The URL can be used to link to this page

VI (A) Speed Humpsin Residential Areas • • AGENDA 12-19-95 • � Item VI A • iii` o I ��*or coon`tea JAMES W.SH RA,P.E. CITY ENGINEER/UTILITIES DIRECTOR 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE•OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761 PHONE(407)656-2322 EXT.142•FAX(407)656-7835 MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners From: James W. Shira, P.E. City Engineer/Utilities irector Re: Speed Humps in Residential Areas Date: December 12, 1995 Some of the residents of Lake Olympia subdivision asked that we investigate the possibility of installing speed humps in the subdivision for speed control. Speed "humps" differ from speed "bumps" in their cross section. A speed bump is typically 4 to 6 inches high, and 8 to 12 inches wide at the base. Speed humps, on the other hand, are typically 3 to 4 inches high, and range from 12 to 22 feet wide at the base. Both bumps and humps extend across the entire travel lane of traffic. Many drivers have discovered that traveling over a speed bump actually is more comfortable at higher speeds. When a speed bump is crossed slowly, the vehicle's springs and shocks cause the body of the vehicle to rise and fall abruptly, creating a distinct jarring effect felt by the driver. As vehicle speed increases, the response time of the vehicle's suspension system becomes greater than the transit time over the bump, and less up and down motion is transferred to the body of the vehicle. The suspension system tends to "absorb" the bump, so that at higher speed, driver discomfort is actually reduced. This effect of course, actually works against the speed bump's intended purpose. THE PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE A design was required that would increase driver discomfort at higher speeds, without sacrificing low speed ride quality. In response, several speed hump profiles have been developed. Two that are most prevalent are the "Watts" profile, developed in England, and a variation developed by Seminole County's Traffic Engineering Department. Speed humps, with their long length in relation to their height, cause gradually increasing driver discomfort as speed increases, but are easily and comfortably traversed by passenger vehicles at low speed. One group of vehicles that are adversely affected by speed humps are emergency vehicles. This is due to the stiff suspension system typically found on these vehicles. Seminole County's Fire Department and Sheriffs Department both have supported speed humps. The Ocoee Fire Department is concerned about the potential for damage to their vehicles during emergency response runs, and the necessity for reduced speed. They are concerned that this reduced speed could be literally life threatening in the event of an emergency. The Ocoee Police Chief does not feel that speed humps would hinder his operations or response time. I am also concerned that the efficiency of street sweeping operations will be reduced since debris will tend to be trapped against the speed humps, and may not be picked up by the sweeper. Since street sweeping will be a major component of our compliance with EPA's NPDES permit, this issue needs to be considered carefully. We have surveyed other government units in the area, and have found that the great majority do not allow speed humps on public rights-of-way. The reasons given are either concern for liability exposure, or cost of installation and maintenance, or both. We contacted Orlando, Casselberry, Apopka, Winter Garden, Winter Springs, Altamonte Springs, and Oviedo, and all said that they did not allow speed humps on public rights-of-way. The City of Kissimmee has developed a set of criteria, but has not installed any speed humps due to the cost involved. Seminole County allows the installation of speed humps after a stringent set of criteria are met. The Seminole County Traffic Engineering Department developed a profile that has been the subject of many published articles, and appears to reduce the problems associated with other profiles. They have completed several installations, and have removed one installation consisting of twelve humps after complaints from residents. Seminole County does not currently charge the cost of installation to benefited residents, but considers them to be capital projects. They have recognized that approximately 80% of the initial inquiries do not get carried through to construction, and have decided to start charging for staff time involved in the review and processing of speed hump requests. Orange County installed speed humps in two areas as part of a pilot project, and within the past year, has established a formal procedure for requesting and installing speed humps. They use the Seminole County profile, and have completed one installation since implementation of the formal process. The County sent questionnaires to residents in the pilot project areas, requesting comments on the speed humps. Eighty-five percent of the replies were favorable. The Orange County Sheriff supports speed humps. There are letters on file from the Orange County Fire Department noting that fire department vehicles have been jolted while crossing speed humps, sometimes knocking equipment loose. Orange County's policy requires that directly benefited residents pay the entire cost of the speed hump installation through the establishment of a Municipal Service Taxing Unit. The most common speed hump installation in Seminole County includes the hump itself, constructed of asphalt, street signs to indicate its presence ahead, and pavement markings leading up to each hump. Cost estimates for construction of a speed hump and its associated items range from $800.00 to $1,000.00 each. (It should be noted however, that Orange County uses $1,400.00 as a unit price.) Speed humps are placed 250 to 400 feet apart, with spacing dependent on the horizontal and vertical geometry of each particular road, as well as intersection spacing and driveway locations. If the City Commission decides to implement a speed hump project, there needs to be a set of criteria by which each potential location is judged. A copy of both Seminole County's and Orange County's criteria is included in the attached package. The installation of speed humps on a street affects everyone who uses that street, or who lives in the subdivision, not just those living on the street in question. I would recommend that we require a petition signed by 90% of the homeowners fronting on a street, or in the case of a subdivision street, by 66% of the homeowners in the subdivision. In this manner, we can increase the likelihood that a speed hump project will be supported by those homeowners who will be most affected. In addition to the construction cost, there are preliminary costs associated with each installation. As noted in the Orange and Seminole criteria, a speed study must be performed at each potential location. This involves the use of an unmarked police car and a radar speed measuring device, and typically takes a half day of an officer's time. Also, traffic volume must be measured on the subject street, at a cost of approximately $400.00 per location. For a one quarter mile long street, requiring three to four speed humps, the total of preliminary and installation costs would be between $2,900 and $4,500, with annual maintenance costs for such a location ranging from $450 to $600. The City of Ocoee has no funds currently budgeted for preliminary work or construction costs for the installation of speed humps, nor for annual maintenance of the associated signs and pavement markings. I remain opposed to the use of speed humps in Ocoee due to the potential for liability claims. There is no case law on this subject, which doesn't mean that cities are exempt from liability, just that no cases have made it through the legal system yet. I would be much more comfortable if a liability case based on injuries or damage purportedly caused by a speed hump was settled with a finding that the municipality or county involved was not liable for those damages. In addition, we have no funds budgeted for this type of a program, and if money becomes available, I believe it would be better spent to maintain our street network. If no money is spent on maintenance, the need for speed bumps will become a moot point, since the streets themselves will have become a quagmire through which no one could possibly speed. If a speed hump program is desired by the City Commission, I recommend that we follow the attached Proposed City of Ocoee Speed Hump Program, which is a compilation of the best points from both Seminole County's and Orange County's process. I recommend that the cost of review and processing of requests as well as preliminary costs should be charged to those making the request as an application fee, and the construction costs should be charged to benefited property owners by special assessment. C:4nsofficeVwinwordUetters'speedhmp.doc PROPOSED CITY OF OCOEE SPEED HUMP PROGRAM Speed humps will only be considered on roadways which: • are local residential streets and/or collector roads with a minimum average daily traffic count of 800 vehicles/day and a maximum of 3,000 vehicles/day. • have a posted speed limit of 30 mph or less. • have an observed 85th percentile speed greater than 35 mph. • have a maximum width of 24 feet. The process for obtaining approval for speed hump installation is as follows: 1. Residents should submit a petition signed by at least 66% of the homeowners within a subdivision or 90% of the homeowners fronting on a particular roadway to the Engineering Department. 