Speed Management Action Plan

Oregon Department of Transportation

7/29/2016
1

Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................3

Chapter 2: Approach.....................................................................................................................................5

Literature Review......................................................................................................................................5

Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................................5

Defining Speeding-Related Crashes......................................................................................................6

Defining Roadway Departure Crashes..................................................................................................6

Defining Intersection Crashes...............................................................................................................7

Defining Pedestrian and Bicycle crashes...............................................................................................7

Workshop..................................................................................................................................................7

Chapter 3: Integrating Speed Management with Focus Area Plans.............................................................9

Roadway Departure ..................................................................................................................................9

Strategies and Countermeasures........................................................................................................10

Intersections ...........................................................................................................................................10

Strategies and Countermeasures........................................................................................................11

Pedestrians and Bicycles.........................................................................................................................12

Strategies and Countermeasures........................................................................................................12

Chapter 4: Key Themes and Strategies.......................................................................................................14

Appropriate Speed Limits .......................................................................................................................14

Enforcement, Adjudication, and Penalties .............................................................................................16

Challenges with High to Low Speed Transitions.....................................................................................16

Achieving Balance between Mobility and Safety....................................................................................17

Effective Education and Outreach ..........................................................................................................18

Fostering Relationships...........................................................................................................................19

Link between Engineering and Behavior ................................................................................................20

Data and Measurement..........................................................................................................................21

Quality or Lack of Data........................................................................................................................21

Performance Measurement................................................................................................................22

Cumulative Strategies and Countermeasures ........................................................................................23
2

Chapter 5: Enhancing Other Plans, Guidance, and Manuals......................................................................28

Additional Plans......................................................................................................................................28

Oregon Traffic Safety Performance Plan ............................................................................................28

Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan .........................................................................................30

Local Transportation Safety Plans.......................................................................................................30

Oregon Statewide ITS Architecture and Operational Concept Plan ...................................................31

Guidance and Manuals ...........................................................................................................................31

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Next Steps........................................................................................................34

Summary .................................................................................................................................................34

Future Research Needs...........................................................................................................................34

Partners for Success................................................................................................................................35

Appendix A – Workshop Agenda and Attendee List...................................................................................36

Appendix B – Data Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................39

Three Focus Areas Overview ........................................................................................................39

Roadway Departure........................................................................................................................40

Intersections .......................................................................................................................................43

Pedestrians and Bicycles.....................................................................................................................47

Appendix C – Speed Management Countermeasures List..........................................................................51
3

Chapter 1: Introduction

In 2014, Oregon reported 105 speeding-related fatalities, accounting for 29 percent of the total traffic 

fatalities in the State.

1 Speeding-related fatal (F) and serious injury (level A on the KABCO scale2

) crashes 

account for 27 percent of all F&A crashes in Oregon. Speeding is a complex issue for transportation 

agencies to address because it can involve multiple safety areas. Speeding is impacted by public 

attitudes, roadway design, establishing appropriate speed limits, traffic calming, and enforcement 

strategies, to name a few. 

FHWA and most States have 

identified roadway departure, 

intersection, and pedestrian and 

bicycle crashes as the three safety 

focus areas with the greatest 

potential for reducing fatalities. 

Speeding-related crashes occur in all 

three of these focus areas, and 

many of the countermeasures 

applicable to crashes within these 

focus areas also apply to speedrelated crashes. With speed as a 

crosscutting issue, FHWA 

encourages agencies to take a broad 

look at their speeding related policies, safety plans, and programs to identify opportunities for 

integrating speed management throughout. 

This concept of integrating speed management within the three focus areas of roadway departure, 

intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist, as well as within agency’s existing policies, plans and 

programs is the foundation for Oregon’s Speed Management Action Plan. The general outline of this 

plan is as follows:

• Chapter 2 describes the approach that the project team used to develop the plan. 

• Chapter 3 identifies some key data analysis findings and presents speed management strategies 

that could be integrated into Oregon’s roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and 

bicyclist plans.

• Chapter 4 then lists some of the broader themes relating to speeding management in Oregon 

and potential strategies to overcome them. 

• Chapter 5 outlines opportunities to enhance or include information regarding speed-related 

concepts and speed management techniques into other agency plans, guidance, and manuals.

 1 National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2016, April) Speeding: 2014 data (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT 

HS 812 265). Washington, DC; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

1 The KABCO scale is a five point indexing system that consists of: fatal injury (K), incapacitating injury (A), nonincapacitating injury (B), possible injury (C), and no injury/property damage only (O).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

F&A Crashes

Oregon

All Speeding

Related

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 1 - Oregon's F&A Crashes, All and Speeding-related
4

• Chapter 6 highlights the next steps, including considerations for future research needs relating 

to speed management and potential partners for success.

Reducing fatalities and severe injuries on the transportation system is directly impacted by an agency’s 

efforts to manage roadway speeds and to implement effective speed management strategies. This 

speed management plan will assist Oregon in reaching their safety goals.
5

Chapter 2: Approach

The project team developed this plan based on a three-pronged approach that included a review of 

relevant Oregon transportation literature, data analysis to identify factors and trends that contribute to 

speeding-related crashes, and an interactive workshop with Oregon’s key safety and speed management 

stakeholders.

Literature Review

The project team completed a literature review of ODOT’s current state of practice, speed-related 

policies and guidance, and other safety plans to learn how Oregon is integrating speed management 

currently. Areas of improvement identified while reviewing these documents helped to shape the 

recommendations and strategies presented in this plan.

The project team reviewed the following resources:

• Oregon Traffic Safety Performance Plan (ODOT Transportation Safety Division, FY 2014)

• Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan (SHSP) (ODOT, 2011)

• Oregon Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan (FHWA Office of Safety, 2010)

• Oregon Intersection Safety Implementation Plan (FHWA Office of Safety, 2012)

• Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Plan, Draft Plan for Review (ODOT, November 2015)

• Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide (ODOT, 2011)

• Oregon Statewide ITS Architecture and Operational Concept Plan (ODOT, May 2012)

• Traffic Manual 2015 Edition (ODOT, June 2015)

• Speed Zone Manual (ODOT – Traffic Roadway Section, January 2014)

• Traffic Signal Design Manual (ODOT, 2014)

• Highway Design Manual (ODOT, 2012)

• Setting Speeds flier (ODOT, 2010)

• The State of Pedestrian Safety, Oregon 2015 (Oregon Walks, 2015)

• House Bill 3402 (passed July 2015)

• State Automated Enforcement Laws (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, November 2015)

Data Analysis

The project team analyzed Oregon State crash data to explore the characteristics of speeding-related 

crashes within roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety focus areas. ODOT 

provided five years (2010-2014) of crash data from the State database for analysis. This set of data 

included information about all crashes on all roads. It should be noted that Oregon is a self-reporting 

State (i.e., a person involved in a crash may or may not choose to notify law enforcement when a crash 

occurs), so it is likely there are additional low severity crashes or property damage only crashes 

occurring that are unreported.
6

The project team examined fatal and serious injury (level A on the KABCO scale3

) crash trends and 

causes within three categories:

• Roadway departure crashes involving speeding,

• Intersection crashes involving speeding, and

• Pedestrian and Bicycle crashes involving speeding.

Speed-related crash findings in each category were compared to overall (both speeding and nonspeeding) crashes within that category in order to identify potential anomalies in speed-related crash 

trends and factors that may contribute to speed-related crashes. This section describes how the project 

team defined and queried each of these categories within the Oregon State crash database. The data 

analysis summary is included in Appendix B.

Defining Speeding-Related Crashes

The project team defined speed-related crashes by using the crash database field: 

[CRASH_SPEED_INVLV_FLG]. A “Yes” in this field indicated a speeding-related crash, and a “No” 

indicated a non-speed related crash.

Defining Roadway Departure Crashes

The project team defined roadway departure crashes as those in the crash database that meet the

following criteria:

• All single vehicle, non-pedestrian, non-bicycle crashes.

o Does not include intersection crashes.

o Does not include any other pedestrian or pedcycle-related crashes.

• Head-On crashes and Sideswipe crashes where 1 vehicle was traveling East and one West or 1 

vehicle was traveling North and one South.

o Does not include intersection crashes.

o Does not include any other pedestrian or pedcycle-related crashes.

• All other multi-vehicle crashes in where Crash Event 1-3 was a fixed object. 

o Does not include intersection crashes.

o Does not include any other pedestrian or pedcycle-related crashes.

The project team combined this query criteria with that described under Defining Speeding-Related 

Crashes to generate all roadway departure crashes involving speeding.

 1 The KABCO scale is a five point indexing system that consists of: fatal injury (K), incapacitating injury (A), nonincapacitating injury (B), possible injury (C), and no injury/property damage only (O).
7

Defining Intersection Crashes

The project team defined intersection related crashes using two different fields within the crash 

database. The Field [RD_CHAR_SHORT_DESC] needed to be “inter” to denote that the crash was at an 

intersection, OR the field [ISECT_REL_FLG] needed to be true. 

The project team combined this query criteria with that described under Defining Speeding-Related 

Crashes to generate all intersection crashes involving speeding.

Defining Pedestrian and Bicycle crashes

The project team defined pedestrian and bicycle (or pedcycle) crashes as any crash that involved a 

pedestrian or pedcycle. Fields [TOT_PED_CNT] and [TOT_PEDCYCL_CNT] were used to check the bike 

and pedestrian counts for each crash. 

The project team combined this query criteria with that described under Defining Speeding-Related 

Crashes to generate all pedestrian and bicycle crashes involving speeding.

Workshop

FHWA’s team and Oregon’s safety stakeholders participated in a speed management workshop on April 

5-6, 2016, at the Oregon Department of Transportation in Salem. Participants specializing in a variety of 

disciplines attended from ODOT, local agencies, and enforcement. 

The workshop agenda included discussions around the following topics: 

• Data analysis

• High crash locations vs. systemic approach

• Oregon’s existing policies, guidance, and plans

• Speed management countermeasures for each focus area

• Importance of measuring performance

The attendee list and workshop agenda can be found in Appendix A.

During the workshop, attendees shared practices related to various aspects of speed management such 

as: speed limit setting practices, policies and guidance, collaboration between agencies and disciplines, 

speed limit enforcement, countermeasures, and data analysis. Throughout the workshop, key themes 

surfaced during stakeholder discussions that were deemed important to the development of and 

inclusion in Oregon’s speed management action plan, and are listed below:

• Integrating with Focus Area Plans (roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and 

bicyclists)

• Appropriate Speed Limits

• Enforcement, Adjudication, and Penalties

• Challenges with High Speed to Low Speed Transitions

• Achieving Balance between Mobility and Safety

• Effective Education and Outreach
8

• Fostering Relationships

• Link between Engineering and Behavioral Countermeasures

• Data and Performance Measurement

• Enhancing Other Plans and Guidance

The discussions had, feedback shared, and information gained during the workshop were integral to

shaping this speed management plan.
9

Chapter 3: Integrating Speed Management with Focus Area Plans

With roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes accounting for 

approximately 90 percent of the traffic fatalities in the United States, these key focus areas are a vital 

link in managing speed and targeting speed-related crashes. Each of these areas combined contributes

significantly to Oregon’s total speeding-related fatality and serious injury levels. 

Figure 2 breaks down F&A speedingrelated crashes by focus area. 

Overwhelmingly, the majority of fatal 

and serious injury speed-related 

crashes are considered roadway 

departure crashes, but intersection 

and pedestrian and bicycle speedrelated crashes are still significant 

contributors to the overall crash rate.

Note: A single crash may be attributed 

to multiple focus areas (e.g., an 

intersection crash may also be a 

pedestrian/bicycle crash).

One of the most effective ways to ensure implementation of speed management practices is to identify 

opportunities to integrate speed management into existing plans. This leverages existing resources 

rather than attempting to identify new resources – human and fiscal – to focus specifically on speed 

management. The following subsections identify some key data analysis findings and present speed 

management countermeasures that could be integrated into Oregon’s roadway departure, intersection, 

and pedestrian and bicyclist plans.

While not all strategies reduce overall speeds, all strategies help reduce crashes, both speeding and nonspeeding related. Speed reductions listed within each strategy’s description are sourced from FHWA’s A 

Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed4

, unless otherwise noted.

Roadway Departure

ODOT has a 2010 Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan, which analyzed crash data from 2002 

to 2008. If this plan is still being used, consider conducting an update of the analysis with more recent 

data. It included strategies such as enhanced corridor enforcement, traffic calming measures, enhanced 

signing and marking.

Some potential issues that the project team identified during data analysis are:

• 75 percent of speed-related F&A roadway departure crashes occur in rural areas.

• Nearly half of all speeding related F&A roadway departure crashes occurred at curves.

