example, due to dark clothing) can be a contributing factor as can excess speed 

and alcohol use on the part of the motorist. In addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the motorist 

may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. 

Impairment 

 12. Pedestrian Alcohol/Drugs. The pedestrian is impaired by alcohol or drugs and is struck 

by a motor vehicle. The pedestrian frequently acts in an unexpected manner. For example, the 

pedestrian may enter the roadway suddenly from the sidewalk or median or may cross in front of 

a stopped vehicle and then suddenly turn and walk in front of the vehicle in the reverse direction. 

The pedestrian may be lying in the roadway. In addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the motorist 

may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. 

 13. Motorist Alcohol/Drugs. The motorist is impaired by alcohol or drugs and hits a 

pedestrian. The motorist may be overtaking the pedestrian and may not detect the pedestrian or 

may misjudge the space required to pass safely. The motorist may make a left or right turn in 

front of a pedestrian. The motorist may lose control of the vehicle. In addition, if the vehicle is 

speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. 
Visibility/Conspicuity 

 14. Visual Screens. A visual screen is an object that blocks the pedestrian and motorist 

views of each other. Examples include parked cars, cars in adjacent lanes, sidewalk furniture, 

fences, vegetation, signs, and street clutter. Visual screen problems occur both in roadway and 

non-roadway situations (for example, parking lots). The views from residential and commercial 

driveways and alleys and at mid-block crossings are frequently blocked by visual screens. 

Therefore, pedestrians who enter the street from driveways and alleys without searching around 

visual screens are frequently struck by motorists who simply don't know that they are there. 

Young pedestrians on play vehicles ("big wheels") are one component of this problem since they 

are small, low to the ground and easily screened. Pedestrians entering the street from sidewalks 

are often not seen by motorists because they are screened by parked cars or a variety of other 

objects. Views at intersections can also be blocked. In addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the 

motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. 

 15. Daytime Conspicuity. The pedestrian simply isn't conspicuous enough in the daytime, 

that is, the pedestrian doesn't stand out enough from the background. As a result, the pedestrian 

is not noticed by the motorist in time to avoid a crash. These pedestrians are certainly above the 

visual threshold, but still fail to prompt detection and recognition from motor vehicle drivers. 

Motorists often fail to see pedestrians who are riding on play vehicles, probably because they are 

small, low to the ground, and fast-moving. The motorist can fail to see a pedestrian when 

executing turns because the pedestrian is camouflaged against vegetation or hidden in shadows. 

Daytime conspicuity problems can occur when motorists drive out of driveways or alleys. 

Motorists also frequently fail to detect pedestrians that they are overtaking. In addition, if the 

vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. 

 16. Nighttime Conspicuity. The pedestrian is not conspicuous at night often because the 

pedestrian is near or below the visual threshold for detection. Sometimes, parts of the pedestrian, 

particularly one wearing retroreflective garments, are visible but do not stand out from among 

similar competing signals. The motorist can fail to see a pedestrian when the motorist is turning 

in front of a pedestrian. Nighttime conspicuity can be a problem when the motorist is backing, 

driving out from a driveway or alley, running a sign or signal at an intersection, and overtaking a 

pedestrian. In addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to 

avoid a crash. 

Special Locations 

 17. High-Risk Locations. Some pedestrian/motor vehicle problems occur because the 

location is inherently risky for a pedestrian. The types of high-risk locations vary by community. 

Generic locations that are typically high risk include busy intersections, high-speed roads, and 

residential and commercial driveways. Particular high risk locations can be generated by ongoing 

road construction, poor road conditions, poor lighting, flawed access management or faulty 

roadway design. Residential mail box locations in rural and suburban areas can be high risk if the 

pedestrian is forced to cross to and from the mailbox. Expressways are especially high risk 

locations for pedestrians. In addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to 

stop in time to avoid a crash with a pedestrian. 
 18. Residential Driveways. Residential driveways are dangerous places, particularly for 

young pedestrians. Crashes that occur largely involve young children who run into the street 

from the driveway or sidewalk area without first looking for traffic. Sometimes the children are 

riding on play vehicles. A visual screen such as a parked car is often involved in these crashes. 

Backing vehicles in driveways are a particular danger to small children. Also included are 

crashes where a vehicle makes a turn into the driveway and strikes a pedestrian who is not seen 

in time for the driver to take evasive action. In addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the motorist 

may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash with a pedestrian. 

 19. Sidewalks. Pedestrians sometimes walk or run into the street directly from the sidewalk 

without first searching for traffic. This can be a particular problem for young children. Sidewalks 

are out of the normal search pattern for many motorists, and the pedestrian frequently isn't seen 

until it is too late. Visual screens are often a contributing factor to this problem area. Turning 

vehicles can cut the corner and strike pedestrians on the sidewalk. Backing vehicles can strike 

pedestrians on the sidewalk. Out-of-control vehicles can mount the sidewalk and strike 

pedestrians. In addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to 

avoid a crash with a pedestrian. 

 20. Bus Stops. At commercial bus stops, pedestrians frequently exit a bus and then try to 

cross the street in front of the bus without first searching for traffic. They are screened by the bus 

from other traffic and are struck when they emerge into traffic. Pedestrians also run from the 

other side of the street to catch a bus without first looking for traffic. Similar problems exist for 

young children when crossing the street to and from the school bus. Drivers fail to recognize the 

significance of the stopped bus and don't perform an adequate search for pedestrians. In 

addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash 

with a pedestrian. Commercial bus stops located on the near sides of intersections are 

particularly dangerous because they encourage crossings in front of the bus. 