2. Upon receipt of the petition, the Engineering Department will conduct a traffic study to determine if traffic conditions support the installation of speed humps. 3. If traffic conditions support the installation of speed humps, a public information meeting will be held to present the results of the traffic study, provide a preliminary design and cost estimate, and to give the affected residents an opportunity to provide input. 4. If the feedback received from residents at the public information meeting is generally favorable, a ballot will be mailed to each property owner to vote "for" or "against" the establishment of a special assessment to fund the installation of speed humps. The special assessment would be a tax assessment to property owners in the subdivision located on the roadway(s) where speed humps are proposed. The amount of the assessment is determined by dividing the total project cost by the number of benefiting property owners. The total project cost will be based on the cost of construction and administrative costs. 5. If 66% of the returned ballots are in favor of the speed hump installation, the special assessment is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Commission. The City Commission will make the final decision on the establishment of the special assessment. 6. If the Board of City Commissioners approves the special assessment, the speed humps will be scheduled for installation by the Public Works Department. The Seminole County speed hump design (3" high x 22' long) will be utilized. MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Gleason, City Commissioner FROM: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager / �j DATE : October 31, 1995 RE : Speed Humps As you may recall several weeks ago there was a request from Lake Olympia Home Owner' s Association, to look into the issue of speed bumps or speed humps . Attached is a complete report from Jim Shira, City Engineer, regarding these traffic control devices . I agree with his conclusion that speed humps are not recommended and could cause some liability issues in the future . Furthermore, the cost appears to be somewhat high. However, I also concur with Jim, if you wish to install these devices, a complete set of criteria should be in place prior to the beginning of this program. Also, the funding for this type function will have to be considered at mid-year or taken out of contingency since this was not funded in the adopted budget . cc : Mayor City Commissioners Jim Shira Nick Pagano MEMORANDUM To: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager From: James W. Shira, P.E., City Engineer/ Utilities Director Date: October 27, 1995 Subject: Speed Bumps / Humps As requested, we have contacted several cities in the vicinity to find out what their policies are regarding the use of speed bumps or speed humps on public streets. Several had no specific policy, and said that they have not received requests for these devices. Winter Garden does not allow either speed humps or bumps, due to potential liability claims. Altamonte Springs has an ordinance that specifically prohibits these devices on public streets. Seminole County has a policy that describes the application process, and the criteria to be met in order to allow installation of speed humps. Speed bumps are not allowed. Kissimmee follows a process very similar to Seminole County's, and has not yet had a request be carried through to installation. A copy of Seminole's policy is attached. I do not support the use of either speed bumps or speed humps for speed control on public streets. Speed bumps can cause loss of vehicle control at relatively low speeds. It can be shown that the degree of driver discomfort actually decreases as a speed bump is crossed at increasingly higher speeds. This is due to the fact that the response time of the vehicle's suspension is greater that the travel time across the speed bump. In other words, if you cross a 4 speed bump slowly, your vehicle's springs and shocks have time to react, and the vehicle rises and falls as it crosses the bump. If a speed bump is crossed quickly, the vehicle's tires rise and fall, but there is no corresponding rise and fall of the vehicle itself. In effect, the speed bump acts as an upside down pothole. Speed humps are easily traversed at low speeds, and because of their long length in relation to their height, cause gradually increasing driver discomfort as speed increases. Unfortunately, this effect is magnified in vehicles that have stiff suspensions, such as police, fire, and ambulance vehicles. These are the vehicles which would have the greatest need to travel at high speed in an otherwise low speed area. Response delays due to speed humps could have life threatening consequences. It should be noted however, that in the attached literature from Seminole County, both the Public Safety (fire) and Sheriffs departments have expressed their support of speed humps. Each speed hump with associated pavement markings, is approximately $800.00 to $1,000.00, and they must be located approximately 350 feet apart for the entire length of the road upon which speed is to be controlled. On a quarter mile section of roadway, the total cost would be between $2,400.00 and $3,000.00. If the City of Ocoee is to consider speed humps at all, a policy similar to Seminole County's should be adopted, although my recommendation is that we adopt a policy which prohibits these devices on any public street. MON, DEC-11-95 3:58PM 407 836 7869 P.01 t•t To IM 51-112A From CARLA EZL Company CIT"/ OF C�.rr Com orAzwei CM5)-I tY TRA rICLwow Location 'Apt Charge Fax Fax# 6�[v-7855 Go5(0-222 ,A2 £33(x"780n Teleponex 8;3o-788z Comments onoinal Destroy 0 Rolm fl Car for pickup D,Spntian, l� SIM) 1%113 Sy/lopsc..r.id k.helpPui-o you- SPEED HUMP PROGRAM On April 5,1994,the Board of County Commissioners approved the placement of speed humps in residential areas. This Speed Hump Program creates a mechanism by which concerned citizens can fund the installation of speed humps by establishing a Municipal Service Taxing Unit,which is assessed to those property owners who directly benefit from the installation of the speed humps. Speed humps will only be considered on roadways which: • are local residential streets and/or collector roads with a minimum average daily traffic count of 800 vehicles/day and a maximum of 3,000 vehicles/day. • have a posted speed limit of 30 mph or less. • have an observed 85th percentile speed greater than 35 mph. • have a maximum width of 24 feet. The process for obtaining approval for speed hump installation is as follows: 1. Residents should submit a petition signed by at least 66%of the homeowners within a subdivision or along a particular roadway to the Traffic Engineering Department. 2. Upon receipt of the petition,the Traffic Engineering Department will conduct a traffic study to determine if traffic conditions support the installation of speed humps. 3. If traffic conditions support the installation of speed humps,a public information meeting will be held to present the results of the traffic study,provide a preliminary design and cost estimate,and to give the affected residents an opportunity to provide input. 4. if the feedback received from residents at the public information meeting is generally favorable, a ballot will be mailed to each property owner to vote"for"or"against"the establishment of a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) to fund the installation of speed humps. This MSTU would be a one-time tax assessment to property owners located on the roadway(s)where speed humps are proposed. The amount of the assessment is determined by dividing the total project cost by the number of benefiting property owners. The total project cost is based on a unit price of$1,400.00 per speed hump plus minimal administrative costs. 