 4 Resource can be found at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm

82%

15%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Ped/Bike

Percent Speeding-related F&A Crashes grouped 

by Focus Area

Figure 2 - Oregon's Speeding-related F&A Crashes by Focus Area
10

• When speed limit is known, nearly 60 percent of speed-related F&A roadway departure crashes 

occurred on roadways posted at 55 mph.

• 19 percent of F&A roadway departure speed-related crashes involve motorcycles.

Strategies and Countermeasures

Enhanced curve signing and delineation. Install oversized signs, florescent sheeting, full post 

delineation, center and edge line striping at curves with high speeding-related roadway departure 

crashes.

Sequential dynamic curve warning system. This measure is a series of blinking chevron signs installed 

throughout a curve that flashes sequentially through the curve to warn speeding drivers. Consider this 

strategy if enhanced curve signing and delineation has been previously installed and the area is still 

experiencing high speeding-related crashes.

Rural ITS solutions. Install speed feedback signs, speed activated warning or speed limit reminder signs. 

Research shows these types of signs have been effective at reducing speeds by 5 mph.

Transverse or optical speed bars. This pavement measure creates a visual effect that encourages 

motorists to slow down. Bar placement can be designed to minimize wear from wheel tracking. Studies 

have shown reductions in 85th percentile speeds up to 5 mph. It is used when there is a need for sudden 

decrease in speed (e.g., at sharp curves or short ramps).

Remove or delineate fixed objects within curves. Remove trees, brush, and other obstacles within 

designated distance from the edge of travel way along the outside of curves as appropriate. Delineate 

any fixed objects that cannot feasibly be removed along the outside of curves; all fixed objects including 

trees, utility poles, culverts/bridge abutments, mailboxes, and guardrail should be considered.

Bicycle-friendly rumble strips. Install center and/or edge line rumble strips with bicycle gaps. 

High friction surface treatments (HFST). HFST places a thin layer of specially engineered, durable high 

friction aggregates as a topping on resins or polymers – usually urethane, silicon, or epoxy – with a 

binder. These aggregate systems have long lasting skid resistance, while also making the overlay much 

more resistant to wear and polishing. The increased friction enables shorter stopping distances and

allows speeding drivers to recover more quickly from their mistakes.

Targeted enforcement, outreach, and education. Determine specific corridors with a high speedingrelated roadway departure crash history and conduct high visibility enforcement and education efforts. 

Data shows males are more likely to be involved in speeding-related crashes. Motorcyclists are also a 

group that is at high risk of involvement in this type of crash.

Intersections

ODOT’s Intersection Safety Implementation Plan was completed in 2012 and may soon be in need of an 

update. It included a speeding-related analysis and countermeasures such as traffic calming 

improvements, j-turn modifications, advanced signing, and signal coordination.
11

Some potential issues that the project team identified during data analysis are:

• 64 percent of speeding-related F&A Intersection crashes occur in rural areas

• In all age groups, males involved in F&A intersection crashes were coded as speeding-related 

with a higher percentage than females

• 21 percent of F&A intersection speed-related crashes involve motorcycles

• 43 percent of F&A intersection speed-related crashes were non-vehicle collisions (fixed object).

Strategies and Countermeasures

Improve visibility or conspicuity of intersections. Ensure sight distance is adequate, clear sight distance 

triangles, install advance signing, or enhance striping.

Appropriate speed limits. Ensure speed limits are set appropriately. Large variances between the actual 

operating speeds and the speed limit can affect signal timing, available stopping sight distances, etc.

Review signal timing. Create a plan to systematically review signal timings to ensure yellow and all-red 

clearance intervals are appropriate for the speed limit and the intersection geometry. Coordinate 

signals on arterials to promote progression and uniform speed.

Install dilemma zone protection measures. On high-speed roads with signals, install advance detection 

sensor equipment that adjusts the start time of the yellow-signal either earlier or later based on 

observed vehicle locations and speeds.

Rural ITS solutions. Install speed feedback signs, speed activated warning or speed limit reminder signs, 

or other signs/beacons that notify the side street or major street vehicle of an approaching vehicle.

Research shows these types of signs have been effective at reducing speeds by 5 mph.

Reduction of lane width markings. For intersections located on high-speed roadways, narrow the lanes 

leading up to the intersection using pavement markings, rumble strips and pavement markings, or 

median, to create visual cues to drivers the roadway is changing and there is a need to slow down. 

Transverse rumble strips. Following ODOT’s Traffic Manual 2016 Edition, Sec 6.28.3 Transverse Rumble 

Strips, install transverse rumble strips to notify drivers of upcoming intersection.

Targeted enforcement, outreach, and education. Determine specific arterial corridors with a high 

speeding-related intersection crash history and conduct high visibility enforcement and education 

efforts. Data shows males are more likely to be involved in speeding-related intersection crashes. 

Motorcyclists are also a group that is at high risk of involvement in this type of crash. 

Roundabouts. Roundabouts eliminate crossing conflicts and can have significant traffic calming effects. 

Studies have shown roundabouts can lower speeds by as much as 15 to 20 mph. According to the 

AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, roundabouts reduce the types of crashes where people are seriously 

hurt or killed by approximately 80 percent when compared to conventional stop-controlled and 

signalized intersections.
12

Pedestrians and Bicycles

ODOT is drafting a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Plan, to be finalized in 2016. Strategies include 

information on the consideration of vehicle speeds and traffic calming measures, such as features that 

create visual friction, and the importance of balancing multimodal needs when setting speed limits. 

Education and outreach is also included.

While the percentage of Oregon’s F&A pedestrian/bicycle speeding-related crashes is much lower than 

other focus areas, pedestrians and bicyclists are a very vulnerable group. Small increases in speed during 

a pedestrian or bicycle crash can greatly increase the likelihood of the crash resulting in a fatality or 

serious injury. Therefore, speed management is very important around areas that have heavy 

pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. 

Furthermore, while the frequency of crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists may be relatively low, 

crash severity is a concern because the risk of the pedestrian’s and bicyclist’s receiving fatal or serious 

injuries is high if involved in a crash. The lack of pedestrian and bicycle volume data makes it difficult to 

gauge overall pedestrian and bicycle crash risk, but it is likely that when looking at overall exposure to 

fatalities and serious injuries, walking and biking safety risks are relatively high.

Some potential issues that the project team identified during data analysis are:

• 73 percent of speeding-related F&A pedestrian/bicycle crashes occur in urban areas.

• 71 percent of speeding-related F&A pedestrian/bicycle crashes occurred at non-intersection 

locations

• 11 percent of speeding-related F&A pedestrian/bicycle crashes occurred on the 

interstates/freeways

Strategies and Countermeasures

Road Diets. Review existing 4-lane undivided roadways to determine candidate roads for reconfiguring 

the lanes. Studies show that Road Diets, when implemented in appropriate contexts, can lower speeds 

and greatly reduce the number of motorists speeding excessively, improving the overall safety of 

pedestrians and bicyclists. Additional space created can be used to build sidewalks, pedestrian refuge 

islands, bicycle lanes, landscaping, etc.

Evaluate sidewalk/bicycle lane gaps. Since pedestrian and bicycle crash data is limited, gauge crash risk

to these vulnerable users by inventorying sidewalk or bicycle lane gaps. Having this framework, 

comparing it to crash data, traffic counts, etc., can be a starting point to then prioritize pedestrian and 

bicycle safety projects.

Design treatments. Consider intersection geometrics, lane widths, on-street parking, street trees, 

sidewalks, bicycle facilities, planter strips, and other street elements to create visual friction without 

introducing new crash types (such as fixed objects).
13

Appropriate speed limits. Examine ways to include implications on bicyclists and pedestrians for 

different locations and facilities within setting of speeds. Balance multimodal interests within the 

context of the facility, considering the different users and uses.

Collaborate with transit partners. Work together with transit agencies to evaluate existing transit stops 

and compare with pedestrian crashes nearby. Collaborate to improve safety at existing locations (e.g., 

additional safety features, moving the stop to a more suitable or safe area), as well as collaborating with 

new transit stops that are in the planning stages.

Pedestrian refuge islands and curb extensions. Pedestrian refuge islands allow pedestrians to cross in 

two stages, simplifying the crossing task. Refuge islands or median islands also provide visual friction to 

reduce the speed of motorists. Curb extensions also provide safety benefits to pedestrians by reducing 

their crossing distance and improving the visibility of pedestrians by aligning them with the parking lane.

Speed feedback signs. In areas of high pedestrian and bicycle activity, where speeding is a concern, 

install speed feedback signs, which display a driver’s current speed. Research shows that these types of 

signs have been effective at reducing speeds by 5 mph.

Rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB). Install RRFBs at unsignalized or mid-block locations where 

pedestrian crossings are frequent. RRFBs increase driver yielding behavior at crosswalks when 

supplementing standard pedestrian crossing warning signs and markings.

In-street pedestrian crosswalk signs. Employ in-street signs in low-volume, low-speed areas to lower 

speeds in areas such as school zones or other locations that have high pedestrian activity.

Targeted enforcement, education and outreach. Enforce speed limits along high speeding-related crash 

locations where there is increased risk of pedestrian or bicyclist involvement, such as schools, busy 

urban areas, etc. Conduct education and outreach on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, from all 

viewpoints, i.e., teaching the pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver important safety tips and rules.
14

Chapter 4: Key Themes and Strategies

This section presents key themes, challenges, and strategies to overcome these challenges, all of which 

were synthesized from information and feedback gained through the literature review, data analysis, 

and the workshop. Each theme begins with a discussion of the associated challenges. Then, the plan 

presents several strategies to help Oregon overcome these challenges.

Appropriate Speed Limits

ODOT’s Speed Zone Manual guidelines state that an engineering study should be conducted whenever 

there is a change in the roadway that affects the prevailing speed, such as roadway reconstruction, 

changes in roadside development, or significant changes in traffic volumes. The manual provides very 

detailed procedures for conducting a speed zone engineering study, but the preliminary requirement is 

that before a speed zone investigation can begin, there must be a written request from all road 

jurisdictions involved in ownership, maintenance, and enforcement in the section of road to be 

investigated. The engineering study considers factors such 85th percentile speed, geometric features, 

pedestrian and bicyclist activity, adjacent land use, enforcement input, crash history, public testimony, 

traffic volumes, and access.

If ODOT and the local road authority cannot reach agreement for speed zone setting, the request is 

reviewed by a Speed Zone Review Panel.

ODOT and the City of Portland are working towards an alternative process for recommending speed 

zones on collector streets that involves using additional factors besides 85th percentile speed such as 

context of the surrounding area, crash risk, and characteristics of the roadway. 

Although ODOT’s overall speed limit setting process is documented well, some challenges relating to 

appropriate speed limits are listed below:

• ODOT does not have a plan to systematically review speed limits. A method or procedure is 

needed to determine priority or risk areas for reviewing speed limits.

• Local jurisdictions often classify a road incorrectly related to assigning a statutory speed limit. 

For example, a street is classified as an arterial, but the local jurisdiction has posted the 

statutory speed limit according to a residential classification, because there are houses located 

along the street. These houses are not serviced by the street in question but by connector roads.

• In order for ODOT to complete a speed zone review on local roads, the local agencies or the 

public must request a speed zone review. Therefore, some existing speed limits may not be

appropriate.

• It can be challenging for designers and planners to determine appropriate speed limits for 

designing or rebuilding a road, in addition to considerations of new developments along the 

road.

Recommended Strategies:

Develop a plan for reviewing speed limits. ODOT should form a small team to develop an alternative 

process to identify higher risk roads in order to conduct a screening process for reviewing the existing 
15

speed limits. Considering budget and time constraints, the team should develop a plan to realistically 

review a number of existing speed limits per year on roadways. Crash data analysis or feedback from the 

enforcement community may be used to determine priority. This screening process may include fewer

requirements than detailed in the Speed Zoning Manual, but by being proactive and identifying potential 

corridors, ODOT can then determine if speed management countermeasures should be considered or 

whether an official speed zoning evaluation should be conducted. Once the plan is established, consider 

using performance measures to track screening progress, as well as identifying the number of roadways 

with speed limits that have inappropriate speed limits.

Use USLMITS2 to complement the engineering speed study, particularly on high-profile or 

controversial speed limit adjustments. USLIMITS2 is a web-based program that can assist agencies with 

speed limit setting decisions. Often used as a complement to the comprehensive engineering speed 

study, it provides a fair and unbiased result that supports the credibility of an agency’s speed studies. 

This tool may also be beneficial when providing information to lawmakers for making informed 

decisions on statutory speed limits.