 21. Roadway Work Sites. Construction workers are present in or near the roadway as part 

of their work responsibilities. Very few are trying to cross the road. Rather, they are directing 

traffic or performing other assigned duties in the roadway. These pedestrians are victims of 

motorists who are traveling too fast to take evasive action. In addition, motorists frequently 

misjudge the passing distance required to avoid striking a pedestrian in the roadway. Conspicuity 

can also be a problem. 

 22. Schools. Schools can be particularly dangerous places for pedestrians. Child drop-off 

and pick-up locations can consist of a maze of cars and buses pulling in and out at school start 

and closing times. Children are excited about both arriving at and leaving school and fail to pay 

attention to traffic. Proper design and control of drop-off locations is required to avoid pedestrian 

crashes. Although posted speeds are usually reduced in school zones, many motorists fail to obey 

them. Some schools are located on busy roads, and children need assistance in crossing the 

street. Safe routes to school are often not identified. 

Geometrics/Operations 

 23. Geometrics/Roadway Design. Increases in traffic volume and speed elevate the danger 

of a pedestrian/motor vehicle crash. Street design elements impact driver speeds and volume. 

Increased speeds influence the driver's perception/reaction time and vehicle stopping times. 
Crosswalk details such as high-visibility markings and stop bar placement influence driver 

behavior. Bulb outs and refuge islands shorten pedestrian crossing distance and improve 

visibility between drivers and pedestrians. The provision of a sidewalk or shoulder determines 

whether a pedestrian must walk in the roadway. Grade separated tunnels or bridges that remove 

pedestrians from the vehicle path may be practical in some situations. Subtle elements of 

roadway geometrics, such as corner radii, have far reaching implications for pedestrians as well 

as vehicles. Every roadway feature should be evaluated for its impact on both motorized and 

nonmotorized users. 

 24. Operations/Maintenance. Characteristics of the roadway such as signal timing, traffic 

speed and gaps, marking and striping, push button location, surface type and condition, and ramp 

angle and location influence the safety and behavior of pedestrians. Factors such as signals that 

do not allow adequate time for pedestrians to cross at the intersection will influence the crossing 

points selected by pedestrians. Operational changes, such as a change in signal timing, can 

provide effective, low-cost strategies to reduce pedestrian conflicts in some environments. 

High Injury Severity 

 25. Fatal Crashes. Fatal crashes typically generate a significant public outcry and demands 

for change. Many fatal pedestrian crashes involve motorists who do not detect the pedestrian 

walking or running in the roadway. Crashes involving elderly pedestrians are often fatal. Fatal 

crashes include mid-block and intersection darts and dashes where the pedestrian presents only a 

short-term exposure to the motorist, vehicle turns at intersections and mid-block, driver 

violations at intersections, and other intersection and mid-block crashes. In addition, if the 

vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash with a 

pedestrian. 

 26. Nighttime Crashes. Nighttime crashes often become a focal point because of the 

obvious mismatch between a pedestrian and a motor vehicle. In many nighttime crashes, the 

motorist fails to detect a pedestrian walking or running in the roadway. The night detection 

problem is most critical on higher speed roadways. Alcohol use by the pedestrian and/or motorist 

is often a factor. In addition, if the vehicle is speeding, the motorist may not be able to stop in 

time to avoid a crash with a pedestrian. 

Target Group 

 27. Pre-School Pedestrian. A pre-school child is typically involved in crashes near home. 

These children often play in driveways or on sidewalks in front of their homes. When not 

supervised, they run into the street without stopping and looking for traffic. If a vehicle is going 

too fast, the driver may not be able to respond in time to avoid a crash. Pre-school children are 

often on play vehicles. They can be the focus of safety efforts in a pre-school setting. 

 28. Elementary School Pedestrian. Elementary school children are often the focus of 

safety efforts because they are easy to reach in a school setting. The elementary school 

pedestrian is typically involved in crashes close to home, at nearby intersections and in nearby 

non-roadway locations (for example, parking lots). These crashes can involve the pedestrian 

running out from a residential or commercial driveway or sidewalk. The motorist may be 
backing. In addition, if the vehicle is traveling too fast, the motorist may not be able to stop in 

time to avoid a crash. 

 29. Middle/High School Pedestrian. As with elementary school students, middle and high 

school pupils can be addressed with school-based programs. Since middle and high school 

pedestrians travel farther from home than their younger counterparts, they are exposed to both 

neighborhood and commercial district threats as well as to threats that occur in non-roadway 

locations (for example, parking lots). They therefore can be involved in almost any crash type 

including both those common to children and those common to adults. These include mid-block 

dashes from driveways and sidewalks and crashes involving overtaking motorists, motorist turns 

and merges, motorist failure to yield to the pedestrian and backing motorists. The pedestrian can 

be trapped in an intersection when the light changes or can proceed past a stopped vehicle and 

then be hit by a vehicle in the next lane. In addition, if the vehicle is traveling too fast, the 

motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a crash. 

 30. Parent. Young children don't appreciate roadway dangers, and they make common 

errors. They run into the roadway without stopping and searching for traffic, and traffic may be 

moving too quickly for motorists to make safe responses and avoid a crash. Lack of parental 

supervision exacerbates the problem. 

 31. Adult. Most adults are pedestrians at some time during their day. Some walk to and 

from work. Some simply walk to and from buses/trains or to and from parked cars, parking lots 

and garages. As such, adults walk at all times of day including peak traffic hours. They are 

involved in all types of pedestrian crashes including those in which the motorist is speeding. 

 32. Recreational/Exercise Walker/Jogger. Many adults walk or jog for recreation or 

exercise. In order to maintain their exercise rhythm, many stop and jog in place in the street 

while waiting for traffic to pass. Many also walk or run in the street, frequently with traffic. 

Some do not wear conspicuous clothing, particularly at nighttime. They can be particularly 

vulnerable when a vehicle is going too fast for the motorist to respond in time to avoid a crash. 