5. if 66%of the returned ballots are in favor of the speed hump installation,the MSTU is scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will make the final decision on the establishment of the MSTU. 6. If the Board of County Commissioners approves the MSTU,the speed humps will be scheduled for installation by the Highway Maintenance Department. The Seminole County speed hump design(3"high x 22'long)will be utilized. If you would like to initiate this process or have any questions about the Speed Hump Program, please contact Carla Bell of the Traffic Engineering Department at 836-7882. TOTAL P.01 SEMINOLE COUNTY. FLORIDA ROAD HUMP INSTALLATION POLICY OCTOBER. 1993 PROCEDURES I . PETITION A . Request Road Hump Package from the Traffic Engineer, which includes : policy, procedure , criteria , and blank petition B . Petition must be signed by homeowners fronting subject roadway. C . Minimum signatures required are 90% of those fronting the subject roadway D . Petition is to be sent to the Traffic Engineer for processing II . PROCESSING A . Once petition is received subject roadway will be reviewed for "cut-through" criteria satisfaction . Some requests may require in field traffic data to determine if it is a "cut-through" if satisfied then, B . Petition validation to satisfy signature criteria if satisfied then. C . Complete field study 1 . Traffic speeds 2 . Traffic volumes 3 . Crash history if satisfied then. D . Finalize design for cost III . RECOMMENDATION FOR INSTALLATION A . Requests that meet all criteria tests will be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners for installation pursuant to the following : 1 . first come , first served , based upon petition receipt date 2 . Funds available for installation B . Traffic Engineer will respond to petitioner as to status Road Hump Installation Policy - Page 2 IV. INSTALLATION A . If BCC approved . Road Division to schedule installation of humps B . Location of humps is critical for effectiveness C . Traffic Engineer to schedule an after study approximately 30 days after installation to measure speed reduction, and ensure proper design CRITERIA I . GEOMETRY A. Residential Street 1 . Homes fronting roadway 2 . Driveways directly accessing roadway 3 . Maximum posted speed of 30 MPH B . "Cut-through" Roadway 1 . Not a closed development 2 . Roadway used to access other major roadways or developments 3 . Traffic must be clearly definable as "cut-through" traffic C . Straight Sections of Roadway 1 . Humps are not designed for use on curves and hills a. Horizonal curves b . Vertical curves 2 . Functional spacing for humps is 300 to 400 feet 3 . Location of humps must be at least 100 feet from intersections and curves II . REQUIRED TRAFFIC DATA. AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY A. Speed identification is based on percentage above posted speed 1 . Critical factors : a. Traffic volume b. Vehicles speeding c . Accidents (must be considered, may alter required minimums ) 2 . Minimum traffic volume a. 800 vehicles per day 3 . Minimum speeding percentage a. 40% minimum of 15 mph over posted limit, or • b . 10% minimum of 25 mph over posted limit, or c . 27% minimum over 30 mph ( combination ) These Policies supersede the Departmental Policies and Criteria of June 6 . 1991 . As approved by Larry L . Sellers . P . E . , Public Works Director on October 28 . 1993 . SEMINOLE COUNTY ROAD HUMP PETITION We, the undersigned residents of , in an effort to address our concerns for the speeding within our residential neighborhood,do hereby petition the Seminole County Board Of Commissioners to consider theapproval uponstreet.for the installation of Road Humpsthe below designated We have read and understand the Procedures and Criteria for consideration of Road Humps. The following residents front the street that we wish to consider for the above mentioned Road Humps (please one street per petition). Street: Date: PRINTED NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE HOMEOWNER FOR AGAINST YES NO • • z —�a 1;41- -T- 1 SEMINOLE COUNTY ROAD HUMP PETITION Street: Date: PRINTED NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE HOMEOWNER FOR AGAINST YES NO SPEED HUMPS : THE SEMINOLE PROFILE s, ti `r LAKE u0NROE �-s E bp an a, 46A m >� / 1 tCiii f) 46 .- ," w� 0 / FSS�Q s a�7 �-4" a26 m 434 O S 434 M - 436 9 ® 0 436 _ 419 m ICM SEMINOLE COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ;• ' •st "•''• 140 BUSH LOOP ""= /s .: SANFORD FL. 32773 :�Y� . (407) 323-2500 (EXT.5677) • . SAFE AND EFFECTIVE ROADWAY HUMPS THE SEMINOLE COUNTY PROFILE • David A. Nicodemus( A) a This paper provides a summary of the Seminole County initiated field testing research, field testing. application and of various roadway hump profiles in evaluation procedures leading to the search of a profile geometry which would develupment of a safe and effective alJow comfortable passage only at travel speed control roadway hump profile. speeds up to 25 to 30 mph without compromising vehicle control. This Roadway humps have been installed in testing led to the development of a parking lots and along residential design profile which provides a gentle streets throughout the United States and undulation and smooth passage at speeds abroad in an effort to reduce or of 25 mph or less and increasingly maintain safe travel speeds within uncomfortable travel at any hicher neighborhoods and dense pedestrian speed. This geometry consists of a traffic areas. These efforts have met segment of a circle with an approximate various degrees of success and in recent radius of 72 feet followed by a three years many agencies have discontinued inch high, ten foot long plateau with promoting their use and/or have removed the same arc on the downstream end. pilot installations due to limited effectiveness or concerns for safety. The testing consisted of first constructing three and four inch 'watts" Most existing hump applications have profiles and observing driving and ride been derivatives of a design profile characteristics. I noted the rouchness developed in England, commonly known as of the ride was due to the front wheels the "Watts" profile. This profile, descending prior to the rear wheels ( shown in Figure 1 ) typically twelve ascending the hump. At higher speeds feet long along the base and three to it was noted the suspension system of four inches tall, has been found to be the vehicle collapsed on contact with less than desirable as it only permits the hump with the front wheels rising comfortable passage at speeds cf the into the wheel wells while the chassis order of 10 mph. Variations of this of the car continued on a level path. profile have effectively raised the These conditions create a situation "discomfort band" to a 15 or 20 mph where the ride is rough at speeds below range but were also comfortable at 15 mph but smooth above 30 mph. speeds above 30 mph. � p v-Ae- SPEED SEMINOLE WATTS BUMP PROFILE PROFILE Figure 1 aTraffic Operations Engineer Seminole County Traffic Engineering Division 280 Bush Boulevard Sanford, FL 32773 ITE Affiliate i installation ADT of 3848. The section it The plateau was developed to address these conditions. • At low speeds the our County is 1.3 miles long with z rear wheels begin their assent before posted speed of 25 mph. the front wheels begin to descend. At higher speeds the front shock absorbers Studies indicated 34 .5% of all vehicles extend while still in the elevated were traveling in excess of 30 mph (Table 1) . For years we have attempted section. This permitted a smooth ride at speeds consistent with the posted to address the homeowner reports of a .i.y severe small percentage of vehicles traveling speed but becoming increasing as speeds increase, at excessive speeds as well as large number of cut-through cars and Our testing of the final design included commercial vehicles. The usual 'lesser driving various types of vehicles across measures' of street lights, signing, the hump. These consisted of a fire centerline and edgeline with RPM's and encine, a four wheel drive truck with enforcement have had little if any lasting effect. Discussions were held boat and trailer, several sizes of with the homeowners association followed motorcycles, bicycles and various cars. I find that trucks seem to prefer a by a petition of all residents with special attention to those owners living speed of 20 to 25 mph and cars prefer a rance of 20 to 30 mph. Wheel base, on Eastbrook Boulevard itself. suspension and driver preference appear Following Board approval we installed to account for the variations, nine (9 ) hump locations. I attempted to stay within a spacing range of 350 feet The question of liability is an issue I to 450 feet. Because of geometric also investigated prior to design. In considerations such as intersections. my research of experience from agencies drainage structures as well as vertical and horizonal curves this was not always using the "Watts" profile I found there has been no successful litigation world- possible. As a result our shortest spacing is 375 feet and the longest is wide identifying the speed hump as a contributing cause. 