Outreach/education to lawmakers. Setting appropriate speed limits is important for the safety and 

mobility of all users. Practitioners consider many factors to determine speed limits for a roadway. The 

process for setting speed limits and many speed concepts are not easily understood, especially with 

technical engineering terminology that is not familiar to many people. Develop outreach and education 

materials tailored towards lawmakers or officials to help them make informed decisions on statutory 

speed limits.

5

 Since they are responsible for ultimately making laws for setting statutory speed limits, it 

is important that they understand the concepts, processes, and importance of setting appropriate speed 

limits.

Outreach/education to local agencies. During the workshop, stakeholders indicated that smaller local 

agencies often lack engineering resources for choosing traffic calming measures. There have been 

instances where the statutory speed limits according to functional class have been misinterpreted, and 

local streets have been assigned an incorrect speed limit. Develop an outreach plan for local agencies to 

educate them on the application of statutory speed limits to various functional roadway classifications. 

This could include a fact sheet explaining the information or possible participation in a local agency 

meeting with a short presentation on the importance of understanding functional classification and the 

corresponding speed limits, along with how to identify and incorporate speed management/traffic 

calming countermeasures.

Internal staff training on speed and speed management concepts. It can often be challenging for 

designers and planners to determine appropriate speed limits and design speed for planning a roadway 

or in consideration of new developments along a roadway. Conduct a training workshop for internal 

planning, design, and traffic staff (and others as appropriate) devoted to speed and speed management, 

including functional classification, choosing design speed, measuring operating speeds, setting speed 

 5 FHWA Office of Safety – Speed Management is developing outreach materials for non-technical audiences and it 

should be available soon.
16

limits, and choosing speed management countermeasures. Also, consider complementing this type of 

course with a context sensitive solutions training workshop. FHWA is a possible resource for identifying 

appropriate training courses that may already be available.

Enforcement, Adjudication, and Penalties

Stakeholders indicated that the level of enforcement available is extremely limited and that Oregon has 

a much lower number of enforcement per capita than other States. They reported they are losing 30 

troopers a month due to both attrition and funding issues. Because of this shortage, officers are 

frequently targeting the most aggressive speed limit violators. This often leads to situations where 

motorists are not pulled over even though they are obviously disobeying the speed limit, which gives 

impression of “speeding tolerance.” 

In addition, speeding violations are not always upheld in court. Judges may allow the motorists to 

attend a traffic safety diversion program. This program allows drivers to keep the points from traffic 

citations off of their driving record. Many times, this program involves online courses.

Recommended Strategies:

Collaborate with law enforcement, advocacy groups, and legislature. Provide supporting information 

and data on the risks of speeding, corridors with a high amount of speeding related crashes, etc. This 

information can then be used by appropriate advocacy or special interest groups to support their efforts 

in statewide budget appropriation for law enforcement.

Support public reporting of speeding and aggressive driving. Many States have a specific phone

number that motorists can call to report crashes, reckless driving, etc., but the public may not be aware 

of this. Develop a campaign to support this option, with messages such as, “safety is everyone’s 

responsibility”, “we should watch out for each other”, or similar messages.

Review data pertaining to adjudication and traffic safety diversion program. Because identifying 

speeding-related issues is complex, use this data to complement speeding-related crash data. 

Challenges with High to Low Speed Transitions

Transition zones can be challenging for setting speed limits. Simply lowering the speed limit does not 

guarantee that motorists will drive slower; speed management countermeasures may have to be 

implemented along the roadway. During the workshop, stakeholders mentioned that they have difficulty 

managing speeds and choosing effective countermeasures in areas where the roadway transitions from 

higher speeds to lower speeds within the city limits. They also mentioned circumstances where two 

major roads came together at a rural intersection.

Recommended Strategies:

Review existing speed limits and locations of speed limit signs. As a first step in evaluating transition 

zones, ensure that the speed limit is appropriate and that signs are placed in correct locations. Consider 

using USLIMITS2 to support speed limit evaluations in transition zones. 
17

Median or roadway changes. Incorporating features to give drivers’ visual cues that the roadway 

environment and speeds are changing is important. Consider median changes, such as raised islands or 

landscaped medians, or apply lane narrowing techniques using striping or a combination of striping and 

rumble strips.

Signing or dynamic signing. Install larger or more reflective signing, or choose dynamic/ITS signing 

solutions, such as speed feedback signs, speed activated warning signs, or speed limit reminder signs.

Roundabouts. Consider a roundabout which is an effective intersection control design that can be used 

to help transition from higher speed to lower speed roadways. With the center island design and the 

median changes leading up to it, roundabouts gives drivers visual cues to slow down.

Internal staff training on speed and speed management concepts. High to low speed transition 

locations can be difficult to design and plan for. Conduct a training workshop for internal planning, 

design, and traffic staff (and others as appropriate) devoted to speed and speed management, including 

choosing design speed, measuring operating speeds, setting speed limits, and choosing speed 

management countermeasures. Also, consider complementing this type of course with a context 

sensitive solutions training workshop. FHWA is a resource for identifying appropriate training courses.

Enhance design manual guidance. Review existing guidance in ODOT’s design manual to determine if 

there needs to be additional information included on addressing, planning, and designing high to low 

speed transition areas.

Achieving Balance between Mobility and Safety

Oregon is striving to achieve a balance between mobility and safety. There were several different 

aspects to this roundtable discussion.

Oregon is strongly focused on freight movement, so cooperation and coordination with freight is vital. 

But, many successful speed management countermeasures, such as roundabouts and road diets, may 

limit freight mobility. ODOT indicated that roundabouts have been installed, but mainly on the local 

system. They have a desire to install more roundabouts but have to be cognizant of the freight industry 

needs in designing and planning projects. Similar expectations apply to road diets. Wide-spread 

installations of these speed management countermeasures have been slow. 

Achieving a balance between mobility and safety in urban areas is important to Oregonians. Managing 

these types of roadways involves not only considering the motorists, but also pedestrians and bicyclists 

that are using the roadway and surrounding areas. At times, focus on driver mobility may need to be 

deemphasized to promote the safety of the other users.

Recommended Strategies:

Collaboration with freight industry. ODOT current works closely with freight partners and will continue 

to do so.

Education and outreach for road diets and roundabouts. Road diets and roundabouts are effective 

treatments to improve safety and lower speeds. Workshop attendees indicated that the freight industry 
18

has concerns with these treatments as they might limit mobility. Continue education on the benefits of 

these countermeasures and how they can often be designed to accommodate freights’ needs.

Enhance design manual guidance. Review existing guidance in ODOT’s design manual to determine if 

there needs to be additional information included regarding design aspects of roundabouts and road 

diets to ensure freight movements are considered.

Consideration of all road users in projects. Apply context sensitive design principles to consider all 

stakeholders and road users during project development.

Effective Education and Outreach

Some workshop discussions centered on the overall need for education and outreach for speed and 

speed management concepts to various groups, including public and politicians, ODOT staff, and 

external partner agencies or groups. There is not a one-size-fits-all education and outreach program. 

For example, non-technical outreach materials need to be developed for the public and politicians. In 

the 2017 legislative session, attendees expect adjustments to the statutory speed limits, especially in

rural communities. While ODOT provides recommendations, lawmakers are making the final decisions 

on Oregon’s statutory speed limits, so it is vital for them to fully understand speed concepts, basic 

process of choosing an appropriate speed limit, and the importance of speed management 

countermeasures.

The public needs education on the risks of speeding and the importance of speed limits. Education for 

drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists is needed to promote a better understanding of the risks of being in a 

speeding-related crash. In addition to motorists understanding the importance of obeying speed limits, 

education on being a safe and cautious pedestrian and bicyclist along-side fast-moving vehicles is 

important, especially in Oregon that has high numbers of these vulnerable users. It is common for 

pedestrians to be walking along higher speed Interstates and freeways, and there are no laws restricting 

this activity. Attendees said that since these roads are the major roads between communities, this is 

often the path they travel. Pedestrian and bicyclist crash data supported this statement.

There is a need to educate internal staff on speed and speed management topics. This type of training 

could focus on promoting a better understanding of speed definitions and concepts, setting speed limits, 

choosing design speed, and selecting appropriate speed management countermeasures.

There are many opportunities for education and outreach programs that support speed management 

safety. Below is a list of potential education and outreach target audiences.

Recommended Strategies:

Prioritize education and outreach initiatives. Use data and team collaboration to prioritize outreach 

and education initiatives. Below are some key points to consider when determining education and 

outreach priorities:
19

• Policy and law makers are responsible for ultimately determining statutory speed limits, it is 

important they understand the concepts, processes, and importance of setting appropriate 

speed limits.

• The data analysis completed as part of the preparation for this speed management plan 

indicated that males and young drivers have a very high involvement in speeding-related 

crashes.

• The percentage of speeding-related crashes involving motorcyclists is higher in Oregon than the 

nationwide average.

• It is common for pedestrians to be walking along higher speed Interstates and freeways in 

Oregon, and there are no laws restricting this activity. Since these roads are the major roads 

between communities, this is often the path they travel. Pedestrian and bicyclist crash data 

supports this statement.

• Freight and commercial trucking is important to Oregon’s economy, so collaboration and 

education is needed to balance safety and mobility, especially in relation to common speed 

management or traffic calming measures.

• It can be challenging for ODOT staff and local agencies to determine appropriate speed limits 

and design speed for planning a roadway or in consideration of new developments along a 

roadway.

Combine education and outreach with enforcement efforts. When planning education and outreach 

efforts, combine them with enforcement. Consider a combination of focuses, such as speeding and 

alcohol involvement or speeding and distraction.

Consider diverse audiences. During outreach and education development, tailor messages for target 

audiences, consider cultural sensitivities, use preferred languages, and spread messages through 

appropriate outlets.

Fostering Relationships

ODOT strives to have good collaboration and relationships with partners such as local agencies, law 

enforcement, bicyclist advocacy groups, the freight industry, and transit agencies. 

Portland and ODOT have been working together to implement the proposed pilot program for setting 

speed zones on certain roadways in Portland.

Often, smaller local jurisdictions do not have engineering staff or knowledge, so they rely heavily on 

ODOT for expertise.

Since practitioners rely on accuracy of crash reports to help guide decisions on projects and choosing

countermeasures, the relationships of transportation agencies and enforcement is important. During 

the workshop, the reporting or coding of a speeding-related crash was discussed. It was generally 

decided that it is difficult to consistently report a speeding-related crash, and it is subjective for an 

officer. There are numerous facts or contributing factors to consider in a crash.
20

Attendees reported that transit/bus stop locations could be contributing to the number of pedestrian 

crashes, and expressed a need to improve the collaboration with transit partners.

Recommended Strategies:

Continue collaboration with local agencies. Continue to foster relationships with local agencies and 

reach out to those that may need more engineering support.

Support relationships with law enforcement. The roles of law enforcement in speed-related topics are 

vital. They are responsible for enforcing speed limits and can provide valuable knowledge on the 

appropriateness of a speed limit as well as the roads that have the highest number of speed limit or 

speeding-related infractions. Officers are responsible for detailing a crash report, indicating whether a 

crash was speed-related. Collaborate with the law enforcement officials to review coding practices for 

speed-related crashes.

Reach out to transit partners. Collaborate with transit agencies to evaluate existing transit stops and 

compare with pedestrian crashes nearby. Work together to improve safety on existing locations (e.g., 

additional safety features, moving the stop to a more suitable or safe area), as well collaborating with 

new transit stops that are in the planning stages.

Link between Engineering and Behavior

Oregon is one of the leading States in seat belt usage at 98 percent. While this is a great 

accomplishment and certainly helps with speeding-related crash outcomes, Oregon is still struggling

with distracted driving and driving under the influence (alcohol and marijuana).

Enforcement is very effective in lowering speeds, but as mentioned earlier, Oregon’s level of 

enforcement has been decreasing. They indicated they typically do some high visibility enforcement 

campaigns around the holidays and along Safety Corridors. ODOT uses data to inform the troopers on 

where and when to enforce. Stakeholders also indicated they hold impaired driving and distracted 

driving campaigns. There was a consensus that distracted driving is under-reported because it is difficult

to prove someone was distracted and the level of distraction. It was also mentioned that there was a 

need for a better definition of “distracted” driving. Currently, there is a field on the crash report that 

allows for reporting “inattentive” and “on cell phone”.

One new situation that safety practitioners and enforcement are dealing with in Oregon is legalized 

marijuana. People under the influence of marijuana are more difficult to recognize in a field sobriety 

check than alcohol impaired drivers. Being able to recognize this is important because they have been 

getting crash reports where marijuana impaired drivers are going 100 mph or more. This is contrary to 

popular beliefs that motorists who are using marijuana drive slower. Enforcement has begun training 

on identifying marijuana impaired drivers.