 33. Older Adult. Senior pedestrians (aged 65+) are involved in fewer pedestrian crashes 

(7.7%) than would be expected by their numbers (12.5%) in the population. However, they 

account for almost one-quarter of all pedestrian fatalities. Older pedestrians typically cross at 

intersections and are therefore involved in many intersection crashes, including those with 

turning vehicles. Because they are likely to move slowly, they are particularly vulnerable to cars 

that are traveling too fast. Older adults tend to wear conservative clothing that does not stand out 

from the environment. They are also often involved in parking lot crashes where they are hit by 

backing vehicles. Their crashes tend to occur in the daytime. 

 34. People With Disabilities. Many persons with disabilities use walking for exercise as 

well as for purposeful activities. Those with impaired mobility may have difficulty crossing the 

street even on a green light. Some may not be able to increase their speed without the danger of 

falling. Some are confined to wheelchairs and therefore more easily screened from the motorist's 

view by parked cars, vegetation, street furniture, and other objects. Some may find it difficult to 

negotiate curbs unless ramps are provided. Persons with visual impairments may have difficulty 

interpreting signs and signals unless auditory cues are provided. Individuals with mental 

impairments may act like small children and enter a traffic lane suddenly and unexpectedly. In 
addition, if a vehicle is traveling too fast, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid a 

crash. 

 35. Skaters/Scooter Riders. This target group includes persons on skateboards, roller 

skates, inline skates, and scooters. Included are both children and adults who operate in the 

street, on the sidewalk, and on bicycle/pedestrian paths. Skill levels range from beginner to 

advanced. Most of these pedestrians do not wear protective equipment. They may appear in the 

street suddenly, and the motorist may have insufficient time to react to their appearance. In 

addition, if the vehicle is traveling too fast, the motorist may not be able to stop in time to avoid 

a crash. Individuals in this target group may attempt to attach themselves to moving vehicles in 

the roadway. On the sidewalk, they can cause dangers to pedestrians on foot. Inexperienced 

persons may fall. 

 36. Teenage Motorist. Teenage motorists lack roadway experience and often overestimate 

their abilities. Many young drivers operate their vehicles too fast in critical areas, especially 

around schools and residential neighborhoods where many young unpredictable children are 

present. Teenage motorists are involved in crashes in which the pedestrian darts or dashes into 

the roadway at an intersection or mid-block. They make violations at intersections. They are 

involved in crashes in which pedestrians are working or playing in the roadway. Teenage 

motorists cause problems when they are backing. 
Radio Live Copy :30 

Many individuals in Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the speeds that 

vehicles travel in their neighborhoods. Heed the Speed is a program that uses 

education and enforcement along with traffic engineering changes to reduce those 

speeds. The Heed the Speed program is a collaborative effort of the traffic and police 

departments of the cities of Phoenix and Peoria with support from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

For further information about Heed the Speed, please contact: 

 Phoenix: Michael Cynecki, Phoenix Street Transportation Department, 

 602-262-7217 

 Peoria: Kelly LaRosa, Peoria Traffic Engineering Division, 623-773-7652

Heed the Speed – The Consequences

Announcer: 

Ever get a speeding ticket? It’s no fun. The fine is at least a 

hundred, and the insurance increases can be a lot more. Plus, you 

get three points on your license. If all you got was the ticket, you 

were lucky. If you had hit a pedestrian when you were speeding, 

you would have done a lot of damage. Almost all pedestrians struck 

at 40 miles per hour will die. But at 20 miles per hour, almost all 

will live. Please slow down, Heed the Speed and let your neighbors 

live. 
Radio Live Copy :15 

Many individuals in Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the speeds that 

vehicles travel in their neighborhoods. Heed the Speed is a program that uses 

education and enforcement along with traffic engineering changes to reduce those 

speeds. The Heed the Speed program is a collaborative effort of the traffic and police 

departments of the cities of Phoenix and Peoria with support from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

For further information about Heed the Speed, please contact: 

 Phoenix: Michael Cynecki, Phoenix Street Transportation Department, 

 602-262-7217 

 Peoria: Kelly LaRosa, Peoria Traffic Engineering Division, 623-773-7652

Heed the Speed – In a Hurry 

Announcer: 

In a hurry? Running late? Driving a little too fast? Did you know 

that you’re 17 times more likely to kill a pedestrian at 40 miles per 

hour than at 20? Please slow down, Heed the Speed and let your 

neighbors live. 
Radio Live Promo 

Many individuals in Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the speeds that 

vehicles travel in their neighborhoods. Heed the Speed is a program that uses 

education and enforcement along with traffic engineering changes to reduce those 

speeds. The Heed the Speed program is a collaborative effort of the traffic and police 

departments of the cities of Phoenix and Peoria with support from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

For further information about Heed the Speed, please contact: 

 Phoenix: Michael Cynecki, Phoenix Street Transportation Department, 

 602-262-7217 

 Peoria: Kelly LaRosa, Peoria Traffic Engineering Division, 623-773-7652

Heed the Speed – Station ID

Announcer: 

[Station call letters and name] reminds you to please slow down, 

Heed the Speed and let your neighbors live. 
Radio Live Copy :15 

Many individuals in Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the speeds that 

vehicles travel in their neighborhoods. Heed the Speed is a program that uses 

education and enforcement along with traffic engineering changes to reduce those 

speeds. The Heed the Speed program is a collaborative effort of the traffic and police 

departments of the cities of Phoenix and Peoria with support from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

For further information about Heed the Speed, please contact: 

 Phoenix: Michael Cynecki, Phoenix Street Transportation Department, 

 602-262-7217 

 Peoria: Kelly LaRosa, Peoria Traffic Engineering Division, 623-773-7652

Heed the Speed – Want to Be a Good Neighbor?