668 feet. I consulted with our attorney's office During the course of our studies I and in summary it was their opinion that requested our Sheriff's Department tc while no case law in Florida regarding suspend enforcement two weeks prior to this matter exists a position must be and throughout the study time. Shown below are the results of our "befe.e" based on ideas that the action be and 90 day "after' studies. Results are reasonable and responsible and in accordance with standards of care and shown in percentage of vehicles. common sense. With this in mind our testing involved various vehicles Before encountering the hump at various speeds. After There was no impairment of control of 1/90 9/90 10/90 111.90 any vehicle within a range well in excess of the clearly posted speed and 0-20 mpn 2.5 14 it 16 that speed was reasonable for the normal conditions of this roadway. At c 21-25 mph 19 47 47 44 the time of this writing the a 26-30 mph 44 32 installation has been in place for eight 4.11 35 3' months. To date there have been no 31-35 mph 26.5 6 6 7 reports of accidents or vehicle damage related to the hump installations and > 35 mph 8 1 1 1 only minimal complaints reported by non- residents regarding inconvenience. Percentage of vehicles Table l Following this testing we selected a roadway in Seminole County for a test application. Eastbrook Boulevard is a Speed counters placed on a hump rid- residential street which terminates at a project show speeds across the hump to major arterial on one end and a minor closely match those throughout the arterial at the other with a pre- roadway. A 04.11 The construction of the humps consist of installing the three inch ( 3" ) by ten 3.., -' foot ( 10 ' ) plateau and shaping the ramps I' with a form cut with the appropriate • 14l0.00 4 arc. The cost per hump varies depending I a't on the width of roadway. The install- 41.46 -;es ation of these locations required •- approximately two days. They were ,9....5 preceded with standard 'bump" signs anc: "next 1 . 3 miles" at each end of the — • . �' •o.° project with loop driven flashers. In addition signs were posted midproject to 9..99 reinforce this . Prior to beginning we considered a pavement marking to support `.•. 96 a � .\ these installations . Those currently in E use with speed humps had short-comings e1.,.9.. 3,9 we sought to over come. The "zebra" markings commonly used have a limited """ sr' target valve and little use for advance notification. Our design consist of 12" lie) au white bands perpendicular to the - roadway. They are shorter upstream than )1.1.19 J downstream and the spacing decreases as they approach the installation. This "- .�. " creates an optical illusion of „„ increasing speed as they are encountered --le-- --Tr 4i > a, . in a moving vehicle. - The 24 hour volumes on the roadway have 1030 exhibited a slight reduction from 3848 1303 _ to 3559 over the time cf our testing (Table 3 ) . I cannot however attribute 1103 this solely to the test as there may be 1103 seasonal to r this o reductionvari Also s although account If ocannot J 1203 N, w\ document this, the residents report a 1, .• N reduction in the number and speed of = loop :.\ \ - -`_-- -- cut-through commercial truck traffic. j ICA ,\ In summary I can report our test site O Im ` •'.•`\ . :-. ' has proven to be a major success. we s CO ,%; • ';i: ._ •_ . ---- _ - have accomplished a reduction in speeds Sm from 34 . 51 above 30 mph down to 8% . The ?' •sem ;;c�- \ ,.. - - residents have expressed great o ., '7 %\ , :.>', \ ,� .•.\ appreciation to our Board for "returning MIN 21-25111 Sc-20R4 31-211/F11 Min their street to it 's former neighborhood VEHICLE SPEEDS (FROM-TO) feeling” . We have experienced no MEWS 1-10 © AF7EA lL1f1 1-10 p lo-f0 11-72 adverse affects with regard to accidents Table 2 or residents complaints. Many cities in our area are preparing programs for test Imp sites in their jurisdictions. Local law _ "0'!!'a_,.;;-, 7K,a enforcement supports this program as it UM rr•r"-\�\� ` --------- • ----- .11,41.7•14/3,.. - frees much of their time for duties .-_- Ia'' ,`\`�\ AG'.' elsewhere. Based on these results I 2203 `�j \\ a��:u-::».` \ anticipate an expansion of their use '^ UM 1. ,, ,'� \��\ �`� "�, • , yon-goingsafety W ='-°'�` \\ '` `e�"�'N County-wide to address on- min J .\ ��- \ concerns in our neighborhoods. u 1/0D • —-.-,-L ��\`� • -:- : -c.V-'; ___ __ • � _ \ \ = 1030 _ : \\�\�\: •.;p1! '�, --- 1103 -.�..' � -- kNs�\ '-. ..-?,-, \ --- N. C 1203 ... _. +�'c . \N�` _..4--.,,e,:- -- L. t Y \\\\� T✓y'1.�\ S •ico :.l'��•��. ac,alp-•-?::3 \ Im -.A. 1 ' `: ‘. Vii:;: -: 0 21 11111 1&4•11Y nut U tun 111,1 1.10 11 AMA MI HO 1j 10-10 E 11.10 I . Design Data rb y r-- 3" i ( i 3 4 s X-1 - 4b2 + c1 r- - - - 72.125 0.25 - 72.125 +/72.1252- 12 8b = -71.875 + 72.12 b= height = (0.2.5') Y= 0.243' = 2.92" c= cord distance = (12') X=2 -71.875 + 72.10 Y- b r + Vr2- x1 Y= 0.222' = 2.67" X-3 x(ft) y(ft) = Inches 71.875 + 72.104 0 0.25 Y= 0.188' = 2.25" 3.0 1 0.243 - 2.92 2 X-4 -71.875 t 72.0139 0.222 = 2.67 3 0.188 = 2.25 Y= 0.139' = 1.67" 4 0.139 = 1.67 X=5 _ 0 5 0.077 = 0. 2 71.875 + 71.95 Y= 0.0765' = 0.92" 6 = 0 112" Taper tlll -- 4. 6, 10 6' h-'11111M11"- - i(II- Curb Treatment Ilump (profile 4 Q Q c co I ~7 —0 U i Z N v co m c u ..� t u I 6 r N N IO N N UC c O.0 W N n Of N -K w _ CONN tV.aOO r! a`m 7INNNWVOO U0 000J >1°00- I i � ItO ' U � ` �. - > xO_N0Qtom, a ` ,,,,, \ _ 4 I I 7 to 1.1.J /I J O / ' ! I u_ CC i I i I o = J co I0.— / Z O ` Q 0 els Z t II Z W '0i ill i co 0a o ' N F cc 9 O IL j \J _..]Z (ni � ; M ----- o = I CO , N 1 o f 1 1 1 1 11111 bl I I I Q ' I 417 I' ' l 'j I LO 0 r— +, I IIJyWLI ! ii\ Z t--,="4 w ml F , I I 03 il ii a li! =I • June 6, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Wilson, Acting Public Works Director FROM: David Nicodemus, Traffic Operations Engineer THRU: Steven L. Decker, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Criteria for Speed Hump Installation d hump The following criteriahecurrently research usedin 1 othere agency request review. They are based criteria and our experience in application. SPEEDS: Speed limit posting of 30 mph or less ( 25 mph preferred) . A speed study indicates a significant percentage of vehicle exceeding the posted speed or smaller percentage traveling in greater excess of the posting ( ie: 40% @ 15 mph over or 10% @ 25 mph over) . VOLUMES : Other agencies using the "Watts Profile" have established criteria calling for minimum volume of 800 ADT. Volumes below this should have closer review. Consideration is given to volumes above the number expected on a road ( using ten trips per day per home) . This and geometry might suggest a "cut-through" problem. Excessive volumes above this projected number do not necessarily suggest a • need for speed humps. GEOMETRY : it should be of a residential nature with homes fronting and driveways accessing the roadway in review. Local collectors and streets connecting major roadways are subject to excessive volumes and speeds due to "non- local" traffic . Pavement widths of should roadwayearebetween prefeereda 40 feet . Straight sections Vertical and horizonal curves should be avoided. Installation may be considered in horizonal curves of greater than 300 feet radius . Sight distance should be considered on vertical curves. A spacing of 300 to 400 feet should be maintained. A separation of 100 feet should be maintainedrs rom reasedn if intersectionsand of curves . thee roadway distance may be ( hills , curves ) tend to effect speeds between installations. PETITION: We are requiring a petition of homeowners prior to review and design. This should include a significant percentage of homeowners front tEsElLiaa the subject roadway voting in favor of installation . These criteria are intend as guidelines to be considered together and are not be considered d rigid formula for review. What should ul be of foremost consideration todetermineifa ani problem exists that can be improved through a speedhump installation. DN:rh ( crithump) We , the undersigned residents of , in an effort to address speeding problems in our area , do hereby petition the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners to approve the installation of speed humps in our neighborhood . This would consist of the following locations : Name Address Phone FOR / AGAINST LIVE OAK BOULEVARD 2000. SPEED STUDY SUMMARY 1643 1600 ::. ,N 3 liiJ = • U 1200. \\\\ Poll „\�\ " \`` 955 800 II . 