Recommended Strategies:

Integrate speed management into focused education programs. Incorporate speed management into

education programs that combat impaired driving and into safety initiatives targeted at youths, 

motorcyclists, and commercial vehicle operators.
21

Review and evaluate current communication/outreach strategies. Review existing strategies to ensure 

speed management is represented.

Collaboration with other States. With recent legalization of marijuana, ODOT should collaborate with 

other States that have similar laws to gain insight into potential strategies to address speeding-related 

crashes that involved marijuana impaired drivers.

Data and Measurement

Data-driven analyses helps to better inform decision-making and optimize budgets, while establishing 

performance measures can help an agency monitor progress or measure success. During the workshop, 

the team discussed ODOT’s available data, hot spot versus systemic safety approaches, and the 

importance of performance measures. ODOT Regions use available data and crash history to optimize 

available resources to safety projects. Each year, ODOT submits annual performance measure reports to 

the Oregon Legislature to report progress towards meeting the mission and goals. Key Performance 

Measures are published online.6

Quality or Lack of Data

One challenge with speeding-related crash data is the subjectivity of the officer’s determination of 

whether a crash is speed-related. ODOT data analyst indicated though they do not feel that “too fast for 

conditions” is a catchall, and they do have the opportunity to validate a crash report and determine 

whether a crash was too fast for conditions, but seldom happens.

While ODOT typically uses data to determine “best use” of money for safety projects, safety 

stakeholders indicated that the lack of speeding-related crash data for pedestrians and bicyclists is a 

challenge. The safety of all users is important to Oregonians, so additional risk factors need to be 

identified to help prioritize pedestrian and bicycle safety projects.

Attendees said that lack of local road data is a roadblock to systemic implementations.

Recommended Strategies:

Collaborate with law enforcement and judicial system. Review Oregon’s crash coding manual and work 

with law enforcement to learn if there is a need or ways to better define whether a crash is speedrelated. Also collaborate with the courts/judicial system to gain information on adjudication data.

Pedestrian and bicyclist data improvement plan. To improve information on the amount of pedestrians 

and bicyclists in a particular area, injuries, and excessive speeding violations, work together with law 

enforcement, emergency responders, and special interest groups. Also incorporate new technology to

collect information on volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists.

Assess existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Assess existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities to 

identify potential problem areas where these users may be more vulnerable to speed-related crashes. 

 6 Key Performance Measures information are found online at: 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/PERFORMANCE/Pages/index.aspx
22

Having an inventory of bicycle lanes and sidewalks may help identify risks. Research new priority 

methods and risk factors for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Broaden roadway characteristics database. Linking general roadway characteristic data (e.g. presence 

of an intersection, presence of a curve, roadway speed) can improve identification of crash cause, which 

in turn improves countermeasure selection. ODOT should consider adding intersection identifiers to the 

crash databases, developing a database that links roadways IDs to speed limits, creating a horizontal 

curve inventory, as well as other critical data identified by research as a risk factor.

Performance Measurement

Measuring the performance of speed management efforts can be difficult for several reasons. 

 Speed management efforts are often cross-cutting so isolating the effectiveness of the speedmanagement component may be difficult. This is especially true when relying on fatality 

information since there are relatively few fatalities and many other potential factors. 

 Data beyond fatality information may be difficult to collect, access, or analyze with the 

regularity necessary for meaningful performance measures. 

 Speed management efforts are likely to rely heavily on engagement of local agencies as well as 

State agencies. Establishing speed management performance measures that can be applied 

across the board may be challenging. 

Despite these potential challenges, it is critical that performance measures be established, targets set, 

and progress monitored regularly. This is especially true as federal programs are increasingly associated 

with an expectation for performance management.

Recommended Strategies:

Identify meaningful performance measures. Rather than relying solely on measures that have been 

chosen because the data is readily available, identify what would actually be helpful for decision-makers 

and program managers. It may mean that performance measures have to be implemented with a 

phased in approach – first measure with available data while working toward acquisition and access to 

the desired measures. 

Consider all potential data sources. While crashes, injuries, and citations issued are datasets most 

commonly associated with measuring the performance of speed management efforts, there are a suite 

of other data that may be useful. For example, adjudication data may provide and understanding of the 

outcome of speed citations and a public survey about attitudes toward speed management efforts may 

provide critical insight into public perception. 

Engage partner agencies. Although one agency may be ultimately responsible for managing a 

statewide speed management program, it will rely heavily on participation by local and regional 

agencies as well. It is helpful to understand what they consider “success” in the performance measure 

setting process. They may also have access to data that is not available at the State level. 
23

Assign responsibility and accountability and set a schedule. It is important to assign responsibility for 

collecting and reporting performance measures. It is equally important to assign accountability for the 

measures at the appropriate responsibility or management level. In addition, a schedule for 

performance reporting should be established. Annual performance measures are common but in some 

cases, a more frequent measure may help a program adjust direction if early indicators show a need for 

change from the original plan. Having a responsible party and an expected schedule prevents

performance measurement from being set aside or forgotten as part of the speed management process. 

Accountability ensures that the efforts to improve are continuous.

Cumulative Strategies and Countermeasures

Table 1 below presents a list of all strategies mentioned in this plan, their related speed-management 

focus impact area, and its relative implementation time, cost, and impact. Table 2 details speed 

management countermeasures; associated impact area; relative cost, and crash modification factors. 

See also a separate Excel spreadsheet (SM Oregon ActionPlan Recommendations), which shows how 

some strategies are applicable to more than one key theme (key themes surfaced during the 

stakeholder workshop and were deemed important to the development of and inclusion in Oregon’s 

speed management action plan).

These tables and the separate spreadsheet serve as a resource for Oregon DOT and stakeholders to 

prioritize their next steps to improve their overall speed management program and reduce speeding 

related crashes, as they consider budget and staffing resources.
24

Table 1. Speed Management Strategies; Associated Impact Area; and Relative Implementation Time, Cost, and Impact.

Impact Area

Relative 

Implementation 

Time

Relative 

Cost

Relative 

Impact

Strategy

RwDIntersectionsPed/BikeImmediateShort TermLong TermLowMidrangeHighHighMidrangeProject Specific

Road Geometry

Consider roundabouts to help transition from higher speed to lower speed roadways. X X X X X

Review existing 4-lane undivided roadways to determine candidate roads for reconfiguring the lanes. X X X X

Consider intersection geometrics, lane widths, on-street parking, street trees, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, 

planter strips, and other street elements to create visual friction without introducing new crash types (such 

as fixed objects).

X X X X X

Assess existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities to identify areas where these users may be more vulnerable 

to speed-related crashes. X X X X

Speed Setting Criteria

Develop an alternative process to identify higher risk roads and conduct a screening process for reviewing 

existing speed limits on those roads. X X X X X X

Determine an appropriate number of reviews on existing speed limits per year. X X X X X X

Consider using performance measures to track screening progress, as well as identifying the number of 

roadways with speed limits that have inappropriate speed limits. X X X X X X

Examine ways to include implications on bicyclists and pedestrians for different locations and facilities 

within setting of speeds. Balance multimodal interests within the context of the facility, considering the 

different users and uses.

X X X X

Review locations that transition from higher speeds to lower speeds to evaluate the speed limits and the 

location of the speed limit signs. X X X X X X

Traffic Signal Timings

Develop a plan to systematically review all signal timings to ensure yellow and all-red clearance intervals are 

appropriate for the speed limit and the intersection geometry. X X X X

Coordinate signals on arterials to promote progression and uniform speed. X X X X

Transit Locations

Partner with transit agencies to evaluate existing transit stop locations and safety deficiencies. X X X X

Collaborate to improve safety on existing locations (e.g., additional safety features, moving the stop to a 

more suitable or safe area), as well collaborating with new transit stops that are in the planning stages. X X X X

Targeted Enforcement

Determine specific corridors with a high speeding-related roadway departure or intersections crash history 

and conduct high visibility enforcement and education efforts. X X X X X

Enforce speed limits along high speeding-related crash locations where there is increased risk of pedestrian 

or bicyclist involvement, such as schools, busy urban areas, etc. X X X X
25

Impact Area

Relative 

Implementation 

Time

Relative 

Cost

Relative 

Impact

Strategy

RwDIntersectionsPed/BikeImmediateShort TermLong TermLowMidrangeHighHighMidrangeProject Specific

Internal Training

Conduct a training workshop for internal planning, design, and traffic staff (and others as appropriate) 

devoted to speed and speed management, including functional classification, choosing design speed, 

measuring operating speeds, setting speed limits, choosing speed management countermeasures, and 

transitioning between high/low speed areas. 

X X X X X X

Collaboration with External Partners

Provide supporting information and data on the risks of speeding, corridors with a high amount of speeding 

related crashes, etc. to law enforcement, advocacy groups, and legislature. X X X X X X

Review Oregon’s crash coding manual and work with law enforcement to learn if there is a need or ways to 

better define whether a crash is speed-related. X X X X X X

Collaborate with the courts/judicial system to gain information on adjudication data. X X X X X X

To improve data on the amount of pedestrians and bicyclists in a particular area, injuries, and excessive 

speeding violations, work together with law enforcement, emergency responders, and special interest 

groups, including the freight industry, and incorporate new technology to collect information on volumes of 

pedestrians and bicyclists.

X X X

Continue to foster relationships with local agencies and reach out to those that may need more engineering 

support on speed-related issues. X X X X X X

With recent legalization of marijuana, ODOT should collaborate with other States that have similar laws to 

gain insight into potential strategies to address speeding-related crashes that involved marijuana impaired 

drivers.

X X X X X X

Policy and Guidance

Review existing guidance in ODOT’s design manual to determine if there needs to be additional information 

included on addressing, planning, and designing high to low speed transition areas and regarding design 

aspects of roundabouts and road diets to ensure freight movements are considered.

X X X X X X

Ensure that ODOT’s design manual promotes context sensitive design principles to consider all stakeholders 

and road users during project development. X X X X

Assign responsibility and accountability and set a schedule for reporting performance measures. X X X X X X

Data

Review data pertaining to adjudication and traffic safety diversion program, and use to complement 

speeding-related crash data. X X X X X X

Consider adding intersection identifiers to the crash databases, developing a database that links roadways 

IDs to speed limits, and creating a horizontal curve inventory to further identify speed-related crash 

locations.

X X X X X X
26

Impact Area

Relative 

Implementation 

Time

Relative 

Cost

Relative 

Impact

Strategy

RwDIntersectionsPed/BikeImmediateShort TermLong TermLowMidrangeHighHighMidrangeProject Specific

Rather than relying solely on measures that have been chosen because the data is readily available, identify 

what would actually be helpful for decision-makers and program managers. X X X X X X

Consider all potential data sources. X X X X X X

Education and Outreach

Support public reporting of speeding and aggressive driving. Develop a campaign to support this option, 

with messages such as, “safety is everyone’s responsibility” or “we should watch out for each other” or 

similar messages.

X X X X X X

Incorporate speed management into education programs that combat impaired driving and into safety 

initiatives targeted at youths, motorcyclists, and commercial vehicle operators. X X X X X X

Combine education and outreach with enforcement efforts. Consider combination of focuses, such as 

speeding and alcohol involvement or speeding and distraction. X X X X X X

Conduct education and outreach on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, from all viewpoints, i.e., teaching the 

pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver important safety tips and rules. X X X X

Develop outreach and education materials tailored towards lawmakers or officials to help them make 

informed decisions on statutory speed limits. X X X X X X

Develop an outreach plan for local agencies to educate them on application of statutory speed limits to 

various functional roadway classifications. This could include a fact sheet explaining the information or 

possible participation in a local agency meeting with a short presentation on the importance of 

understanding functional classification and the corresponding speed limits, along with how to identify and 

incorporate speed management/traffic calming countermeasures.

X X X X X X

Continue education on the benefits of road diets and roundabouts and how they can often be designed to 

accommodate freights’ needs. X X X X X X
27

Table 2. Speed Management Countermeasures; Associated Impact Area; Relative Cost, and Crash Modification Factor (CMF)

Impact Area Relative Cost

CMF

Countermeasure RwD Intersections Ped/Bike Low Mid High

Enhanced curve signing and delineation X X 0.671 – 0.741

Sequential dynamic curve warning system X X 0.438 – 0.627

Signing or dynamic signing addressing speed X X X X 0.87 – 0.95

Transverse or optical speed bars. X X 0.68

Remove or delineate fixed objects within curves X X 0.5 - 0.9

Center line or edge line rumble strips X X X 0.6 – 0.85

High friction surface treatments (HFST) X X 0.522 – 0.607

Improve visibility or conspicuity of intersections X X Unknown

Dilemma zone protection measures X X 0.6 - 0.8

Reduce lane widths X X Unknown

Transverse rumble strips X X 0.36 – 1.4

Roundabouts X X X Varies by crash type

Lane reconfiguration (Road Diet) X X 0.59 – 1.0

Pedestrian refuge islands and curb extensions X X 0.54 – 1.94

Rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB) X X X Unknown

In-street signs to lower speeds in areas such as school zones 

or other locations that have high pedestrian activity X X Unknown
28

Chapter 5: Enhancing Other Plans, Guidance, and Manuals

In addition to incorporating speed management within the roadway departure, intersection, and 

pedestrian and bicycle safety plans, there are opportunities to review other agency plans, guidance, and 

manuals to enhance or include information regarding speed-related concepts and speed management 

techniques.