Announcer: 

Want to be a good neighbor? It’s easy. Slow down and you’ll make 

life better in your neighborhood for everyone. [This station] 

[Station call letters][Station name] asks you to please slow down, 

Heed the Speed and let your neighbors live. 
Radio Live Copy :15 

Many individuals in Phoenix and Peoria have expressed concern about the speeds that 

vehicles travel in their neighborhoods. Heed the Speed is a program that uses 

education and enforcement along with traffic engineering changes to reduce those 

speeds. The Heed the Speed program is a collaborative effort of the traffic and police 

departments of the cities of Phoenix and Peoria with support from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

For further information about Heed the Speed, please contact: 

 Phoenix: Michael Cynecki, Phoenix Street Transportation Department, 

 602-262-7217 

 Peoria: Kelly LaRosa, Peoria Traffic Engineering Division, 623-773-7652

Heed the Speed – The Bumps

Announcer: 

Ever hit a speed bump too fast? Well, what if that bump were a 

pedestrian? The faster you’re going, the more likely you are to kill a 

pedestrian if you hit one. Seventeen times more likely at 40 than at 

20. Please slow down, Heed the Speed and let your neighbors live. 
 176 

Topics for Newspaper Articles 

1. Speeding-related crashes in U.S. and Arizona. In 2000, speeding was a contributing factor in 

29 percent of all fatal crashes in the United States, and 12,350 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes. 

In 2000, there were 1,036 traffic fatalities in Arizona; 354 (34%) of them were speeding-related. 

2. Speeding on interstates - Fifty-three of the 254 speeding-related fatalities in Arizona occurred 

on interstate highways; the remainder on non-interstates. In the U.S., 85 percent of speeding-related 

fatalities occurred on roads that were not interstate highways 

3. Age and speeding - For drivers involved in fatal crashes, young males are the most likely to be 

speeding. The relative proportion of speeding-related crashes to all crashes decreases with increasing age. 

In 2000, 34 percent of the male drivers 15 to 20 years old who were involved in fatal crashes were 

speeding at the time of the crash. 

4. Speeding and alcohol - In 2000, 23 percent of the speeding drivers under 21 years old who were 

involved in fatal crashes were also intoxicated, with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .10 g/dL 

(grams per deciliter) or greater. Only 10 percent of non-speeding drivers were intoxicated. In 2000, 40 

percent of intoxicated drivers were speeding. Between midnight and 3 a.m., 77 percent of speeding 

drivers involved in fatal crashes had been drinking. 

5. Speeding and safety belts - Among drivers in fatal crashes in 2000, those who were not speeding 

were nearly twice as likely to be wearing safety belts as those who were speeding at the time of the crash. 

6. Speeding and driver’s licenses - In 2000, 20 percent of speeding drivers involved in fatal 

crashes had an invalid license at the time of the crash compared to 9 percent of non-speeding drivers. 

7. National speed limit - When the national speed rate changed from 55 to 65 mph, fatalities 

increased by 21 percent. (NHTSA source) 

8. Accidents worldwide - It is estimated that more than seven million people will be injured in 

traffic accidents worldwide this year – one third of them at intersections.

9. Pedestrian intersection crashes - In the U.S. alone, one million people will be injured crossing 

an intersection – 7,000 will die.

10. Impact speed and driver death - For every 10 miles an hour increase in impact speed the 

chance of death doubles for the driver so that the driver who crashes at 40 mph has twice the chance of 

getting killed as the driver who crashes at 30 mph. The ramifications of that speed are even more 

terrifying when applied to pedestrians. 
 177 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 178 

APPENDIX D 

PROGRAM DATA COLLECTION FORMS

Appendix D – Program Data Collection Forms 

This appendix contains copies of the materials used to collect data for the study. They 

were essentially the same for each city. They include the following: 

• Letter accompanying the survey sponsored by the City of Peoria 

• Peoria neighborhood survey form 

• Peoria Heed the Speed motorist stop form 

• Letter accompanying the survey sponsored by the City of Phoenix 

• Phoenix neighborhood survey form 

• Phoenix Heed the Speed motorist stop form
 

 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Traffic Engineering Division

8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, Arizona 85345 

Phone: (623) 773-7210 

Fax: (623) 773-7211

Dear Peoria Neighbor: 

The City of Peoria’s Traffic Engineering Division and Police Department are 

conducting a study on traffic safety in Peoria neighborhoods. The study is being 

done in collaboration with the City of Phoenix and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

The survey is designed to obtain your opinions and observations about traffic safety 

in your neighborhood. Since we are asking only a small number of people to 

complete the survey, it is extremely important that everyone respond. Please 

complete the form on the reverse side and return it in the postage paid envelope. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Regards, 

Scott E. Nodes, P.E., P.T.O.E. 

City Traffic Engineer 
 

PEORIA NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY 

1. Are you aware of any recent activities to control speeds in your neighborhood? 

 □ yes □ no 

 (go to item 2) (go to item 5) 

 

2. Did any of these activities include any publicity? □ yes □ no □ don’t know 

If yes, what publicity? 

3. Were the police involved in any of these activities? □ yes □ no □ don’t know 

If yes, what activities? 

4. Did any of these activities include any physical changes to the road or the physical environment? 

□ yes □ no □ don’t know 

If yes, what changes? 

