USA Banner

Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation

Speed Management

Auckland Transport Safe Speeds, Auckland, New Zealand Case Study

Summary

Speeding, exceeding the posted speed limits, or traveling too fast for conditions was a contributing factor in almost 29 percent of all fatalities in 2021. Of the 42,939 fatalities that occurred on our Nation’s roadways that year, 12,330 were speeding-related—an increase of 7.9 percent from 2020 (Stewart 2023). Speed is fundamental in dictating injury risk for all road users in any crash, especially for vulnerable road users (VRUs) such as pedestrians and bicyclists (Corben 2020).

This is one of ten case studies accompanying the Safe System Approach for Speed Management Report. Read the full report here

Florida Department of Transportation: Arterial Work Zone Safety

2021 Road Safety Award


Work zone and worker safety are of vital concern to transportation agencies, the construction industry, and the motoring public. In Florida, speeding in work zone areas accounts for 31 percent of fatal work zone crashes. Despite this, limited smart work zone (SWZ) applications and studies to date have focused on arterials and other non-freeway locations.

To close this research and implementation gap, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 7 led and managed an innovative arterial work zone safety project in partnership with FDOT's safety team, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida, and the Florida Work Zone Safety Coalition.

Read more

 

Strategic Speed Management Program – Austin, TX


Background

The City of Austin became a Vision Zero city in 2015 with the goal of zero traffic-related fatalities for this rapidly growing, diverse, and active community. Identifying a High Injury Network (HIN) exposed that the majority of fatal and serious injury crashes were occurring on collector and arterial streets. This perspective helped focus their program beyond neighborhoods and onto the more complex roadways which made up their HIN

Speed Management Action Plan Implementation – The Oregon Experience


Background

States across the Nation are experiencing increases in speeding-related fatalities. In 2014, Oregon reported 105 speeding-related fatalities, which accounted for nearly 30 percent of total traffic fatalities in the State. In an effort to take a broad look at their speeding-related policies, safety plans, and programs, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), with assistance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), developed a Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP). The plan integrates opportunities for speed management statewide, suggests guidance for setting effective and appropriate speed limits, and promotes strategies and countermeasures to reduce speeding-related crashes.

Speed Management Action Plan Implementation – Partnerships Help North Carolina Manage Speed


Background

In 2015, North Carolina was among the States that reported the highest percentage of speeding related fatalities; 40 percent of traffic fatalities in North Carolina involved a speeding vehicle. To tackle this problem, North Carolina safety stakeholders partnered with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to develop a Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP) for Randolph County. The plan assessed speeding and speed management issues in the county, identified appropriate countermeasures and strategies, and outlined actions steps the State, county, and other partners could take to reduce speeding and prevent speeding-related crashes on Randolph County’s roadways.

Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras – New York City, NY


Background

Speed is a persistent traffic safety issue; particularly in areas with high pedestrian and/or bike users. One effective enforcement strategy that has been utilized is Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE), more recently termed “safety cameras.”

However, agencies have often struggled with implementing safety cameras due to citizen concerns, legislative resistance, speeding not being perceived as a safety issue, and privacy issues. Implementation has also battled the perception that automated enforcement is a “money grab.”

Due to the high number of pedestrians and bicyclists, New York City (NYC) had a particular interest in the use of safety cameras. In 2013, pedestrian and bicyclist crashes accounted for 28 percent of all police reported crashes but made up 65 percent of fatalities in New York City. Additionally, unsafe speed was noted as a contributing factor in 7 percent of all crashes but accounted for 25 percent of fatal crashes.

New York City faced typical oppositions to safety cameras such as legislative restrictions and citizen resistance. They successfully instituted a safety camera program in school zones through several strategies.

Setting Credible Speed Limits – New Hampshire DOT


Background

New Hampshire DOT (NHDOT) is working to promote “reasonable and safe” speed limits for conditions and in a number of instances found that raising the existing speed limit was the appropriate solution.

Establishing and managing credible speed limits impacts safety. Community safety often suffers when we reduce speed limits in reaction to an event without considering the context and operations of the roadway. Educating the public one town or one highway segment at a time takes a lot of effort and it is not always received well. However, when explaining why a speed limit should fit the character of the roadway, the NHDOT has been pleasantly surprised by the number of people that seem to “get it.” (B. Lambert, interview with the author, December 30, 2019).

Consistent Speed Limits for Vulnerable Road Users – Examples from Various Agencies


Background

Speed limits are sometimes inconsistent within a jurisdiction for similar roadways. In some cases, this is because speed limits are applied to roadway sections based on characteristics which may not be obvious to the driver. For instance, speed limits on one roadway classified as a collector are set at 35 mph while another collector with similar characteristics is set at 30 mph due to a higher crash history. Since both appear similar to drivers, they are likely to apply the speed they believe is the most suitable to both roadways.

In other cases, as noted by “Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report,” varying levels of experience, use of different procedures, as well as subjective procedures for determining speed limits can lead to inconsistencies in setting speed limits within or between jurisdictions. In either case, inconsistency violates driver expectancy and can lead to drivers disregarding speed limits.

Enforcing Roadways – City of Golden, CO


Background

Prior to improvement – South Golden Road was a very wide (80 foot) street to cross and consisted of four through lanes plus a center turn lane. The corridor was capable of handling the 20,000 vehicles per day, however, the frequent points of access from business and side streets created operational and safety issues. The half-mile section of South Golden Road included two signalized intersections at Johnson Road and Ulysses Street and two stop-controlled intersections at Lunnonhaus Drive and Utah Street. The corridor was experiencing a number of issues including speeding between intersections, traffic conflicts at intersections for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, and significant delays especially at Utah Street. Prior to improvement, the posted speed limit was 35 mph and the measured 85th percentile speed was 48 mph. The corridor experienced an average of four crashes per month with at least one of these involving an injury.