Additional Plans

Oregon has four plans that present a prime opportunity for integrating speed management practices. 

Two are broad safety plans at the State level: The Oregon Traffic Safety Performance Plan is Oregon’s 

NHTSA-mandated Highway Safety Plan, focused primarily on enforcement and education; and the 

Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan is Oregon’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This section also 

discusses integrating speed management practices into Local Transportation Safety Plans and Oregon’s

Statewide ITS Architecture and Operational Concept Plan.

Oregon Traffic Safety Performance Plan

The Oregon Traffic Safety Performance Plan, prepared by the ODOT Transportation Safety Division for 

FY14, includes multiple references to speed management efforts.7

 

One of the performance goals is speeding-related fatalities. These are being tracked at the higher 

decision-making levels. However, relying on fatality data alone for crash outcomes has its challenges. 

Fatality data may be several years old by the time a full year is available for analysis, especially if relying 

on national data such as the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). In addition, using only the 

number of speeding-related fatalities (as opposed to including severe injury crashes) makes robust 

analysis difficult. Speed management questions for consideration in future updates of this plan may 

include the following:

• While there may be some requirement that Oregon include speeding-related fatalities, are there 

other measures that may be more timely? 

• Can fatality data be derived more quickly from State databases? 

• Can other measures such as speeding-related serious injuries be used to allow for a larger set of 

incidents for analysis? 

• Currently, the plan uses a five-year rolling average. Should this be adjusted to a three-year 

rolling average to align with FHWA-mandated safety performance measures? Though the 

mandated measures are not specifically speed-related, aligning with the analysis framework 

may make it easier to consider the relationship between speed-management efforts and overall 

safety success. 

 7 Oregon Traffic Safety Performance Plans, Fiscal Year 2014. Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation 

Safety. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/!FINAL%20(without%20405%20app)%202014%20Federal%20Version.pdf 

(Accessed May 4, 2016).
29

This plan also includes a performance goal for speeding citations issued during grant funded 

enforcement. While this is helpful for considering the potential reach of these enforcement efforts, it is 

difficult to tie those increased enforcement efforts to overall improvements in speed-related safety. 

Speed-management measures related to enforcement may consider the following questions:

• Should a measure focus around speeding conviction/adjudication as well as citation data to 

monitor the outcomes of speed enforcement efforts. 

• Should speed enforcement data be considered in relation to speed-related crash data? 

The question around outcomes related to speed enforcement is especially important given the public 

opinion survey data included in the plan that indicates that while most people said they do not speed, 

the vast majority (more than 60 percent) believed they would not be ticketed if they did speed. 

This plan also points out the connection between speed-related fatal crashes and behavioral factors. Of 

the 132 fatal crashes where speed was a factor, less than half were speed only. The other two major 

contributing factors were alcohol impairment and lack of belt use. This highlights the clear need for a 

speed-management program that closely integrates engineer, enforcement, and education efforts.

Several action items in this plan’s focus are speed-management related. 

Police Traffic Services Link to Transportation Safety Action Plan, Action #35: Speed is the first issue 

identified as part of the Traffic Law Enforcement Strategic Plan, to include enforcement, laws, legislative 

needs, equipment, public information and education. The number of speed-related convictions is 

included in the Police Traffic Services data table, down 18 percent from 2008 to 2011. The number of 

speed e-citations issued is up 938.5 percent from 2008 to 2011. Another question to consider for this 

data analysis might be the following:

• Should adjudication data be reported in addition to citation data? This will provide a better 

understanding of the actual consequences associated with speed-related citations. 

Speed management efforts are also mentioned in relation to several other action items:

• Safe Routes to School: Speed is a challenge for allowing children within a half-mile to walk to 

school;

• Work Zone Safety: Speed is a compounding factor in work zone safety; and 

• Youth Transportation Safety: Speed and alcohol are cited as two major issues with youth related 

crashes. 

Recommended Strategy:

Considerations for future updates. During the next update, the stakeholder team should collaborate 

and brainstorm options to improve on or enhance the plan, such as:

• Exploring alternatives for analyzing Oregon’s speeding related data

• Identifying ways to derive necessary data more quickly or efficiently

• Determining whether speeding-related serious injuries can be used for analysis
30

• Considering the length of rolling average reported in the plan and whether there is a benefit in 

aligning with FHWA-mandated safety performance measures.

• Including additional speed-related performance measures or action items, as necessary.

• Referencing other ODOT speed management efforts and plans.

Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan

The Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan is prepared by the Oregon Department of Transportation 

as the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.8

 This plan was last published in 2011, with an update 

currently underway. This timing presents a prime opportunity to ensure speed management practices 

are incorporated into the plan. According to the data in this plan, speed contributed to nearly 42 

percent of fatal crashes in Oregon in 2009. It was identified as a significant related to a number of areas:

• Pedestrian and bike crashes;

• Intersection crashes;

• Roadway departure crashes;

• Construction/repair decision-making;

• Significant factor in fatal crashes for the importance of developing law enforcement 

communication strategy;

• Significant factor in fatal crashes for the importance of training enforcement personnel, 

attorneys, judges, and DMV; and

• Speed enforcement using decoy vehicles, variable message speed monitors, and targeted 

enforcement on youth speed and alcohol involved crashes.

It is clear from this list that speed is perceived as a cross-cutting issue. Based on initial feedback from 

the current update process, speed management will continue as a cross-cutting theme in the 

forthcoming report. 

Recommended Strategy:

Incorporate speed management practices into relevant areas. With an update currently underway, 

look at ways to incorporate speed management strategies and countermeasures in applicable focus 

areas. Ensure the strategies are specific enough to be measurable and not overshadowed by other 

components of the report.

Local Transportation Safety Plans

Local transportation safety plans are also a prime opportunity to integrate speed management efforts 

into broader safety programs.9

 For example, the Portland Bureau of Transportation has speed 

management related practices in the currently published-for-comment draft of updates to their 

Transportation System Plan. One of the TSP objectives is “Reduce traffic speeds through enforcement 

 8 Transportation Safety Action Plan: An Element of the Oregon Transportation Plan, October 2011. Oregon 

Department of Transportation. https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/tsap_revised_03-20-12.pdf (Accessed 

May 4, 2016). 

9 Transportation System Plan. Portland Bureau of Transportation. 

file:///C:/Users/hrothenberg/Desktop/TSP%20PD_Assembled_FINAL.pdf (Accessed May 4, 2016)
31

and design in high density main streets, Centers and Corridors, to levels that are safe and comfortable 

for bicyclist and pedestrians. It references traffic calming to “maintain...speeds below established 

thresholds”, specifically for pedestrian and bike safety. 

Recommended Strategy:

Support and collaborate with local agencies. Assist local agencies by providing data analysis support 

and educational, technical, and behavioral information relative to speed management for inclusion in 

local plans.

Oregon Statewide ITS Architecture and Operational Concept Plan

Oregon Statewide ITS Architecture and Operational Concept Plan (Oregon Department of 

Transportation, 2012).10 The Transportation Operations Center System (TOCS) functions include 

providing control interface with variable speed limit signs, archiving the date and time of speed zone 

changes, and notifying enforcement agencies of speed limit changes. Future plans may include weather 

based variable speed limits. 

Recommended Strategy:

Considerations for future updates. When this plan is updated, the team should look for opportunities to 

enhance or include additional information related to speed limits, speeding, and speed management 

countermeasures for inclusion within the plan.

Guidance and Manuals

Below is a summary of Oregon documents where speed-management efforts are referenced and may be 

further enhanced or incorporated.

Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide

Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide11 mentions high speeds as being intimidating to pedestrians 

and bicyclists, noting that over design may encourage speeding by vehicles on the adjacent roadway. 

• The guide provides tables and graphs to help with decision-making on type of bicycle facility to 

consider given posted speed (ideally 85th percentile speed) and vehicle average daily traffic. 

• There is a separation context matrix that uses the context of traffic speeds/volume indicators to 

identify need for separation between pedestrian/bicycle facilities and adjacent vehicle lanes. 

• There are a variety of specific design attributes that should be considered when designing 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These include the vehicle travel speed and the relationship 

between the pedestrian and bicyclist facilities and the roadway. 

 10 Oregon Statewide ITS Architecture and Operational Concept Plan. Oregon Department of Transportation, 2012. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ITS/Documents/Oregon%20ITS%20Architecture%20Report%202012.pdf 

(Accessed May 4, 2016).

11 Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide. Oregon Department of Transportation, 2011. 

ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/roadway/web_drawings/HDM/2011%20HDM%20Rewrite/2012%20Appendix%

20L%20Bike%20Ped%20Design%20Guide.pdf (Accessed May 4, 2016). 
32

Traffic Manual 2016 Edition

Traffic Manual 2016 Edition12 includes a section to outline the process associated with variable speed 

zones. There is a focus on the use of traffic control devices and design to maintained appropriate 

speeds given context. Speed is also noted as a factor for a variety of other traffic considerations: 

• Active warning signs at bridges and tunnels;

• Marked crosswalks on State highways (specifically mid-block locations);

• In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs;

• Marking Crosswalks Across Channelized Right Turn Lanes;

• Pedestrian Crossing Strategy determination;

• Pedestrian Activated Warning Lights;

• Illumination;

• Intersection Traffic Control;

• Roundabout Design;

• Shoulder/Centerline/Transverse Rumble Strips;

• Safe Speed on Curves;

• Variable Message Signs (Variable Speed Zones); and

• Speed Zones.

This manual also addresses the issue of photo radar enforcement changes to those regulations made by 

the Oregon Legislative Assembly. It specifically refers readers to ORS 810.438 through 810.439 for the 

most recent legal requirements regarding photo radar speed enforcement. 

Traffic Signal Design Manual

Traffic Signal Design Manual13 references to speed management in this document include the use of 

Speed Limit Sign Beacons (on State highway system for school speed zones only) and the consideration 

of posted speed limits for installation of the pedestrian hybrid beacon. This manual also gives guidance 

on using approach speed to calculate yellow change and red clearance intervals.

Highway Design Manual

Highway Design Manual14 mentions speed throughout the manual, for example as one of the 

consideration factors in project scoping, relationship to sight distance, roadway design elements, 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities, etc. The manual includes a comfort speed chart, which doesn’t 

represent a standard, but may be useful to evaluate existing or proposed sections for safety and 

 12 Traffic Manual 2016 Edition. Oregon Department of Transportation, 2016. 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/pages/traffic_manual.aspx (Accessed May 10, 2016). 13 Traffic Signal Design Manual. Oregon Department of Transportation, 2014. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFICROADWAY/docs/pdf/SignalDesignManual/SignalDesignManual_Oct2014.pdf (Accessed May 4, 2016). 14 Highway Design Manual. Oregon Department of Transportation, 2012. 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ENGSERVICES/Pages/hwy_manuals.aspx (Accessed May 6, 2016).
33

operation. Chapter 2 includes information on choosing design speed. Selecting appropriate design 

speeds for projects is an important first step in speed management. 

There may be opportunities to review this design manual to determine if there are opportunities to 

update or enhance information relating to speed guidance, including speed management 

countermeasures. For example, one tool that designers can use to determine where operating speeds 

may exceed the design speed on rural two-lane highways is the Design Consistency Module of the 

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). Speed management strategies can them be applied 

to the locations where operating speed and design speed greatly differ.

Recommended Strategy:

Review manuals for potential updates. Form a speed management focused team to review existing 

manuals and guidance to determine if there are opportunities to update or enhance information relative 

to speed guidance, speed concepts/definitions, speed management countermeasures, effects or risks of 

speeding, etc. (depending on the focus of the manual).
34

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Next Steps

Summary

Over the past decade, Oregon has made great strides in reducing roadway fatalities. While the reduction 

in fatalities is significant and to be commended, additional focus on speed management is needed to 

continue the trend. Since roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes have 

been identified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Oregon as the three areas with great 

potential to reduce fatalities, this plan encourages Oregon to integrate speed management into these 

three safety focus areas by provided strategies and countermeasures for improving safety in each of 

these focus areas. 