5. Compared to 6 months ago, how would you rate the speeds in your neighborhood? 

 □ much slower □ a bit slower □ the same □ a bit faster □ much faster 

6. How long have you lived in your current neighborhood?

 □ less than 1 year □ 1 to 5 years □ more than 5 years 

7. What is your age? _____ years 

8. What is your gender? □ male □ female 

Please return in the postage paid envelope provided
 

Officer: _______________________________ Date: ____________________ 

 Time: ____________________ 

PEORIA Heed the Speed MOTORIST STOP FORM 

Location of Stop:

1. Peoria neighborhood: □ 95th Avenue □ Desert Harbor □ Bell Park

2. Street: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

Driver:

3. Proximity of driver address to neighborhood: 

□ in neighborhood □ near neighborhood (< 1 mi) □ outside neighborhood (> 1 mi) 

4. Gender: □ male □ female 

5. Date of birth (mmddyy): __________ 

6. Driver wearing seatbelt? □ yes □ no 

7. How often does driver travel on this road? 

□ daily □ weekly □ monthly □ never before □ other:_________________________ 

Occupants: 

8. Total number of people in vehicle (including driver): ______ 

Vehicle:

9. Vehicle type: □ car □ minivan □ SUV □ pickup □ other truck □ motorcycle 

 □ other:____________________________ 

10. Model year: __ __ __ __ 

Officer’s Action:

11. What did you do? (Check all that apply) □ gave ticket □gave literature 

Return completed form to Sgt. Clark Collier 
 

Dear Phoenix Resident: 

The City of Phoenix Police and Street Transportation Departments are conducting a 

study on traffic safety in your neighborhood. The study is being done in collaboration 

with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

The survey is designed to obtain your opinions and observations about traffic safety in 

your neighborhood. Since we are asking only a small number of people to complete the 

survey, it is extremely important that everyone respond. Please complete the form on 

the reverse side and return it in the postage-paid envelope. 

If you have any questions, please call Mike Cynecki at 602-262-7217. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

Michael J. Cynecki, P.E. 

Traffic Engineering Supervisor 

TEC:JWS:MJC:plc:J:\SEC_SVCS\OPS\MGMT\2002\Mjc0903.doc 

 

Street Transportation Department
 

PHOENIX NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY 

1. Are you aware of any recent activities to control speeds in your neighborhood? 

 □ yes □ no 

 (go to item 2) (go to item 5) 

 

2. Did any of these activities include any publicity? □ yes □ no □ don’t know 

If yes, what publicity? 

3. Were the police involved in any of these activities? □ yes □ no □ don’t know 

If yes, what activities? 

4. Did any of these activities include any physical changes to the road or the physical environment? 

□ yes □ no □ don’t know 

If yes, what changes? 

5. Compared to 6 months ago, how would you rate the speeds in your neighborhood? 

 □ much slower □ a bit slower □ the same □ a bit faster □ much faster 

6. How long have you lived in your current neighborhood? 

 □ less than 1 year □ 1 to 5 years □ more than 5 years 

7. What is your age? _____ years 

8. What is your gender? □ male □ female 

Please return in the postage paid envelope provided 
 

Officer: ______________________________ Date: ____________________ 

 Time: ____________________ 

PHOENIX Heed the Speed MOTORIST STOP FORM 

Location of Stop:

1. Phoenix neighborhood: □ Sweetwater □ Moon Valley □ Clarendon

2. Street: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

Driver:

3. Proximity of driver address to neighborhood: 

□ in neighborhood □ near neighborhood (< 1 mi) □ outside neighborhood (> 1 mi) 

4. Gender: □ male □ female 

5. Date of birth (mmddyy): __________ 

6. Driver wearing seatbelt? □ yes □ no 

7. How often does driver travel on this road? 

□ daily □ weekly □ monthly □ never before □ other:_________________________ 

Occupants: 

8. Total number of people in vehicle (including driver): ______ 

Vehicle:

9. Vehicle type: □ car □ minivan □ SUV □ pickup □ other truck □ motorcycle 

 □ other:____________________________ 

10. Model year: __ __ __ __ 

Officer’s Action:

11. What did you do? (Check all that apply) □ gave ticket □gave literature 

Return completed form to Sgt. Rich Maiocco at the Desert Horizon Precinct 

1. Fold form in half 

2. Tape or staple closed 

3. Drop in inter-office mail 
 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 186 

APPENDIX E 

MAPS OF PHOENIX AND PEORIA STUDY AREAS

Appendix E – Maps Of Phoenix And Peoria Study Areas 

 

 Phoenix 

 Clarendon Avenue 

 Sweetwater Avenue 

 Moon Valley/Coral Gables 

 Moon Valley Drive 

 Coral Gables Drive 

 North-south segment 

 East-west segment 

 Peoria 

 Bell Park/84th Avenue and 85th Lane 

 Desert Harbor/91st Avenue 

 95th Avenue
 187 
 188 
 189 
 190 
 191 
 192 

 

Peoria – Bell Park/84th Avenue and 85th Lane 
 193 

 

Peoria – Desert Harbor/91st Avenue 
 194 

 

Peoria – 95th Avenue
 195 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 196 

APPENDIX F 

HEED THE SPEED GUIDE

Appendix F – Draft Heed The peed Guide 

 This Appendix contains a draft of a Guide that can be used by communities to develop 

their own Heed the Speed program based on the principles researched during the present study. 

As discussed in Section 6, for best results the information in this Guide must be tailored to the 

local situation. 
 197 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
DEVELOPING A PROGRAM 

TO 

HEED THE SPEED

U. S. Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
 

Prepared by Dunlap and Associates, Inc. under Task Order 2 of Contract DTNH22-99-D-05099
47

88

149

0 50 100 150 200

20

30

40

YOUR SPEED (MPH)

DISTANCE UNTIL YOU STOP (FEET)

INTRODUCTION 

This Guide is designed to provide information to local communities that want to mount 

programs to decrease speeds in residential neighborhoods in order to reduce traffic crashes, 

particularly to pedestrians. The advice is based on research that successfully combined 

enforcement, engineering and education into action programs called Heed the Speed tailored to 

specific communities and road segments. The basic premise of Heed the Speed is that physical 

traffic calming – things such as vertical treatments (speed tables, speed humps, etc.) and 

roundabouts – cannot always be installed. Even when traffic calming is planned, it can take 

years to be implemented. By using enforcement, education and innovative approaches, Heed the 

Speed can improve the effects of traffic calming when it is installed and provide some of traffic 

calming’s speed reduction benefits when circumstances prevent it from being used. 