508 \ \w %` : 509 so\ '400. ..40 .. \\NH :. "s �i�\�\\7 ':/i%i r{y\\\�\ 1. /.%ly�i / iii \\\. //Y//i // / ..:4-.=;."/S, \\. ;\ --> //hili% %\ \\� %. 139 /.� \\\,� � �` ; ` 102 0-25 MPH 26-30 MPH 31-35 MPH 36+ MPH MILES PER HOUR E BEFORE SPEED HUMPS E AFTER SPEED HUMPS 1 OF tiEHICLES VEEi:LE SPEEDS EEi::.E AFTER C-25 MPH 251 711 26-30 MPH 471 221 !-.35 MPH 231 61 36i MPH 51 11 AVER;.GE DA:LY TAFF;C EEF RE: 2032 AFTET: 2314 STUDIES OPERATiO!; BEFORE DATA: MAY 'ei AFTER DATA: EG LASTBROOK BOULEVARD 2000 SPEED STUDY SUP111iY 1100. -" °° 1600 , . V h 1400. k=\..». ;i .N..;�...-ce -77„ v 1200. L1Ii % _. 1I0L4I 1000' Wss. \: ••` ��.V 800' =\...» \~=:< �.:- O 600Okitix......."x :::::� ::\ 400' ..m. " %�- .. �: :� =_,-. m N Ln :._-.-- »». '-Io '.�. 11* '~t:\ III er of 0-20 !PN 21-25 UPN 26-30 MPH 31-35 In 364 PPH VEHICLE SPEEDS (FROM-TO) E BERME IMPS 1-90 ® AFTER WI 9-90 ® 10-90 ® 11-90 % OF VEHICLES VEHICLE SPEEDS BEFORE AFTEE OCT 90 NOV 90 0-20 MPH 31 14% 111 . 161 21-25 MPH 191 471 471 451 26-30 MPH 44% 32% 35% 321 31-35 MPH 26% 61 6% 61 36+ MPH 8% 11 1% 1% AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC BEFORE: 3849 AFTER: 3766 OCT 90: 3407 10V 90: 3559 STUDIES OPERATION BEFORE: JAN 90 AFTER: SEP 90 OCT 90 00V 90 DERBYSHIRE ROAD SPED STUDIES AFTER SPEED ISS 35001 3278 3000' co 2500. • :. W V 2o30-/ 1943 1908 iiio s• ...:::: _ %!' .off Ili - 1500 _- 't: G 1000 LL <.`t. -39::•;—'; 603N �� IN � , 653 500 . • . 1=,\ ::.�• : � 8 r 04 ., 240 y's 298 0-25 MPH 26-30 MPH 31-35 MPH 36-40 IPH 41+ MPH UEHICLE SPEEDS ( FROM—TO) p BEFORE SPEED HUMPS g AFTER SPEED HUMPS . % OF VEHICLES VEHICLE SPEEDS BEFORE AFTER 0-25 MPH 11% 67% 26-30 MPH 36% 28% 31-35 MPH 35% 4.3% 36-40 MPH 12% 0.6% ' 41+ MPH 6% 0.1% AVERAGE SPEED BEFORE: 31 MPH AFTER: 24 MPH 85th% TILE SPEED BEFORE: 37 MPH AFTER: 29 MPH AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC BEFORE: 5,405 AFTER: 4,912 STUDIES OPERATION BEFORE DATA: SEPT. 91 AFTER DATA: NOV. 91 SECOND STREET SPEED STUDY SUMMARY 1300-(-1 1201 4 r)rv-i i--1 _ 11 00I + I i:.•:::H: ;!.;:i 10004 i :: 4.1 aso cn 1 ..... LU 9004 1:::i • : :: 1‘0:77:771-p—, , •. :•::::::. 1 L) 800-ri . :::• :: ::.. i. .1 :..:.-. ta2 1 7004'.! I.:•': •••'::§.?.:: 7 ,t.::: al 4---i ,„. I r :• :•..-:•.• OL4 . :; - > 600 ,.. ........1-,:+1 •- •• ••:.::.il . .::::,- ...,....... .,. . : . g...-:- • '...4b' -7 I 466 LL 500-1,1 • • :: :••.•:*•4 1 •:i,. 0 — . .. . .,.. . ;.:..:: i •:;;:::ii;:i. : ........ ... , . . . .. , . . . . . ....... .:::: :•••••:.• p.j.1 .::j 1 :p.: ..,.. 4t r:•:. 300-i'i 1 F. • •- ••••:. . :::: :::-: :•:•::.-:•: .z ; ::!; 1 .„, •-::::: ..... 200-H 1 I •:.:; ; :. •:::;•,:'.::',:.: ••• •:•-•.• !*-.: -,...ti.s. ,-, :..::::::s: .i:F. •-liq-1e 1 100-i i ::•:- :: :::::p"7-1 -:::::•:i.:i::i•. 1.-F,i-e-,..-i . 1 1,-b- .).- 0-25 MPH . 26-30 MPH 31-35 MPH 36+ MPH VEHICLE SPEEDS (FROM-TO) 1AUG 1991 1:::. ::: :J JAN 1992 I VEHICLE SPEEDS % OF VEHICLES (Fran-To) BEFORE AFTER 0-25 MPH 21% 68% 26-30 MFH 35% 26% 31-35 MFH 25% 5% 36+ Mal 19% 1% AVERAGE SPEED 31 t-IPH 24MPH DAILY VOLLME 2,502 1,776 Lake Howell Road Speed Study Summary 10000 9104 7500- C/7 5631 5000-- • ".(5 000- (_, 337 2852 2500- . 310 5'11 046 0-25 MPH 26-30 MPH 31-35 MPH 36+ MPH Vehicle Speeds (From-to) 71 Before Speed Humps I I After Speed Humps Vehicle Before Humps After Humps Speeds 0-25 MPH 3737 f_9 . 5% 9iO4 60* 26-30 MPH 5631 44% 1866 16. 5X 31-35 MPH 2852 22 . Ei 310 3;E 36+ MPH 511 4/ 46 . 5X Average Speed : 27 . 4 MPH 21 . 6 MPH 85th%-tile : 32 . 7 MPH 26 . 6 MPH Daily Volume : 12 , 731 11. 326 Lake Howell Road posted speed limit 25 MPH . - 13tW ' • `� is i ---- LI \ E \ PI 14+70 16+00 �' 1 , L' . , . ,., ,.... 1JAPQ7cA c ,9�� SLSSEX �< .19+44 - �o .8,X557 3 , __,..... ,. . ._ • . . • /, ,,P,,73,`,0 W a \ 0 23+10 I— HA \ RCN CI - G • . _ r 'sx>o STA 26 BEFORE / A \ D AVG. SPD. 27.7 213 �25+55 85714 SPD. 31.8 25.5 'N. VOLUME 6608--"5825 N STA 25 BEFORE / AFTER - AVG. SPD. 21.9 \ 20.7 28+95 , 85TH SPD. 27.6 X25.4 VOLUME 5903 5475 --- N 13 _16 '� �. BEFORE / AFTER \� \ 34+80 • I AVG SPD. 26.8 17.9 STA 85Th SPD. 33.1 23.9 16 1 VOLUME 6169 5355 \ f• BEFORE / AFTER �' STA ; AVG SPD. 29 3 20.1 \ ' \ -" 85Th SPD. 34.3 24.9 37+85 C VOLUME 6267 5122 • ,� '9'go- 41+50 ' STA 14 BEFORE / AFTER PI 45+10 r, ',. ..-` % AVG. SPD. 29.6 25.1 8VOLUME5TH SPD. 35. 63609 30547.1 0 � : 45+80 i . 1 STA 15 t4----•-: 15 -- � L L. i'‘,1, Bj BEFORE / AFTER L_ L_ AVG. SPD. 29.1 24.6 85Th SPD. 34.6 29.6 :49+35 \ VOLUME 6542 6269 r - 1 . L. j_$- I L ) -,--4 iii-iD PI 50+40:- . 7 I j LOUNTY LINE 54+65 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Decker, Traffic Engineer FROM: Daniel F. Mantzaris, Assistant County At t.koy _ Ext. 254 z� DATE: June 2 , 1987 SUBJ: Road Bumps on County Roads In response to your request for input on the liability issues involved with placing road bumps on County roads , I have researched the current law. It is well-settled that a county will not be held liable for injuries resulting from actions that amount to a planning or a discretionary governmental decision to act . However, if the County acts and then fails to do so reasonably and responsibly and in accordance with acceptable standards of care and common sense, it can be held liable for any action . Therefore , the determination of liability for the placement of road bumps is two-fold. First, whether the action is discretionary; and second, whether the action is reasonable and responsible . While the placement of the bumps is clearly discre- tionary, whether they are a reasonable and responsible action is not determinable at this point in that there is not any case law in Florida regarding this matter . Therefore, .it can only be speculated as to the analysis of road bump ;use . Whenever something is placed in a road it carries with it .the potential to result in an accident or some other type of injury. Whether this injury is caused by the placement of the item and whether the placement was unreasonable become issues for a court to decide. It is suggested that additional information be soli- cited from the City of Tampa . Specifically, the total number of claims made against the City and arising out of the use of road bumps . . In addition , research into other types of road bump designs for testing and consideration should be done, if not done so already. With this information Public Works can present to the Board of County Commissioners a fully investigated solution to the speeding problem and allow the Board to make an informed decision as to the necessity and reasonableness of the placing of road bumps . • DFM/lf ' t Q MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Decker, Traffic Engineer FROM: Lonnie N. Groot, Assistant County Attorney, Ext. 7254 6- DATE: May 8 , 1992 RE: Road Humps We are in receipt of your memorandum of May 4 , 1992 relating to "road humps". Our research has uncovered only the attached Opinion of the Attorney General relating to the statutory provisions about which you have inquired. Based upon our view of the law and the attached Attorney General Opinion this office cannot say that the installation of speed humps or bumps would constitute an unreason- able obstruction to the reasonable use of local neighborhood roads or would substantially interfere with the intended design or normal usage of such roads. We base our opinion on the fact that the use of speed humps or bumps have only been installed on low speed local roads and that sound engineering practices have been observed in the placement of such devices with due regard to public safety and welfare notwithstanding the fact that such devices are not used as traffic control devices. Please let us know if we can be of assistance to you in any way. LNG/gg Attachment Attorney General Opinion 84-46 cc: David Nicodemus, Traffic Operations Engineer 84-45 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL However, the Legislature did not limit the word gas to only hydrocarbons. It specifically stated that the word gas means all natural gas including casinghead gas and all other hydrocarbons not defined as oil. The word"includes" is usually a term of enlargement not of limitation and therefore conveys the conclusion that there are other items includable, though not specifically enumerated by the statutes. Argosy Limited v Hennigan, 404 F.2d 14 (5th Cir. 1968); see also 42 C.J.S. Include at p. 525: Id, Including at 526. The word "all" being used as an adjective to modify the noun "natural gas" means the whole amount or quantity of. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 29 (Rev. ed. 1976). If the definition of .'natural gas"was not all inclusive,i e. including hydrocarbons and non•hydroearboas or a mixture thereof.the statute would have been limited or have referred only to ill hydrocarbons not defined as oil. Such an interpretation is consistent with the scientific and technical meaning of"natural gas." which is defined in McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1065(3rd ed. 1984),as: A combustible• gaseous mixture of low molecule-weight, paraffin hydrocarbons, generated below the surface of the earth:contains mostly methane and ethane with small amounts of propane, butane and hydrocarbons, and sometimes nitrogen,carbon dioxide,hydrogen sulfide and helium. Likewise such a statutory interpretauon is consistent with various court decisions involving the same or similar definitional problems with oil and gas leases.See. eg.. Lone Star Gas Company v. Stine. 41 S.W. 2d 48 (Tex. 1931): Scott Paper Company v. Tasiog,Inc.,638 F.2d 790(5th Cir.Ct. of App., 1981);Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States. 364 F.2d 320(U.S. Ct. of CL. 1966); Northern Natural Gas Company v. Grounds.441 F.2d 704(10th Cir. Ct.of App., 1971). The inescapable conclusion is that the legislative intent was to impose an excise tax on the production or severance of gas consisting of all of the constituent elements or mixtures of hydrocarbons and non hydrocarbons of the gas stream produced, and not merely the hydrocarbon elements thereof. AGO 84-46—May 3. 1984 SPECIAL, DISTRICTS ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC LAWS ON DISTRICT ROADS To: Charles hi. Harris. Attorney for the Titusoille-Cocoa Airport Authority Prepared by: Joslyn Wilson.Assistant Attorney General QUESTION: May the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority attempt to reduce the speed of vehicles traveling along an access road owned and maintained by the airport authority through the use of speed bumps? SUMMARY: If the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle on the access road owned and maintained by the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority and located entirely within its territorial limits,then it is the county commission which may regulate traffic on such access road and the sheriff's department which must enforce the traffic laws on such road, not the airport authority. As to whether the construction of speed bumps on this road constitutes an unlawful 112 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 84-46 obstruction of such road in violanon of ss. 316.2035 and 316.2045. however,in the absence of any judicial precedent on these statutes or any specific legislative definition or direction. I cannot state that such speed bumps constitute an unreasonable obstruction to or substantially interfere with the intended.designed or reasonable use of this road. Pursuant to s. 316.00&1Xv). F.S.. the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County is authorized to exercise traffic control jurisdiction over and to regulate, restrict or prohibit traffic within the airport property or on an access road owned and maintained by a special airport district and located within its boundaries. The Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority was created as a special taxing district located in Brevard County See cn. 63.1143. Laws of Florida. as amended by chs. 67-1151. 69.863. 70.600. 72472. 50457. 81.348 and 62.267. Laws of Florida. According to your letter the authority owns and operates an airport in Merritt Island. An access road. which you state is not a county road but is owned and maintained by the Authority.provides access into the airport from two directions. Because of repeated incidents of night-time drag racing along this access road and the property damage which has been caused. the authority has installed speed bumps for the purpose of reducing the speed of vehicles traveling along the road. .A question. however. has been raised as to whether the authonry's action constitutes an snlawi'ul obstruction of the road under s. 316.2045. F.S.. and you therefore inquire as to whether the airport authority may attempt to exercise traffic control jurisdiction over this road and reduce the speed along the access road by the use of speed bumps. As you state that the access road is not a county road.it is assumed for purposes of this inquiry that the road in question has not been formally accepted by the county commission or duly established as a county road or properly made part of the counts. road system.See generally s. 334.0323).F.S..defining the county road system The Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law,ch.316.F.S..however,does not limit its application or enforcement to roads in the county which are county maintained but rather applies anywhere throughout the county where the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle.See s. 316.072(11. F.S..providing that ch. 316 shall apply"upon all state-maintained highways.county-maintained highways. and municipal streets and alleys and wherever vehicles have the right to travel." • Emphasis supplied.iAnd sees 316.003(541.F S.,defining"street or highway"for pia-poses of ch. 316 as 'Itlhe entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the ;,uoiic for purposes of vehicular traffic or any area. such as a runway. taxiway, ramp.clear zone. or parking lot. within the boundary of any airport owned by the state. a county. a municipality. or a political suodivision. which area is used for vehicular traffic but which is not open for venicular operation by the general puanc. ' See also s. 1.0119i. F S .defining-political subdivision" and other terms. Cf s 316.003(34i. F.S.. defining private roads or driveways as privately owned places or ways used for vehicular traffic by persons having the express or implied permission of the owner but not by otner persons A determination as to the precise nature and extent of the use of the affected property and whether the public has acouired a right to travel thereon presents a mixed question of law and fact which this office cannot resolve If. however. the puoiic has the rignl to travel on the access road. then the provisions of ch.316 are aopiicable to and may be enforced on such a road Pursuant to s 316 006. F.S.. ;urisaiction to control traffic is vested only in the state'through the Department of Transportation'.chartered municipalities and the counties .4 nd see s. 316.640 w nisi vests the enforcement of the traffic laws of this state only in the state and its agencies. the counties and charter municipalities. specifically s 316.640(2) which requires the sheriff's office to enforce the traffic laws on all streets and 113 64-46 A.`N1jAL REPORT OF THE .ATTORNEY GENERAL highways and eiseu here throughout the counts wnerever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle. Moreover, s 316.008 authorizes or ly vocal authonnes.'• defined in s. 316.003,20' as including officers and pubic officials only of the several counties and municipalities. to exercise the police power to regulate traffic by means of. ante- atic. police officers or official traffic control devices, restricting the use of streets ane by altering or establishing speed limits vnthin the provisions of ch 316 See s. 316.008iIXbt,tgi and J).F.S.. respectively And see s. 316.008.1 lv which authorizes.'local authorities- to regulate. restrict or prohibit •traffic within the boundary of any airport owned by the state.a mount•,a municipality, or a political subdivision and to enforce violations under the provisions of chs.316 and 318 A special district. however. has not been granted :ne authority or jurisdiction to control travel under ch. 316 or to enforce :he traffic laws of this state Cf. AGO 81.18 wherein this office stated that an aereement between a county and an independent water control district to provide traffic control functions on public roads currently tra:ntained by the district w•as unnecessary and inappropriate and would have no legal efffcary since ch. 316 vest no traffic control authority in such districts. Accordingly.I am of the opinion that the airport authonry does not possess the authority to exercise traffic control lursdict:or. pursuant to eh. 316 over the access road. The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, however.pursuant to s. 316.00&1lvi, F.S..is authorized to exercise traffic control lurtsdiction over and to regulate. restrict or prohibit traffic within the airport property or on the access road within the boundanes of the district airport.See s. 1 01i9 . F S.. defining "political subdivision" to include "ail other distncu." As to whether the construction of the speed bumps violates s. 316.2045, the statute provides in part' it is unlawful for any person or persons willfully to obs:;,ict the free. convenient. and normal use of any pubiic street. highway. or road, by impeding,hindering, stifling•retarding, or restraining traffic or passage thereon. or Dv endangering the safe movement of vehicles or pedestnaas traveling thereon: and any person or persons violating the provisions of this chapter. upon conviction shall be punished as se:forth in s.316.655. See cisc s. 316.2035131. F.S., which makes it unlawful to obstruct. dig up or in arty way disturb any street or hignway. I am not aware of any judicial decision under the foregoing statutes sor under ss 316.104 and 316 105.F.S. 1975 as these statutes were formerly numoereas interpreting what constitutes an obstruction of the free. convenient ana normal use of a roan. In, the absence of such a judicial determination or any specific legislative direction as to w fat is included within the terms of ss 316.2045 anc 316 2035. this office cannot say that the installation of speea bumps on the access roan constitutes an unreasonaole obstruction to the reasonable use of this roan or substantially interferes wit!: its ir,tenoed.designed or norma! use AGO 84-47—May 8. 