Oregon’s State and local agencies are also encouraged to take a broad look at the existing policies and 

programs to identify opportunities for fully integrating speed management throughout their 

organization. This document recommends strategies for incorporating speed management into these 

broader plans as well as within design guidance and manuals. 

Lastly, information gained from the workshop indicated that Oregon has encountered numerous 

challenges implementing effective speed management. In response, this plan recommended strategies 

for tackling some of Oregon’s main speed management related challenges.

Future Research Needs

While this report proposed numerous strategies for tackling speed management challenges 

encountered by Oregon’s transportation agencies, there are always opportunities to improve speed 

management solutions. The project team recommends ODOT, either independently or through an 

associated university, conduct additional speed management related research and investigation related 

to:

Relationship of clear zone and speed. Visual friction (e.g., trees, parking, buildings) and the surrounding 

environment has an effect on the speed people choose to drive, but at what point does the risk of a 

fixed object crash outweigh the benefit of slowing driver speeds?

Implications of establishing speed limits lower-than-recommended using standard practices to 

improve safety of vulnerable road users. It is understood that simply lowering speed limits won't 

actually lower the speeds of drivers, but what are the tradeoffs and mitigating factors that may help to 

balance higher operational speeds with reduced bicycle and pedestrian crash severities?
35

Partners for Success

This plan’s success depends not only on efforts put forth by Oregon DOT, but also local jurisdictions

throughout Oregon and other safety partners:

• AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

• Associated General Contractors

• Association of Oregon Counties and League of Oregon Counties (AOC/LOC)

• Bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups

• Construction industry

• Emergency services

• Oregon Association Chiefs of Police

• Oregon Department of Education

• Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles

• Oregon Health Authority

• Oregon Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Consortium

• Oregon Motor Carrier Division

• Oregon State Police and local enforcement agencies

• Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association

• Oregon Transit Association

• Oregon Trucking Association

• TEAM Oregon – Motorcycle Safety Program

• Work Zone Safety Industry/Groups

• Universities and schools
36

Appendix A – Workshop Agenda and Attendee List

Tuesday, April 5th

9:00-9:30 Welcome and Introductions

Includes a review of workshop goals, objectives and outcomes

9:30-10:30 Problem Identification

Data Analysis Results

High Crash Locations vs. Systemic Approach

10:30-10:45 Break

10:45-11:30 Oregon Speed Management Policies

Speed Limit Setting 

Existing Plans

11:30-12:00 Roadway Departure Crashes

Engineering Countermeasures 

Behavioral Countermeasures

12:00-1:00 Lunch

1:00-1:30 Roadway Departure Crashes (continued)

Engineering Countermeasures

Behavioral Countermeasures 

1:30-2:30 Intersection Crashes

Engineering Countermeasures 

Behavioral Countermeasures

2:30-2:45 Break

2:45-3:45 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes

Engineering Countermeasures &

Behavioral Countermeasures

3:45-4:00 Wrap Up/Prep for Day 2

Wednesday, April 6th

9:00-9:30 Key Themes from Previous Day

9:30-10:30 Measuring Performance 

10:30-10:45 Break

10:45-11:30 Next Steps

11:30-1:00 Lunch

1:00-2:30 Follow-up with management
37

First Last Title Org. Email 

Scott Batson Engineer/PBOT City of 

Portland 

scott.batson@portlandoregon.gov

Dennis Mitchell Region 1 Traffic 

Engineer 

ODOT Dennis.j.mitchell@odot.state.or.us

Dorothy Upton Region 2 Traffic 

Engineer 

ODOT Dorothy.j.upton@odot.state.or.us

Zahidul Siddique Highway Safety 

Engineer 

ODOT Zahidul.q.Siddique@odot.state.or.us

Michael Swan Safety Circuit Rider ODOT michael.w.swan@odot.sate.or.us

Cidney Bowman Wildlife Passage 

Coordinator 

ODOT Cidney.n.bowman@odot.state.or.us

Joel McCarroll Region 4 Traffic 

Manager 

ODOT joel.r.mccaroll@odot.state.or.us

Jeff Wise Region 5 Traffic 

Engineer 

ODOT jeff.wise@odot.state.or.us

Kevin Haas Traffic Standards 

Engineer

ODOT Kevin.J.Haas@odot.state.or.us

Steve Reed Traffic Engineer 

Sect. 

ODOT Steven.L.Reed@odot.state.or.us

Heather King RICS Unit Manager ODOT Heather.L.King@odot.state.or.us

Jennifer Campbell RICS/HPMS 

Coordinator 

ODOT Jennifer.K.CAMPBELL@odot.state.or.u

s

Kathi McConnell Speed Zone 

Coordinator

ODOT kathleen.e.mcconnell@odot.state.or.u

s

Tim Burks Highway Safety 

Engineer 

Coordinator 

ODOT Timothy.W.Burks@odot.state.or.us

Shyam Sharma Region 3 Traffic 

Manager 

ODOT shyam.sharma@odot.state.or.us

Julie Yip TSD PM ODOT Julie.a.yip@odot.state.or.us

Stacy Shetler Principal Engineer Washington 

County 

Stacy.shetler@co.washington.or.us

Katherine Burns Traffic-Roadway 

Section 

ODOT Kathryn.s.burns.@odot.state.or.us

Gary Obery Active TP Engineer ODOT gary.r.obery@odot.state.or.us

Doug Bish Traffic Services 

Engineer

ODOT douglas.w.bish@odot.state.or.us

Jeff Lewis Sergeant Oregon 

State Police 

jeffrey.lewis@state.or.us

Doug Norval Transportation 

Analysis Engineer 

ODOT douglas.d.norval@odot.state.or.us

Kristin Twenge LE Program 

Manager + Speed 

ODOT kristen.k.twenge@odot.state.or.us

Jeff Greiner Motorcycle Safety ODOT jeff.p.greiner@odot.state.or.us
38

First Last Title Org. Email 

Robin Ness Crash Analysis 

Manager & 

Reporting Unit 

ODOT robin.a.ness@odot.state.or.org 

Angela Kargel Region 2 Traffic 

Manager 

ODOT angela.j.kargel@odot.state.or.us

Nicole Charlson Region 2 Traffic 

Safety 

ODOT nicole.l.charlson@odot.state.or.us

Nick Fortey FHWA Oregon FHWA nick.fortey@dot.gov 

FOLLOW-UP MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT

Kristin Twenge LE Program 

Manager + Speed 

ODOT kristen.k.twenge@odot.state.or.us

Bob Pappe State TrafficRoadway EngineerODOT robert.g.pappe@odot.state.or.us

Dave Ringeisen Transportation Data 

Section Manager

ODOT david.w.ringeisen@odot.state.or.us

Nick Fortey FHWA Oregon FHWA nick.fortey@dot.gov 

Troy Costales Transportation 

Safety

ODOT troy.e.costales@odot.state.or.us

Doug Bish Traffic Services 

Engineer

ODOT douglas.w.bish@odot.state.or.us

Robin Ness Crash Analysis 

Manager & 

Reporting Unit 

ODOT robin.a.ness@odot.state.or.org 
39

Appendix B – Data Analysis Summary

The Oregon data analysis includes 

crash data sets from 2010 to 2014, 

sourced from Oregon DOT.

Fatal and serious injury speedrelated crashes are holding steady 

in Oregon, as all fatal and serious 

injury crashes slightly fluctuate.

Speeding-related fatal (F) and 

serious injury (injury severity A on 

the crash report) crashes account 

for 27 percent of all F&A crashes in 

Oregon.

Three Focus Areas Overview

Overwhelmingly, the majority of fatal and serious injury speed-related crashes are considered roadway 

departure crashes.

• Eighty-two percent of 

Oregon’s speeding-related 

F&A crashes are considered 

roadway departure crashes. 

• Fifteen percent of Oregon’s 

speeding-related F&A crashes 

are considered intersection 

crashes. 

• Three percent are 

pedestrian/bicycle crashes.

A single crash may be attributed to 

multiple focus areas (e.g., an 

intersection crash may also be a 

pedestrian/bicycle crash).

Data analysis and a comparison of speed-related crashes in the three focus areas to Oregon’s functional 

classification system mileage shows that focus area F&A crashes are overrepresented within the 

following road systems:

• Interstates – Roadway Departure, Intersections, and Pedestrian/Bicycles

• Principal Arterials – Roadway Departure, Intersections, and Pedestrian/Bicycles

• Minor Arterials – Roadway Departure, Intersections, and Pedestrian/Bicycles

0

500

1000

1500

2000

F&A Crashes

Oregon

All Speeding

Related

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 3 - Oregon's F&A Crashes, All and Speeding-related

82%

15%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Ped/Bike

Percent Speeding-related F&A Crashes grouped 

by Focus Area

Figure 4 - Oregon's Speeding-related F&A Crashes by Focus Area
40

• Collectors – Roadway Departure

• Local Roads – none

Table 3 - Speeding-related F&A Crashes Compared to Functional Classification Mileage

Oregon

Functional 

Classification

% of miles of Rural + 

Urban Roads

% Speeding Related F&A

Roadway 

Departure

Intersection Pedestrian/ 

Bicycles

Interstate/Freeway 1 8 3 11

Principal Arterial 5 25 31 35

Minor Arterial 5 19 28 27

Collector 26 34 24 20

Local 63 14 14 8

Roadway Departure

This section includes a summary of the data analysis completed on roadway departure speeding-related 

F&A crashes in Oregon.

Quick Facts:

• Eighty-two percent of Oregon’s speeding-related F&A crashes are considered roadway 

departure crashes. 

• Over half of all F&A roadway departure crashes are speed-related.

• While 70 percent of all F&A roadway departure crashes occur in rural areas, 75 percent of 

speed-related F&A roadway departure crashes occur in rural areas.

By Roadway Type

Table 4. Percent of Speed-related F&A Roadway Departure Crashes (by Roadway Type and Ownership)

Percent of Speed-related F&A Roadway 

Departure Crashes (by Roadway Type 

and Ownership)

Oregon’s Percent of Miles of 

System by Roadway Type

Crashes per 

System Miles

Interstate/freeway – 8 percent Interstate/Freeway – 1 percent Overrepresented

Principal arterial – 25 percent

o State – 90 percent

o City – 9 percent

o County – 1 percent

Principal arterial – 5 percent Overrepresented

Minor arterial – 19 percent

o State – 47 percent

o City – 29 percent

o County – 23 percent

Minor arterial – 5 percent Overrepresented

Local – 14 percent Local – 63 percent Underrepresented
41

Percent of Speed-related F&A Roadway 

Departure Crashes (by Roadway Type 

and Ownership)

Oregon’s Percent of Miles of 

System by Roadway Type

Crashes per 

System Miles

o State – 5 percent

o City – 18 percent

o County – 76 percent

Collector – 34 percent

o State – 12 percent

o City – 10 percent

o County – 78 percent

Collector – 26 percent Overrepresented

By Speed Limit

• Speed-related F&A RwD crashes where speed limit is known: 

• 34 percent occurred on roadways posted less than 50 mph.

o 59 percent occurred on roadways posted at 55 mph.

By Horizontal Alignment

• Nearly half of all speeding related F&A RwD crashes occurred at curves.

By Driver Characteristics

• 72 percent of all F&A RwD speed-related crashes are male drivers.

• The age group of 21-24 had the highest rate of involvement in speeding-related F&A roadway 

departure crashes (48 percent for females and 55 percent for males).

• Only age group that females had the higher percentage than males was age 45-54.

39%

48%

38%

37%

42%

32%

31%

22%

53%

55%

49%

43%

36%

38%

31%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

15-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

75+

female male

Figure 5 - Percentage of Drivers by Age and Gender Involved in Speeding-related F&A Roadway 

Departure Crashes
42

By Vehicle Type

• 19 percent of F&A roadway departure speed-related crashes involve motorcycles, compared to 

13 percent nationally.

By Roadway Departure Crash Type

Rollover/Overturn Crashes

• 33 percent of rollover/overturn F&A speed-related crashes involve motorcycles.

• 28 percent of rollover/overturn F&A speed-related crashes occur on roadways posted less than 

50 mph.

• 61 percent of rollover/overturn F&A speed-related crashes occur on roadways posted at 55 

mph.

Opposing Direction Crashes

• 80 percent of opposing direction F&A speed-related crashes occur in rural areas.

• 28 percent of opposing direction F&A speed-related crashes occur on roadways posted 45 mph 

or below.

• 71 percent of opposing direction F&A speed-related crashes occur on roadways posted at 55 

mph.

• 92 percent opposing direction F&A speed-related crashes involve passenger cars.

Tree Crashes

• 71 percent of tree F&A speed-related crashes occur in rural areas.