The Speeding Problem 

There is much evidence to support the fact that 

higher speeds are associated with more severe 

pedestrian injuries and death. Studies have reported 

that 5 percent of pedestrians will die if they are struck 

by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour; 45 percent 

will die if the vehicle is traveling at 30 miles per hour; 

85 percent will die if the vehicle is traveling at 40 

miles per hour; and almost all will die if the vehicle is 

traveling at 50 miles per hour. 

A motor vehicle needs time and space to stop. A vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour 

will need 47 feet to stop. At 30 miles per hour, the distance almost doubles (88 feet), and at 40 

miles per hour, it almost doubles again (149 feet). Thus, excess speed can be related both to an 

increase in crash likelihood and to a greatly elevated injury severity when a crash does occur. 

The problems of speeding have been of concern to community residents as well as to 

government officials at all levels for many years. These concerns have resulted in the 

implementation of a variety of measures to reduce speeds. Past programs have typically focused 

on one of the primary ways to change speeding behavior – engineering (traffic calming), 

enforcement or education. Few programs combined all three “E’s” to try for maximum impact. 

45%

85% 100%

5% 0

20

40

60

80

100

20 30 40 50

MPH

% WHO WILL DIE
 2 

 

This guide describes how a community can use a multi-pronged approach to reduce 

motorist speeds in residential areas by adding education and enforcement to engineering in a 

Heed the Speed program. It contains the following steps: 

 Cataloging local resources/recruiting support 

 Establishing a working committee 

 Reviewing the local problem 

 Selecting study neighborhoods 

 Designing the program 

 Implementing the program 

 Assessing program success 

Examples are taken from the experience of the Heed the Speed implementations in Phoenix and 

Peoria, Arizona that were part of a NHTSA-funded research program. 

Cataloging Local Resources 

 Many local safety programs begin with a lead group or agency that responds to an 

explicit or implicit need in the community. Others are catalyzed by a directive from a 

governmental body or city executive in response to citizen complaints or a tragic crash. 

Regardless of the underlying motivation for beginning an effort such as Heed the Speed, there 

will probably be an originating group or individual with the responsibility of putting together a 

program. It is important for that individual or group to begin the entire process with a catalog of 

local resources. While the ideal is for every relevant discipline to join willingly in Heed the 

Speed efforts, the reality is that local conditions will vary widely. As long as some involved 

group – enforcement, engineering, safety education, or active citizens – is eager to proceed, a 

successful Heed the Speed program is possible. Soliciting the help of all of the other 

participants, however, is clearly desirable, adds to the chances of program success and should be 

attempted. Once all of the players are identified and fully committed, the remaining steps in this 

Guide can be viewed in the proper context and adapted appropriately. 

Establishing a Working Group 

 From the outset, a group, committee, or task force is needed to plan and manage a local 

Heed the Speed program. Tasks for this group include conducting an assessment of the speeding 

problem, identifying the specific neighborhood or neighborhoods that will participate in the 

program, planning the program to be conducted in each neighborhood, overseeing program 

activities to ensure that they are proceeding as planned, and collecting and analyzing any data 

needed to assess program success. 

At a minimum the committee should try to have representation from the following 

groups: 

 Traffic engineering – to select and oversee the installation of appropriate roadway 

treatments, signs, signals, and markings 
 3 

 

 Police – to select and oversee the implementation of enforcement and related 

education activities above and beyond routine patrols 

 Public information – to design and arrange for production and distribution of program 

education materials and local media publicity 

 Local safety groups – to provide volunteer support 

It is recognized, however, that it may not be possible to recruit actively involved members from 

each of these disciplines. When that happens, the working group must realistically acknowledge 

its own strengths and weaknesses and plan a Heed the Speed program accordingly. 

Once the neighborhoods that will participate in the program have been identified, a 

representative from each neighborhood may be added to the committee. These individuals can 

assist in identifying specific problems that are encountered at the neighborhood level, in 

evaluating the acceptability of specific countermeasures to the neighborhood, in identifying 

neighborhood individuals or groups that need to be addressed, and in pulling together 

neighborhood resources that can be used to enhance the program. Having locals on board can 

help to ensure that the program runs smoothly at the neighborhood level. It also can spark a 

useful dialogue across neighborhoods to generate new ideas. 

One committee member needs to be selected as the lead for the program. That person 

will assure that meetings of the committee are held on a regular basis throughout the program’s 

tenure, that agendas are prepared for each meeting and that minutes of each meeting are prepared 

and distributed to coalition members. Meetings that are scheduled on a routine basis (such as 

once a month) can serve to keep all committee members apprised of program activities and 

progress and give them an opportunity to solve problems as they occur. 

The choice of the frequency of meetings is important to the success of a Heed the Speed

effort. If they are too close together, the time demands may become too great and participation 

will drop off. If they are too far apart the committee may not be able to react quickly enough to 

changes, and Heed the Speed can lose importance. A monthly timetable has worked well in 

some sites, but each committee should define a schedule based on the needs of its own members. 