1984 CIRCLTT COURT CLERKS RECORDATION OF DOCUMENTS OR RECORDS MADE OR ENTERED IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS .AND PROCEEDINGS To Robert E Lockwood Cerit of Courts. 17th Judicial Circust Prepared by Craig Willis Assistant Attorney General QUESTION! Ls the clerk of the circuit court required to record documents or records made or entered in criminal actions and proceedings? 114 MEMORANDUM or Qe� Q4l,ir14,. ^Si s �; 6EMiNOLE ;y? TO: David Nicodemus, Traffic Operations Engineer couNTr ' ; ilOR10A �� FROM: G. E. Kaiser, Director of Public Safe (= SUBJ: Effect of Speed Humps on Emergency Response DATE: December 3, 1991 • DEC 041991 ZZA 1 am writing in response to your request for a confirmation on the Public Safety perspective of the Seminole Profile Speed Humps. Due to the fact that our equipment was involved in the testing, they are easily traversed by the largest of our vehicles. With regard to impairment of response time, our vehicles are able to cross these installations at approximately the speed posted in residential areas. Because of limited sight distance and other considerations, it is our policy not to exceed these speeds, regardless of the presence or absence of speed humps. Therefore, the effect on our response time is negligible. I am aware of the increasing problems faced by the residents of these neighborhoods. We support the use of the Seminole Profile Speed Humps on residential streets in those indicated areas of Seminole County where the need to effectively reduce and control excessive speed is of paramount importance to public safety. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at extension 5000. Sheriff Donald F. Eslinger Member, Florida Sheriff's Association Seminole County July 2 , 1992 David A. Nicodemus Traffic Operations Engineer Seminole County Traffic Engineering Division 280 Bush Blvd. Sanford, Florida 32773 Re: Seminole Profile Speed Humps Dear Mr. Nicodemus : I am writing to convey the views of the Sheriff ' s Office with respect to the speed hump program which you are advocating. After conferring with the Traffic Unit and Patrol Division within my Office, it is the consensus that speed humps do not adversely affect patrol response time or routine patrol . In addition, the utilization of speed humps in certain residential areas throughout the county has reduced the necessity of speed enforcement, on those streets equipped with them. This allows us to focus our traffic enforcement resources to other areas of the county. In short, the Sheriff ' s Office supports the implementation of speed humps in those areas of the county which confront excessive speed on a routine basis , as well as those areas that the citizen ' s call for such action. Should you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. S e e ' $ . j � i16, A Sheriff Donald F. slinger DFE/sc 1345 28th. Street, Sanford, Florida 32773-9399 Office: (407) 330-6650 / Corrections: (407) 323-6512 / Orlando Exchange: (407) 831-3316 71 IL MIAs TRANSrORTATtON MOMTTOR.OCTOBER 25,3901 -a.e.e Seminole CountyDesigns g Successful Roadway Hump Achieves Signiflcant Speed Reductions Above '0 mph Dissatisfied with the pc•rforrn:,ncc of ex- arc found less desirable as they only per- fisting roadway humps, Seminole: Colin- mit comfortable passage at speeds of up hi her spe uncomfortable consists at ts. FL set out to come up with an im- to Ill mph C f higher speeds. This design ennsisls of a proved FLtoutdesign. Their rew design w�, Some variations to this design segment of a circle with an approximate have rais.:d the 'discomfort range- to radius of 72 ft. followed by a 3 in.high,10 recently tested and WAN found to pc,. about 20 mph, but they were found to be lorm in a significantly superior w ac con- c:omfortal lc at speeds of above 30 mph. ft• long raiser.1 section with the same arc pared to existingdesigns. According t_� p on the dr,w�n_tr�;,m end. (` To imp rove on this,Seminole County Testing of this design in Seminole Mr. David Nicodemuc, traffic (Iv,a- field tested various designs. They dis- County on a 1.3-,pile long section with a lions engineer of Seminole Count .most covered a design profile which provides 25 mph posted speed was recently com- sxisting hump design,art- 12 it. hung and ei reasona,,ly smooth passage at speeds Meted.Nine humps were Installed at 350 about 3 to 4 inches high. These d;s.igr;s of 25 mph or less and results in an in• to 45(1 ft. spacines. Pavement markings were added to support thc hump. They consisted of 12 in. white bands perpen- dicularCost to Public Transportation To Implement upstream to thc roadway. amThandy shorlc- up•trcam than downstream and the spac- ing betw_en the bands decreases as they Disability Act Estimated at $1.4 Billion/yr approach the hump This creates an Theop- American Public Transit Ac,c,C;a. tical illusion of increasing speed as a n (APTA) bas indicated that itsss cult Cost Estimate To Implement the motorist travels mei.them. utimate ofS1.4 billion per year to implc• Ad.1 whcc.cha,r lilts to The test proved to be a major success. merit the American With Disabilities 8,250 now buses and Approximately- 9 months octet instaltr• Act (ADA) has hoer, confirmed. Last ',100older husu S170million tion of the humus, speed measurements Y.ar!stat�c� indicated that the percentage of speeds month the U.S. Department or Transportation issued a final rule on the rehab,l,tat.on above 30 mph reduced from 34.5%to 8%. 5290 minion after installation of the humps. implementation of thc ADA. A.s the Additions-operating posts 538 million of the rules are broad,APTA feels The following criteria arc being uccd that its cost estimate. made earlier this Supplementary by Seminole County for speed hump re- year,is correct. paratransi (as quest review: A breakdown of the S1.4 billion by estimated by the Sg23 million • Spred limit posting of 30 mph or less: cost category is shown in the Table. IJSDOT) • Speed study indicatinu a significant Total per:star 31,421 billion percentage of vehicles exceeding the posted speed or a smaller percentage traveling in greater excess of the post- log;• log: • • Volumes exceeding the expected s.`-7- %. •• number of vehicles on a road. The 't "• expected" volume is obtained by ap 1• _�.. �•• , ;: 't`' plying a trip generation factor of ten >tllf �. t , *- I_ ,n trips per day, per home; y �� _ L -- • Road should bc• of a residential na- ` titre; � _; . ,� • Pavement widths should be between _:, �r 16 and 40 ft.; R� i r IP: • Verticai and horizontal curves should �"J f, i. _ • "��; _ , i (,e avoided. ((nstallation may be con- sidrrcJ in hurrn,nt a1 curves of greater .11".:e. a ;r:;, _r ;4 •r than 300 ft.radius.) f r_. �?_' 3±a' ,q r`.': - • A spacing of :silt) to 4(l() ft. should be rr c maintained between humps; • A separation of 1(X1 ft.should be main• Mokr„g trawl(oeces.+,l+tc according to the ADA is cm-Pealed to cost 51.i billion. twined from intersections and curves. I HI uxt►AN't]t.AA SPORrA71oN MONMJR,N0OdM'al 11.411 J)1 Amit-...==ULIP..—e.. e�answr.r——� ..- .:...,e Telecommuting Receive Attention From Legislators Briefing Held for Congressional Members and Their Staffs Telecommuting Study Included in 1992 Transportation Appropriations Bill Offering telecommuting a5 n simple Est mates put the number of Jim Pinkerton, deputy assistant to the solution to many of torl.