• 41 percent of tree F&A speed-related crashes occur on roadways posted 45 mph or below.

• 59 percent of tree F&A speed-related crashes occur on roadways posted at 55 mph.

Corridors with Highest F&A Speed-related Roadway Departure Crashes 

Note: the corridor information below does not account for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or the length of 

corridors.

Table 5 - Statewide Corridors with Highest F&A Speed-related Roadway Departure Crashes

Route Number of F&A Crashes (2010 – 2014)

I-5 69

I-84 56

US 26 56

US 20 54

US 101 39

126 39

US 97 35

140 25

OR 22 24

OR 42 20
43

Table 6 - Corridors with Highest F&A Speed-related Roadway Departure Crashes by County

County Route Number of F&A Crashes (2010 – 2014)

Lane 126 29

Baker I-84 16

Jackson I-5 15

Umatilla I-84 14

Multnomah I-5 13

Coos OR 42 13

Deschutes US 97 13

Douglas 138 13

Douglas I-5 13

Tillamook US 101 13

Intersections

This section includes a summary of the data analysis completed on intersection speeding-related F&A 

crashes in Oregon.

Quick Facts:

• 15 percent of Oregon’s speeding-related F&A crashes are considered intersection crashes. 

• 64 percent of speeding-related F&A Intersection crashes occur in rural areas.

• Where traffic control was identified15, speed-related F&A intersection crashes occurred at the 

following intersection types:

o Stop-control – 49 percent

o Signalized – 26 percent

o None – 18 percent

• Three most common speed-related F&A intersection crash types in Oregon:

o 13 percent – angle

o 43 percent – non-vehicle collision

o 15 percent – front-to-rear (rear end)

 15 26 percent of speed-related F&A intersection crashes were identified as having “unknown” traffic control.
44

By Roadway Type

Table 7. Percent of Speed-related F&A Intersection Crashes (by Roadway Type and Ownership)

Percent of Speed-related F&A 

Intersection Crashes (by Roadway 

Type and Ownership)

Oregon’s Percent of Miles of 

System by Roadway Type

Crashes per System 

Miles

Interstate/freeway – 3 percent Interstate/Freeway – 1 percent Overrepresented

Principal arterial – 31 percent

o State – 71 percent

o City – 25 percent

o County – 4 percent

Principal arterial – 5 percent Overrepresented

Minor arterial – 28 percent

o State – 20 percent

o City – 66 percent

o County – 14 percent

Minor arterial – 5 percent Overrepresented

Collector – 24 percent

o State – 8 percent

o City – 31 percent

o County – 61 percent

Collector – 26 percent N/A

Local – 14 percent

o State – 3 percent

o City – 65 percent

o County – 33 percent

Local – 63 percent Underrepresented

By Speed Limit

Speed-related F&A intersection crashes where speed limit is known:

• 20 percent on roads signed at 25 mph or less.

• 26 percent on roads signed 30-35 mph.

• 23 percent on roads signed at 40-45 mph. 

• 31 percent on roads signed at 50-55 mph.

• 1 percent on roads signed at 60 mph or greater.

By Driver Characteristics

• 69 percent of F&A intersection speed related crashes are male.

• In all age groups, males involved in F&A intersection crashes were coded as speeding-related 

with a higher percentage than females.

By Vehicle Type

• 21 percent of F&A intersection speed-related crashes involve motorcycles, compared to 17 

percent nationally.
45

By Intersection Collision and Crash Type

• 13 percent of F&A intersection speed-related crashes were angle crashes.

• 43 percent of F&A intersection speed-related crashes were non-vehicle collisions (fixed object).

• 15 percent of F&A intersection speed-related crashes were front-to-rear (rear end) crashes.

• 4 percent of F&A intersection speed-related crashes involved pedestrians.

• 1 percent of F&A intersection speed-related crashes involved pedacyclists.

Angle Crashes

• Of speed-related F&A intersection angle crashes where speed limit is known:

o 19 percent on roads signed at 25 mph or less.

o 33 percent on roads signed 30-35 mph.

o 14 percent on roads signed at 40-45 mph. 

o 33 percent on roads signed at 50-55 mph.

o None on roads signed at 60 mph or greater.

Non-vehicle Collision (Fixed Object) Crashes

• 42 percent of F&A intersection fixed object speed-related crashes are rural; 58 percent 

are urban.

• Of speed-related F&A intersection fixed object crashes where speed limit is known:

o 23 percent on roads signed at 25 mph or less.

o 24 percent on roads signed 30-35 mph.

o 19 percent on roads signed at 40-45 mph. 

o 33 percent on roads signed at 50-55 mph.

o One crash on roads signed at 60 mph or greater.

Front-to-Rear Crashes

• 76 percent of F&A intersection front-to-rear speed-related crashes are urban; 24 

percent are rural.

• Of speed-related F&A intersection front-to-rear crashes where speed limit is known:

o 1 crash on roads signed at 25 mph or less.

o 20 percent on roads signed 30-35 mph.

o 21 percent on roads signed at 40-45 mph. 

o 11 percent on roads signed at 50-55 mph.

o None on roads signed at 60 mph or greater.

Corridors with Highest F&A Intersection Speed-related Crashes 

Note: the corridor information below does not account for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or the length of 

corridors.
46

Table 8. Statewide Corridors with Highest F&A Intersection Speed Related Crashes

Route Number of F&A Crashes (2010 – 2014)

US 26 10

OR 99W 9

US 101 7

126 5

213 4

US 30 4

US 20 4

OR 22 4

OR 47 4

Table 9. Corridors with Highest F&A Intersection Speed Related Crashes by County

County Route Number of F&A Crashes (2010 – 2014)

Multnomah US 26 5

Polk OR 22 4

Washington OR 99W 4

Lincoln US 101 4

Multnomah I-5 3

Polk 223 3

Clackamas US 26 3

Tillamook US 101 3

Josephine US 199 2

Multnomah OR 43 2

Multnomah 213 2

Yamhill OR 99W 2

Linn OR 34 2

Lane OR569 2

Lane 126 2

Josephine OR 199 2

Jackson 238 2

Deschutes US 20 2

Crook 126 2

Columbia US 30 2

Clackamas 213 2

Clackamas 211 2

Benton OR 99W 2

Lane OR 99 2

Multnomah US 30BY 2

Umatilla US 395 2

Washington OR 47 2
47

Pedestrians and Bicycles

Although the overall percentage of pedestrian fatalities that are speeding-related is surprisingly low, the travel 

speed at impact directly influences the severity of pedestrian crashes, as the figure shows.

Quick Facts:

• 3 percent of Oregon’s speed-related F&A crashes are considered pedestrian/bicycle crashes. 

• 73 percent of speeding-related F&A pedestrian/bicycle crashes occur in urban areas.

• 71 percent of F&A pedestrian/bicycle speed-related crashes occurred at non-intersection 

locations.

By Roadway Type

Table 10. Percent of Speed-related F&A Ped/Bike Crashes (by Roadway Type and Ownership)

Percent of Speed-related F&A Ped/Bike

Crashes (by Roadway Type and 

Ownership)

Oregon’s Percent of Miles of 

System by Roadway Type

Crashes per 

System Miles

Interstate/freeway – 11 percent Interstate/Freeway – 1 percent Overrepresented

Principal arterials – 35 percent

o State – 59 percent

o City – 41 percent

o County – 0 percent

Principal arterial – 5 percent Overrepresented

Minor arterial – 27

o State – 24 percent

o City – 76 percent

o County – 0 percent

Minor arterial – 5 percent Overrepresented

Collectors – 20

o State – 8 percent

o City – 38 percent

o County – 54 percent

Collector – 26 percent Underrepresented

Local – 8

o State – 0 percent

o City – 80 percent

o County – 10 percent

Local – 63 percent Underrepresented

By Speed Limit

Speed-related F&A pedestrian/bicycle speed-related crashes where speed limit is known:

• 30 percent on roads signed at 25 mph or less.

• 32 percent on roads signed 30-35 mph.

• 11 percent on roads signed at 40-45 mph. 

• 19 percent on roads signed at 50-55 mph.

• 9 percent on roads signed at 60 mph or greater.
48

By Driver Characteristics

• 70 percent of all F&A pedestrian/bicycle speed-related crashes are male drivers.

• Male drivers aged 25-34 accounted for the highest number of F&A pedestrian/bicycle speedrelated crashes (19 percent) followed by females aged 35-44 (10 percent).

Corridors with Highest F&A Pedestrian/Bicycle Speed Related Crashes 

Note: the corridor information below does not account for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or the length of 

corridors.

Table 11. Statewide Corridors with Highest F&A Pedestrian/Bicycle Speed Related Crashes

Route Number of F&A Crashes (2010 – 2014)

US 26 4

US 30 3

I-5 3

OR 10 2

IS 405 2

211 1

I-82 1

I-84 1

126 1

OR 66 1

US 395 1

OR 82 1

OR 99 1

US 101 1

US 101B 1

OR 18 1
49

Table 12. Corridors with Highest F&A Pedestrian/Bicycle Speed Related Crashes by County

County Route Number of F&A Crashes (2010 – 2014)

Clackamas US 26 2

Columbia US 30 2

Multnomah IS 405 2

Lincoln US 101 1

Clackamas 211 1

Clatsop US 101B 1

Clatsop US 30 1

Jackson I-5 1

Klamath OR 66 1

Lane 126 1

Baker I-84 1

Lane OR 99 1

Washington OR 10 1

Marion I-5 1

Multnomah OR 10 1

Multnomah US 26 1

Polk OR 18 1

Tillamook US 26 1

Umatilla I-82 1

Umatilla OR 82 1

Umatilla US 395 1

Lane I-5 1
50

The team used the data variables listed below to identify crash trends. 

Table 13. Data Variables Used in Analysis

CRASH TABLE

HWY_NO RD_CON_NO ISECT_TYP_SHORT_DESC INVSTG_AGY_SHORT_DESC RTE_NM

SER_NO LRS_VAL ISECT_REL_FLG CRASH_EVNT_1_CD CRASH_LAST_UD_DT

CRASH_DT LAT_DEG_NO RNDABT_FLG CRASH_EVNT_1_SHORT_DESC TOT_VHCL_CNT

CRASH_MO_NO LAT_MINUTE_NO DRVWY_REL_FLG CRASH_EVNT_2_CD TOT_FATAL_CNT

CRASH_DAY_NO LAT_SEC_NO LN_QTY CRASH_EVNT_2_SHORT_DESC TOT_INJ_LVL_A_CNT

CRASH_YR_NO LONGTD_DEG_NO TURNG_LEG_QTY CRASH_EVNT_3_CD TOT_INJ_LVL_B_CNT

CRASH_WK_DAY_CD LONGTD_MINUTE_NO MEDN_TYP_CD CRASH_EVNT_3_SHORT_DESC TOT_INJ_LVL_C_CNT

CRASH_HR_NO LONGTD_SEC_NO MEDN_TYP_SHORT_DESC CRASH_CAUSE_1_CD TOT_INJ_CNT

CRASH_HR_SHORT_DESC SPECL_JRSDCT_ID IMPCT_LOC_CD CRASH_CAUSE_1_SHORT_DESC TOT_UNINJD_AGE00_04_CNT

CNTY_ID SPECL_JRSDCT_SHORT_DESC CRASH_TYP_CD CRASH_CAUSE_2_CD TOT_UNINJD_PER_CNT

CNTY_NM JRSDCT_GRP_CD CRASH_TYP_SHORT_DESC CRASH_CAUSE_2_SHORT_DESC TOT_PED_CNT

CITY_SECT_ID AGY_ST_NO COLLIS_TYP_CD CRASH_CAUSE_3_CD TOT_PED_FATAL_CNT

CITY_SECT_NM ST_FULL_NM COLLIS_TYP_SHORT_DESC CRASH_CAUSE_3_SHORT_DESC TOT_PED_INJ_CNT

URB_AREA_CD RECRE_RD_NM CRASH_SVRTY_CD SCHL_ZONE_IND TOT_PEDCYCL_CNT

URB_AREA_SHORT_NM ISECT_AGY_ST_NO CRASH_SVRTY_SHORT_DESC WRK_ZONE_IND TOT_PEDCYCL_FATAL_CNT

FC_CD ISECT_ST_FULL_NM WTHR_COND_CD ALCHL_INVLV_FLG TOT_PEDCYCL_INJ_CNT

FC_SHORT_DESC ISECT_RECRE_RD_NM WTHR_COND_SHORT_DESC DRUG_INVLV_FLG TOT_UNKNWN_CNT

NHS_FLG FROM_ISECT_DSTNC_QTY RD_SURF_COND_CD CRASH_SPEED_INVLV_FLG TOT_UNKNWN_FATAL_CNT

HWY_SFX_NO CMPSS_DIR_CD RD_SURF_SHORT_DESC CRASH_HIT_RUN_FLG TOT_UNKNWN_INJ_CNT

HWY_MED_NM MP_NO LGT_COND_CD POP_RNG_CD TOT_OCCUP_CNT

RDWY_NO POST_SPEED_LMT_VAL LGT_COND_SHORT_DESC POP_RNG_MED_DESC TOT_PER_INVLV_CNT

HWY_COMPNT_CD RD_CHAR_CD TRAF_CNTL_DEVICE_CD RD_CNTL_CD TOT_SFTY_EQUIP_USED_QTY

HWY_COMPNT_SHORT_DESC RD_CHAR_SHORT_DESC TRAF_CNTL_DEVICE_SHORT_DESC RD_CNTL_MED_DESC TOT_SFTY_EQUIP_UNUSED_QTY

MLGE_TYP_CD OFF_RDWY_FLG TRAF_CNTL_FUNC_FLG RTE_TYP_CD TOT_SFTY_EQUIP_USE_UNKNOWN_QTY

MLGE_TYP_SHORT_DESC ISECT_TYP_CD INVSTG_AGY_CD RTE_ID

PARTIC VHCL

Age.[1] Veh Type

Age.[2] License

Age.[3]

Age.[4]

Age.[5]

Restraint
51

Appendix C – Speed Management Countermeasures List

This spreadsheet of potential countermeasures was provided to Oregon DOT. Representatives from ODOT contributed information in the last 

two columns for purposes of providing initial feedback to FHWA on ODOT’s use of speed management countermeasures.