Reviewing the Local Problem 

 A Heed the Speed program should start with an assessment of the local speeding problem 

in order to identify neighborhoods to include. Although Heed the Speed programs are typically 

started at the city or county level, the focus is on speed reduction in individual neighborhoods 

that have a problem. Identifying neighborhoods is done with information generally available to 

local police and traffic engineering personnel. Citizen complaints about speeders, citizen 

requests for traffic calming, records of citations issued, crashes involving speeding and general 

police department/traffic engineering knowledge of the speeding problem in various areas of the 

community are all relevant. Actual speed data may be available for some neighborhoods from 

routine traffic counts. If necessary, special traffic counts/speed measurements can be taken. The 

result of this effort will be the development of a candidate set of neighborhoods that could 

benefit from a speed reduction effort. 
 4 

 

Selecting Study Neighborhoods 

 One or more neighborhoods can be selected for Heed the Speed implementations 

depending on the resources that are available for the program and the degree of local interest. 

The primary aim, of course, will be to have as large an impact as possible on the community 

speed problem. In most locales, there will be no shortage of neighborhoods desiring a reduction 

in vehicle speeds to improve safety and the quality of life, but there may be insufficient resources 

to give Heed the Speed to every neighborhood that wants it. 

The first effort will be to develop a rank order for the neighborhoods that have been 

identified as candidate sites. The primary criteria will be twofold: 

 The strength of the expressed desire on the part of neighborhood residents to 

participate in a speed reduction program as evidenced by their prior requests for 

traffic calming devices or requests of support from the police in dealing with 

speeders. Grass roots involvement in the affected neighborhoods, although not 

absolutely essential to a successful Heed the Speed program, is highly beneficial. It 

provides the eyes, ears, hands, and legs for the program on a day-to-day basis. 

Committed and involved local residents can help adapt and distribute educational 

materials and provide feedback on program progress. 

 There is an actual speeding problem based on speed measurements or on police 

reports if no measured speed data are available. Sometimes people will perceive a 

speeding problem when it does not, in fact, exist. A Heed the Speed program can’t 

afford to allocate resources to areas where speeding is not really a problem. 

It is also important to identify any constraints or opportunities that might affect 

neighborhood selection. These might include: 

 Is this a one-time effort where one or more 

neighborhoods will be selected for the 

program? Or, is the selection the first of a 

program that will continue indefinitely with 

other neighborhoods added or substituted 

from time to time? 

 What is the program time frame? Will a 

neighborhood selection be restricted by a 

limited time frame and will it be reasonable 

to apply all proposed countermeasures in that time period? For example, is there time 

to ensure that any planned roadway treatments or proposed legislation will be in place 

at the start of the program or shortly after program start? 

 

 What types of streets are in the area – neighborhood, collector, arterial? What 

roadway treatments, if any, could be used for each? 

 What is the size of the area? Can it all be accommodated in the speed reduction 

program? 
 5 

 

 What efforts are already planned for or actually in place in the area? For example, is 

traffic calming planned? Are new sidewalks going in? Are periodic traffic counts 

scheduled? 

 What resources are located in or near the area that can affect traffic positively or 

negatively (e.g., schools, churches, businesses)? Will the program need special 

countermeasures addressed to these groups? For example, in one Heed the Speed city 

nearby car dealerships used adjacent neighborhoods for test drives and were therefore 

the subject of a special education piece requesting them to minimize such drives and 

to drive more slowly. 

 Are there organized groups in or near the neighborhoods that can serve as resources 

for the distribution of program materials? For example, schools can act as 

distribution points for flyers directed to parents. 

 Is there an established homeowner’s association? If not, can one or more residents of 

the area be identified to serve as contact points for the community? If there is no 

homeowner’s association and no contact can be identified, special attention must be 

paid to ensuring that the neighborhood residents receive program materials. 

Distribution by means of door hangers can be used as well as distributions by mail. 

 Are there specific racial or ethnic groups in the community that need to be addressed? 

For example, are there large numbers of Hispanics that will need Spanish translations 

of education materials? 

The final selection of neighborhoods must be based on the resources that the community and the 

neighborhood together can apply and the practicality of combining those resources into a 

coherent and ongoing Heed the Speed effort. 

Designing the Program 

A Heed the Speed program should try to include the three E’s – education, enforcement, 

and engineering. It can also include changes in legislation if needed, but these changes can take 

time. 

Education: Education as part of Heed the Speed should be focused on materials and 

activities to inform the public about the dangers of speeding, the existence of a problem, the 

increased risk of getting a ticket and the need to slow down. Examples of Heed the Speed 

education materials that have been used successfully include: 

 Program logo 

 Street traffic signs displaying the slogan 

and logo 
 6 

 

 Lawn signs displaying the slogan and logo printed on bright yellow weatherproof 

material 

 Homeowner’s association meetings in which 

presentations were made by traffic engineering and 

police personnel to discuss the problem and the 

program 

 Flyers for residents, parents, and high school drivers 

– reproduced in both English and Spanish 

 Flyers for drivers with a traffic ticket facsimile on 

the reverse side 

 A slim version of the above flyer minus the traffic ticket 

 Flyers for car dealerships which encouraged them not to do test drives on 

neighborhood streets and to drive responsibly 

 Press release announcing the program 

 Live copy radio spots. 

One strategy that has worked well is to distribute sample items done with desktop 

publishing on a CD-ROM. These can then be adapted as necessary for individual neighborhoods 

by the local participants. Heed the Speed education materials don’t necessarily have to be 

“slick.” They do have to be accurate and relevant to the local problem. They also have to be in a 

form that can be easily distributed. By providing examples that can be tailored or localized, 

factual information is provided, and local participants can apply their unique knowledge to 

making sure the information is relevant and receives widespread distribution. 

Additional education items that have been successful include articles for insertion in 

neighborhood newsletters, outlines for television interviews, news releases to local newspapers, 

and radio spots. 

Enforcement: Nothing gets the attention of speed violators better than enforcement. 

