PUBLICATION ID # AHA99E33

Revised 5/20/99
ite04279a

Traffic Calming on Arterials Con

Carlton C. Robinson, P.E.
Presented at the
69th Annual Meeting
of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Las Vegas NV Aug. 1-4, 1999
I was confused when invited to prepare this paper by what seemed to
me then and now to be a semantic contradiction: traffic calming
and arterials in the same sentence! I was somehow reminded of the
turn-of-the-century requirement in some jurisdictions that every
horseless carriage be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag
by day or a red lantern by night as it passed through the jurisdiction.
And I wondered if, every 100 years, we forget everything we have
learned and just start over sort of an ultimate Y2K!
I do believe that I understand what traffic calming is, even though
users of the term frequently seem to follow Humpty Dumptys Rule of
Etymology which states: When I use a word, it means just what I
choose it to mean neither more nor less.1
1. Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass VI (1872).
In my understanding, traffic calming is the use of one or more
physical devices to bring about a reduction in the volume and/or
speed of vehicles on a public street; a reduction from some number
to some other number. The underlying criteria of what volume is
improper or what speed is excessive or which devices intended to
control traffic are traffic control devices seem to be negotiable from
community to community. A suburban Washington, DC jurisdiction
has recently installed a new milestone in traffic calming devices; it is
a sign on a public street reading DO NOT ENTER EXCEPT BY
PERMIT. You can guess, of course, who gets a permit! That is a

traffic calming on Arterials Con

Page 1

milestone but perhaps not the ultimate in traffic calming or, as is

certainly a more descriptive term, the privatization of Americas urban
street system. The ultimate, I suspect, is to install tank barriers
lowered only by a key card issued to the elite few.
I recognize that the Institute and many practitioners have embraced
the concepts of traffic calming, at least as applied to local residential
streets. The Institute has sponsored meetings devoted to the subject,
endorsed designs for speed control devices based solely on British
experience with British vehicles, and will soon publish an Institute
report on experience with traffic calming on, among other
classifications, arterial streets.
Having so cleverly opened this Pandoras Box, I wonder if we
transportation professionals will be able to retain any semblance of
influence over the positioning of traffic calming devices on arterial
streets. Certainly the battle seems in the process of being lost in and
around my community and a traffic official in a West Coast jurisdiction
noted for its traffic calming enthusiasm has told me, confidentially,
We have lost the ability to say no!
Can we regain that ability? I dont know! My community has speed
humps on roads that carry 18-20,000 vehicles per day and minicircles on streets that clearly function as arterials with 35 MPH speed
limits. Marylands Governor recently espoused a plan to put traffic
calming devices on a major state highway as an alternative to
bypassing a small, historic community. (Common sense, perhaps
some quiet professional advice, and the outcry of an enraged
citizenry, encouraged the Governor to reconsider the bypass!)
Many years ago about the time that traffic engineering was being
recognized as a profession -- the rank abuse of speed limits was
successfully curtailed by state laws that required an engineering
study to establish speed zones.
The legal distinction between an unreasonable 15 MPH speed sign
and an unreasonable 15MPH speed bump does not seem to me to
be great, but I suspect that we have already thrown away that
defense through our professional claim that a pavement deflection
intended to control traffic behavior is not a "traffic control device.
traffic calming on Arterials Con

Page 2

I think it is likely, however, that we may still be able to exert some

influence over the proliferation of these devices if we act quickly, as a
profession, to support the belief that arterial streets perform an
irreplaceable community-wide function and must not be privatized for
the benefit of a few.
In the course of such action we might define which, if any, traffic
calming device might be compatible with the arterial function. The
ITE/FHWA traffic calming website lists traffic calming measures
as:
Speed Hump
Choker
Traffic Circle
Closure
Diverter
Median Barrier
Raised Crosswalk
Raised Intersection
Roundabout, and
Chicane. (The latter term, I understand, defines a driving skill
test common in the stock car racing community.)
Median barriers and traffic circles certainly can have a place on
arterial streets, if selected and designed to improve safe and efficient
street use. Most of the other devices listed above seem to be clearly
inimical to the arterial function and we, as professionals, should say
so! (And even the traffic circle, or more-so the roundabout, must be
selectively used as it has definite capacity limitations and is not a very
friendly place for the pedestrian or bicyclist, as most of you know.)
Most importantly, however, every element of the design and traffic
control of an arterial should be designed and selected to provide for
the efficient and safe movement of people and goods that is the
function of an arterial!
Raised crosswalks may or may not make pedestrian use safer, but if
safe and efficient pedestrian use is a specific problem, then it should
have an effective response but the response should provide greater

traffic calming on Arterials Con

Page 3

safety, not just a perception of greater safety, and downside costs of

the response should be factored into the proper engineering solution.
Similarly, chokers that interfere with turning movements and reduce
capacity of the roadway must be viewed skeptically; they may
increase pedestrian safety but they may not and they are apt to
impose unnecessary costs on other facility users.
The traffic calming proponents lay exclusive claim to esthetic
motives as well. Certainly, the esthetic environment of the arterial
should be a legitimate concern of the transportation engineer. We
have been accused of a single-minded concern for mobility and
traffic safety. I dont know that those are such anti-social goals,
however I do agree that transportation engineers have a legitimate
role in improving the esthetic environment I suppose that that is
why highway agencies spend millions of dollars annually on
landscaping in the midst of their single-minded concerns. (As an
aside, my wife and I were awed on a recent driving trip through
Virginia by the beauty of floral displays along Virginia Interstate
routes.)
There is no reason to believe that efficiency and safety are
incompatible with an esthetic environment nor for our profession to
cede the esthetic high ground to other interest groups. I am
personally quite proud of the role transportation engineers have and
continue to play in the development of scenic highways and aesthetic
opportunities for all the users of Americas highway systems.
Traffic calming or the privatization of Americas precious urban
street rights-of-way may have noble objectives. A few of the design
elements embraced as traffic calming, if used in the right places and
for the right purposes, may contribute to better communities -- but
certainly not if they degrading, for selfish reasons, the transportation
effectiveness of the precious common public property which is the
communitys arterial street system.
In community after community, we are clearly losing our ability to say
NO!

traffic calming on Arterials Con

Page 4

The transportation engineering profession is losing its ability to be

heard on this vital subject.
We need to take a stand! And soon! Otherwise, we may become just
another group passing through history waving a red flag by day or a
red lantern by night in the path of safe and efficient transportation
service.
Thank you.

traffic calming on Arterials Con

Page 5