Table 14. Speed Management Countermeasures 

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

STATIC SIGNING

One direction large 

arrow sign (W1-6)

Roadway 

Departure

Rural Curves 4 This would be limited to small 

radius curves where one arrow 

would be suitable to replace one 

or two chevrons

Add flashers to 

existing curve 

warning signs

Roadway 

Departure

Rural Curves 2

Add flags to 

existing curve 

warning signs

Roadway 

Departure

Rural Curves 1 not sure flags do much

Curve Treatment 

Level 1: Basic 

Curve Signing 

(advanced 

warning, chevrons, 

speed plates)

Installing basic 

curve signing to 

meet MUTCD 

minimum

Roadway 

Departure

Rural Curves 5
52

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

Curve Treatment 

Level 2: Enhanced 

signing/delineation

Installing enhanced 

signing/delineation 

(oversized signs, 

florescent 

sheeting, full post 

delineation, etc.)

Roadway 

Departure

Rural Curves 4

DYNAMIC SIGNING (there is a variety of dynamic signing & messages that could be displayed, not all are shown below)

Sequential 

Dynamic Curve 

Warning System

Series of blinking 

chevron signs 

installed 

throughout a 

curve, flashes 

sequentially 

through the curve 

to warn speeding 

drivers

Roadway 

Departure

Urban, Rural Curves 3

Speed feedback 

signs

Sign that 

dynamically 

displays speed of 

passing vehicles 

with the message, 

"YOUR SPEED XX"

Roadway 

Departure

Rural, Urban Any roads; 

school 

zones, 

advance of 

signalized 

intersection; 

work zones

3 limit it mostly to urban and a 

few rural communities

Speed activated 

warning sign

Sign that displays 

warning messages 

to speeding drivers

Roadway 

Departure

Rural, Urban Any roads; 

work zones; 

curves

3 We have been using these in 

work zones and they are very 

useful
53

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

Speed activated 

speed limit 

reminder sign

Displays speed 

limit to speeding 

drivers

Roadway 

Departure

Rural, Urban Any roads 3 We have been using these in 

work zones and they are very 

useful

Variable speed 

limit sign

Signs that allow 

speed limit to 

change according 

to conditions

Roadway 

Departure

Urban Principal 

arterial, 

interstate

2 pretty expensive only use for 

situations with reoccurring 

conditions that can be treated 

by VS

Speed Limit Sign 

with LED

Speed limit sign 

enhanced with LED 

lights

Pedestrian Rural Community 

entrance

2

SURFACE TREATMENTS AND MARKINGS

Transverse rumble 

strips

Raised or grooved 

patterns installed 

on the roadway 

travel lane or 

shoulder 

pavements, 

perpendicular to 

the direction of 

travel

Roadway 

Departure

Urban, 

Suburban, 

Rural

Local; stopcontrolled 

approaches, 

major

1 Only likely use these for stop 

approaches to rural stop signs
54

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

Converging 

chevron marking 

pattern

Type of transverse 

pavement

markings forming 

chevron shape to 

create the illusion 

of travelling faster 

as well as the 

impression of 

narrower lanes

Roadway 

Departure

Rural, Urban Local street, 

collector, 

arterial; exit 

ramps; 

curves on 

directional 

interchange 

ramps

2

Transverse 

markings

Series of white 

lines placed across 

the center of the 

lane and spaced 

progressively 

closer to create the 

illusion of 

travelling faster

Roadway 

Departure

Rural Horizontal 

curves; Work 

zone

1 Probably would rather use 

optical speed bars
55

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

Optical Speed Bars Series of white 

rectangular 

markings typically 

1 foot wide placed 

just inside both 

edges of the lane 

and spaced 

progressively 

closer to create the 

illusion of 

travelling faster as 

well as the 

impression of 

narrower lane.

Roadway 

Departure

Rural Local street, 

collector, 

arterial; 

curves

2 We have used this at a couple of 

locations- one at a rural curve 

and the other at an urban 

intersection.

Add shoulder 

markings to 

narrow lane

Rural, Urban 2 lane road 

through 

small town; 

exit ramp

2

Speed Limit XX 

Pavement Legend

Speed limit painted 

on roadway

Pedestrian Rural, Urban Any roads 2 Have tried this

"Slow" pavement 

legend

Slow painted on 

roadway

Pedestrian, 

Roadway 

Departure

Rural, Urban Local roads, 

collector, 

arterial; 

curves

2 Have tried this

"XX MPH" + Curve 

Symbol

Painted on 

roadway prior to 

curve

Roadway 

Departure

2 Have tried this
56

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

In-Roadway 

Warning Lights

Flashing lights 

installed in the 

roadway to warn 

users that they are 

approaching a 

condition on or 

adjacent to the 

roadway that 

might not be 

apparent and 

require the driver 

to slow down

Rural, Urban Any roads; 

pedestrian 

crossing; 

school 

zones, 

curves

0 Probably not these

Internally 

illuminated raised 

pavement markers

Steadily 

illuminated lights 

installed in the 

roadway surface

Rural, Urban Any roads; 

pedestrian 

crossing; 

school 

zones, 

curves

0 Probably not these

Alignment 

delineation

Urban, Rural Any roads not sure what is meant we have 

delineators and pavement 

marker elsewhere

High friction 

surface treatment

Roadway 

Departure

2

INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
57

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

Roundabout Intersections Urban, Rural Local street, 

collector, 

arterial; 

ramp 

terminals

4

VERTICAL CHANGES WITHIN THE ROADWAY

Speed Hump Rounded raised 

area across the 

road, typically 12-

14 feet in length 

and 3-4 inches high

Pedestrian Urban, 

Suburban

Local street 2 Hard to determine for locals, 

they use them but on mostly 

residential roads

Speed Cushion Speed hump 

typically 6-7 feet 

wide that allows 

most emergency 

vehicles to straddle 

the hump

Pedestrian Urban Local street 2 More difficult than speed bump

Speed Table Long speed hump 

typically 22 feet in 

length with a flat 

section in the 

middle and ramps 

on the ends

Pedestrian Urban Local street 2 More difficult than speed bump

Raised Intersection Raised plateau, 

with ramps on all 

approaches, where 

roads intersect

Pedestrian Urban Local street 2 There may one or two of these 

out there but leave in as option
58

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

HORIZONTAL CHANGES WITHIN THE ROADWAY

Road diet or road 

rechannelization

Restripe road to 

reduce the number 

of lanes from 2 

lanes in each 

direction to 1 lane 

in each direction 

with a center turn 

lane

Pedestrian Urban Arterial and 

collectors 

road

4 We would like to incorporate

more of these but find them 

politically difficult sometimes, 

maybe rename to roadway 

reconfiguration road diets has a 

bad connotation

Choker Mid-block curb 

extensions that 

narrow a road by 

extending the 

sidewalk or 

widening the 

planting strip

Pedestrian Urban Local street hard to say for locals for these 

maybe only residential local 

streets

Neckdown Intersection curb 

extensions that 

narrow a road by 

extending the 

width of a sidewalk

Pedestrian Urban Local street hard to say for locals

Chicane Curb extensions 

that alternate from 

one side of the 

street to the other, 

forming S-shaped 

curves

Pedestrian Urban Local street hard to say for locals
59

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

Lateral Shift Curb extensions 

that shifts travel 

lanes to one side of 

road for extended 

distance and then 

back to the other 

side

Urban Local street hard to say for locals

Center Island Raised island along 

the centerline of a 

street that narrows 

the travel lanes

Pedestrian Urban Local, 

collector, 

arterial

4 yes should use more

Tubular 

channelizers

Tubes used to 

create island in 

center of roadway

Pedestrian Rural, Urban Local, 

collector, 

arterial

3 use only on lower volume roads

VERTICAL DELINEATION

Delineator Post Roadway 

Departure

Rural, Urban Any roads; 

curves

4 yes should use more

Landscaping Roadside plantings 

used to create 

vertical friction

Roadway 

Departure

Urban Collector 3 more local issue
60

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

(See also the 

sections on STATIC 

SIGNING and 

DYNAMIC SIGNING 

for potential 

options related to 

vertical 

delineation)

GATEWAY ENTRANCE TREATMENTS

Gateway 

Treatment

Placed at 

community 

entrance to remind 

drivers of changing 

roadway character

Pedestrian Rural Community 

entrance

2

ENFORCEMENT AND/OR EDUCATION RELATED

Corridor 

Enforcement and 

Education

Urban, rural Any road 4

Corridor 3-E 

Initiative 

(engineering, 

education, 

enforcement)

Urban, Rural Any road 4
61

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

"Radar Enforced" 

signs

Sign to remind 

drivers that a 

corridor is being 

monitored for 

speed on an 

unannounced 

basis.

Urban, Rural 1 we have many of these at 

community entrances already, 

they are limited to those cities 

that can do this by statute

Automated 

Enforcement

Use of cameras to 

enforce speed 

limits

Urban, Rural Any road 4 limited to certain cities

Red signal 

enforcement lights 

(tattletale lights)

Auxillary lights 

connected to a 

traffic signal to 

help law 

enforcement 

officers more 

efficiently and 

safely issue 

citations for drivers 

who violate the red 

phase of the signal.

Intersections Urban 4 limited to certain cities

OTHER COUNTERMEASURES THAT MAY HAVE AN EFFECT ON SPEEDS

Centerline rumble 

strips

Traditional milledin rumble stripsRoadway 

Departure

Rural 5 yes should use more

Raised 

thermoplastic 

centerline rumble 

strips

Roadway 

Departure

Urban?, Rural 5 yes should use more
62

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

Edge line or 

shoulder rumble 

strips

Traditional milledin rumble stripsRoadway 

Departure

5 yes should use more

Raised 

thermoplastic edge 

line/shoulder 

rumble strips

Roadway 

Departure

Urban?, Rural 5 yes should use more

Sinusoidal/mumble 

strips

Type of rumble 

strip that has a sine 

wave pattern 

milled into the 

pavement; has a 

lower level of 

exterior noise 

while still providing 

an interior 

noise/vibration. 

Can be used on 

centerline or 

edgeline.

Roadway 

Departure

Urban, Rural Any roads, 

where noise 

is a concern

5 yes should use more

Wider centerline 

pavement 

markings

Roadway 

Departure

Urban, Rural 1 not sure about wider lines yet 

right now wider edgeline means 

bike lane. Pavement marking 

crew is not onboard with this 

countermeasure.
63

Likelihood of 

consideration? 

(scale of 1-5)

Countermeasure Description Safety Focus Urban/Rural 

Applicability

Roadway 

environment

1 - low; 5 -

high ODOT Comments

Wider edge lines Roadway 

Departure

Urban, Rural 1 not sure about wider lines yet 

right now wider edgeline means 

bike lane. Pavement marking 

crew is not onboard with this 

countermeasure.

Add center and 

edge pavement 

markings

Roadway 

Departure

Rural, Urban Any roads 3 most of these are going to be a 

local issue of paying for 

maintaining the striping, not 

sure if striping would help with 

speed maybe curves

OTHERS YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER/LOOK INTO?

Raised or recessed 

pavement markers

Roadway 

departure

Rural curves