Police involvement does not, however, have to be limited to writing tickets. Presentations to 

homeowner’s organizations and other local groups, training of local residents to conduct speed 

watches and deployment of speed trailers and other speed-related equipment are also potentially 

effective enforcement efforts. It is not surprising, 

however that the police effort noticed most and 

appreciated most by residents in Heed the Speed 

neighborhoods was added enforcement – both 

ticketing and warning stops. 

Engineering: Engineering can make 

physical changes to the roadway to reduce speeds. 

These traditionally encompass virtually any traffic 
 7 

 

calming technique used in the community, such as vertical treatments (speed humps and speed 

tables) and traffic circles, as well as new or changed traffic signs, signals and marking. Some 

innovative roadway markings have also been tried as part of Heed the Speed. A material that 

simulates speed tables and one that provides the appearance of a three-dimensional object in the 

roadway were tested in several neighborhoods. These pavement applications produced an 

immediate and quite significant reduction in speeds that seemed to remain for some time. It is 

not known what will happen over a long period of time when drivers become accustomed to 

them. It is hoped that they will continue to serve as a reminder of the Heed the Speed program 

because of their compelling appearance. 

Legislation: Changes to existing laws and ordinances or the enactment of new ones can 

help to solve the speeding problem. For example, posted speeds can be reduced or fines can be 

doubled for speeding in selected high-speed areas. As with roadway alterations, legislative 

changes take time to effect and need to be planned long before program start. The debate over a 

legislative change or the fact that a new law has been passed can serve as a motivation to start a 

Heed the Speed activity and also provide good publicity. 

Implementing the Program 

 Once activities and materials planned for the program are defined, the next step is to plan 

a program timeline. This will define when each activity must start and orders for materials must 

be placed. For example, changes to the roadway should preferably be in place when the program 

starts or at least in place within the first month of program activity. If they will not be available 

early, it may be better to delay the start of the program than to proceed without them if they are 

an integral part of the effort. The same holds true for any legislative changes that are included in 

the Heed the Speed program. 

Issuing a news release announcing the program is often a good idea. In addition, it can 

help to have the mayor or other city official announce the start of the program with a press 

conference. This is an easy and often effective way to generate media coverage. 

 In addition to roadway treatments and legislative enactments, education materials and 

schedules for their release need to be available at program start. Schedules should also be 

available for all planned police activities. 

It is advisable to have education and enforcement activities conducted throughout the life 

of the program. For education, this means creating a variety of materials/activities that can be 

distributed/conducted at different times throughout the program. Police activities should also be 

initiated at program start and continue throughout the life of the program. In addition, the public 

information member of the working committee should arrange for as much media attention 

throughout the program as possible. 

Heed the Speed does not have to be a “one shot deal.” Research has shown that bad 

behavior such as speeding tends to return after programs such as Heed the Speed end. Reality, 

however, dictates that intense, focused efforts cannot be sustained forever. There simply are not 

enough resources in most communities. The best plan provides for an intensive Heed the Speed

effort at the start that lasts as long as possible followed by as much continuing activity as 
 8 

 

possible. Periodic enforcement visits and renewed educational distributions can revive or sustain 

a Heed the Speed program so that its results are not totally dissipated. 

Assessing Program Success 

 Knowledge of results is an important and often overlooked step in taking action. It has 

two major benefits – providing feedback for program improvement and satisfying sponsors that 

their support produced results. There are two levels of evaluation that are of importance – 

program outcome and process. 

Program outcome evaluation determines how the program changed speeds. This 

requires, as a minimum, a measurement of speeds before program start and after program 

completion. It’s even better to take periodic measures as things go along. This will provide a 

more detailed look at how activities are influencing motorist behavior. Speed measurements can 

be made in several ways. For maximum precision, traffic counters can be placed on streets to 

record counts and speeds of all vehicles as they pass. If a simpler approach is needed, citizens 

can volunteer to use police-provided radar equipment or even stop watches to measure speeds of 

a sample of cars at selected locations and times in their neighborhoods. If no measurement of 

actual speeds is possible, neighborhood residents can be asked to give their opinions on whether 

or not speeds have been reduced, but this requires some type of survey data collection. 

Process evaluation assesses how the program did its work. It generally examines actual 

achievements compared to plans for activities such as media distribution or police patrol hours. 

In addition to comparing actual versus planned expenditures of resources, a process evaluation 

can include a survey or focus groups directed at determining perceptions of effectiveness and 

recall of Heed the Speed activities. Both members of the working committee and local citizens 

can participate in this evaluation by answering such questions as the following: 

 For each planned countermeasure, did it work? If yes, what made it work? If no, 

why didn’t it work? Would you use the countermeasure again? How would you 

change it? 

 Were there sufficient countermeasures available? Were they available on time? 

What others should have been included? 

 How were publicity materials distributed? Did they reach their intended audience? 

 Were the neighborhoods selected for the program appropriate for the countermeasures 

that were implemented? Was there something attributable to the neighborhood that 

ensured or prevented successful completion of the program? 

 If you were to start over again, what changes would you make in the program? 

Phoenix and Peoria used both outcome and process measures to evaluate their programs. 

Analysis of traffic counter measurements made before, during and after the program showed that 

speeds were reduced and provided insight on the relative effectiveness of different remedial 

approaches. A neighborhood survey provided information on whether or not residents felt that 

speeds had gone down and the extent to which they had been exposed to Heed the Speed
 9 

 

activities. In addition, focus groups were conducted with both the working committee and with 

representatives from the neighborhoods to obtain opinions on the program schedule and 

countermeasures. 

For More Information Contact: 

Office of Behavioral Safety Research, NTI-130 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

400 Seventh Street SW. 

Washington, DC 20590 
DOT HS 810 648

August 2006