+r's challenging Amerit ans operating buaincases out of president for Pulse) Planning; policy questions,Senator Conrad Burns their homes at 11.8 million. Another 22 Paul and Sara Edwards, authors of (R-MT) and Congressman Frank Wolf million work at home regularly or nc- 'Working from Hnme% (R-VA) recently hosted a briefing for casion. Ily,connected with their main of- David Flemming, director of Congressional Members and their staffs fisc b.' telephone lines, computers, California's Telecommuting Project: to demonstrate no% tt It:commuting can modems, and facsimile machines. Gil Gordon,telecommuting consultant; 'solve many of today's difficult Pan lists participating in the briefing Tom Miller,director of the Work from problems." include d: Home Studs at LINK Resources; Jack Nilles, JALA Associates; and Elham Shiraz'', chair of the Tclecom- New Road Hump Design Shinws Continued muting Advisory Council. Success in Reduein S eedS Senator Burns cucccssfully amended g P I the 1992 Transportation Appropria- tions Bill to include a telecommuting An additional application of the ne..• peels there will bcasignificant increase study that requires the Departments of road hump desicn developed by Semi- in the :,pplications of their design in the Transportation and Energy to conduct a note County, FL (see of 77re Crean future. Mr.Nicodemus added that they Transpenatiun Monitor, Vol. 5, No. 20) have rt.centlyovercome shortcomings in study of the potential coats and benefits of telecommuting to transportation and has proved to be just as successful in the installation process toward getting energy sectors in the U.S. reducing speeds above 34 mph as the the de,ired shape of the hump. (The 1992 Appropriations Bill was prototype application was. The new design consists of a segment signed by President Bush last week.) David Nicodemus, traffic operations of a circle with an approximate radius of The telecommuting study includes: engineer of Seminole County, said that 72 ft. (allowed by a T high, 10 ft. long • an estimation of the amount and type the road humps are proving to be very raised section with the same arc on the of reduction of commuting by form of popular with residents" in neighbor- dowrsiream end. 0 transportation type and numbers of hoods where they are applied. He cx- commuters; • an estimation of the potential number I-# _ of lives saved; -; s • an estimation of the reduction in cn• vit."ais ~ _ ,Y k � vironmcntal pollution, in consult- ��0r •• ation with I he Environmental Protec- s�,� tI �?►i's" '►+,�.: Y •.:: k �` s-_---.-_*,.; .,f ! tion Agency; and ' • an estimation of the amount and type - t' . / - •• e �' . -1.,.... j of rs.ductron of. iergy use and sarint:s .� + 11 •7' --Y i by form of tran.tport.rtion type. .P-.b.:. �itr.� In June. Sen.rtor Burns introduced the •x - t v .r._ .' Communrcat:r,n> Competitiveness and -.4116::• •-. 7 Infra;tructurc Modernization Act of . iMikk t = . 1991 which mandates that the U.S. es- i411161.!.A ., tahli.h an interactive broadband fiber t . optic network by the year 2015. This technology makes it possible to corn- _________ orn- _-____.,___..__., r Jamm� iI municatc both visually and verbally. U Seminole County's new road humps an,'pavement markings. 7 October 1991 2220 Derbyshire Rd. Maitland, FL 32751 County Commissioners ATTN: Larry Furlong 1101 E. First St. Sanford, FL 32771 Dear Larry, The "bums" recently, installed on Derbyshire Rd. , have been very effective. Not only do I notice that traffic has slowed, the motorcycle does not fly down the road at 80 mph at 10 every evening, but the amount of traffic seems to have diminished also. No more dirty looks, no morel/peace signs, and no more yelling. I have never seen anything, used in any endeavor, more effective than the "bumps". I tnanx you and my neighbors than you. I oo hope tnere are plans for "bumps" at least on Winston also. I usually walk the neighborhood 3 or 4 times a week and I have noticed sane "bumps" avoiders using side streets and Winston. rer� �/ me Mc nough " / if m^-� r, OCTOCT 101991 EASTBROOK PROPERTY VALUES ON THE RISE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * By Rob and Lanise Dee Rob and Lanise Dee are full-time real While some neighborhoods have been estate professionals, affiliated with affected by recent economic slow-downs, Century 21 Carthen Realty in Winter Park, Eastbrook remains one of the few ' and have been Eastbrook residents since communities where property values have 1988. steadily increased and buyer interest continues to be positive. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * In fact, during the past twelve months, 21 HEAR YE, HEAR Y E ! ! homes have sold in Eastbrook alone. The average sales price for homes in Seminole County Eastbrook was $79,708, compared to Barbara Kuhn, Seminole County School Board the previous year when the average sales Member, is holding a "SPEAK OUT" price was $75,882 (per the Multiple " Listing Service) . * An opportunity to have your say about Seminole County Schools Apparently, there have been a few questions from Eastbrook residents in * An opportunity to ask questions Seminole County concerned about how the of a school board member. speed bumps have affected property values and overall buyer appeal . WHERE AND WHEN? Since the speed bumps were installed in Seminole County Public Library August of 1990, we have experienced a 5 215 North Oxford Road percent increase in property values just Casselberry, Florida in the Seminole County side of Eastbrook. ( 1st Floor, Meeting Room) •(Sellers in Orange County Eastbrook are also seeing a positive appreciation, Monday, November 25, 1991 , 7:30 p.m. however, not as dramatic as Seminole County. ) The average for most subdivisions FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL: is 2-3 percent. Barbara Kuhn (407) 695-7597 Since our office is located right on Aloma Avenue, we receive hundreds of inquiries each month from buyers looking to move into this area. Thus far, there have been no negative comments from buyers about theme ASSOCIATION, INC. speed bumps. The only comment was a EXFX.IJTIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS positive one -- "We're glad to see that safety for children is something of a OFFICERS concern here. " From a professional standpoint, we believe the speed bumps HIKE BUECHIN 671-6607 KAY HILLER 671-5567 have counteracted negative comments we did President Recording Secretary receive from buyers interested in property along Eastbrook Boulevard. PHIL COMMODARIO 671-4029 GERI BUECHIN 671-4607 Vice President Treasurer As Eastbrook residents ourselves, we're very concerned about how buyers react to DIRECTORS our neighborhood. The majority of these buyers are fami lies whose primary concerns DAVE PECKER 678-7083 FRANK CRAIG 671-7346 include: homes priced in the $70,000- HAROLD KING 671-3898 LYNDA HOLCOMB 678-5587 $85,000 range, an established family LARRY ROY 657-8471 ARTHUR HART 678-9785 community, above average schools, and a STEVE BAUSS 671-3354 NORMA BEGAN 677-5788 good geographic location. Eastbrook is COOKIE BORRAS-ROSELLO 671-3011 ideal for many of the buyers with whom we work . . . _ • . ...,- . L. -g 1 11 • --- ,, .. . .,,, Nt.. L. •. ‘,..__.., . ...., .. :, v. ... •:. . . •.... - .-„,...,.. . ,--.,-.. N 111 1 fpj - •-- J I•''. I .4 :,4 .t it • _ '1 . 1• • `• 4� -y ▪ `7 _ .� ` 311) , -.7-4_ E 1 •.... - % yC r -^ - 1 .i... ^ NY -i7Yv :•-= ' - �. ..;./77.:,03.;.,-;�7 � 3 C Y ^ Y v V J ' - '� , -` Jam,' '' Y J .4 Y 1 i. ' i • ::e j7•+� < R a ' ; ^i L y ��- a 3 ;5 7..- 3 c o c _ a= i = 2 dX �t - J A l - - • J - #. _-_-= :air IP 4, i .; 4. im. - -7:,,r,-414- '&14 . - .- tr.,. ..-— ••• 2 , A - S' , Z7 ,- ?",.2 ;;•.. S)76 k"..:..0..../1.ie g g ,..-, 3 ,., E. .f. c.., F. g •.' '0,7*ti i•y _"�)r4,-,-Y .{ 74', y 7 - j--...c °7 y � 0 j =- 3 B Y 1 t C E iaZ '" ? ' - - J - _am G.� • Y ^ : x n >• Y 3 C O n E 7 .7 j _ _ _i ee 1) 4-.J. . ,....-- 4, m ill I i` -.....44'T.�; '- Q _�? f - a c ' i Y 3 3 L. I11 ; t 3 F,:1,4; X G ^ -7 J- 7,> > = n •^ i t- - ^ 3 7 r - - - X =•. l_ a _ r _ _^ i C 7 _-▪ 7 - _ - ICS7 cam_ E� 1-7 - _- = z_ > > > - z 11_ _ 7 _ _ •' " _-' III: 7 j.7Y 0= , JL 70 , = C ?7 - i S= S 7 - n 'l 77 _ 2 I-,-. . 74 �_▪2 0 7 _ - ? -▪ 7 r _ _ 3 - , 7 Y .7 -J.:s ^ 2 - 7 7 , .7.• 1 _ A- 1 .7 C 7 1 _ 5 ^ 7 J 3 I J i 3 , 7 >,n ` " -7 7 7 >.C i'• 7 = 7 7 n L Z.. 7 - ^ 7 ' ...... i.. .;; ;. „.- -,- ... ..,' _ 0 1 - ".j ^ 3 r E J nE7:� c '-73 = 373, N y =_ '^ i . -'7 t — = ; � J.7—• _ — _ J - 3t = a-_ _ _- O 7 ^ _ 7 7 C 3=7 ;3 '1 = = = 3 o Z 7 �? ?_ -t n c j c=C= � n - - _ ^ _ 7 - ` 0 .7 0 7-c _ . 7 -_ 7_ J .. _ i - - i - .� i s -- 7 C 7 i- a 7 7 - i - 3 _V 7.1,...0 =, =. 2 , t,.2-.—.22s :•:.;11.; 1, .. 3 .7 - 7 :_o-. 3 ? ^ _ a n > _ - „171 - = , '7 ";-'1^ 7 7 0 3 7 VA_ _ _ - _ 2 ^ a Fa- . - . 7 Y ` 7 7, �• J 2 7 `i i - Q, C - 3-.. t -c .--3 ;:. ,7_ 7 L_ 3 J 2' 0 d J ^ 7 i? ,Y_ _ t ii = t � g .='-j - -c - 7 5 c = tYc - o ' _ - ` ors = o.3 _ � .� = t 17 _ � - g � ' J - ',3_7 _ ' _ _ -7_ 7J _ � � _ c'ocv 7 ` v _ j �� a � Y - �_sf- J '- r 3^37'= E �� _ ?�` ft . � 0 - O3E tan- c _' =301 0 .-1LC= i_-,, M =.7, E .7� 3.:_' v _ Y - ;21'4 i a >, 7 ..5=1'..,',7 a.si v O ai %, Y n ^f,5 c,2 u ? c ,-t y` 2 O E • ? :, y 0 `7 , ' 7 C 7 ;afin 7: Y y n . - - E = ' 7 Sou N -3 o- - `o 2 ? u '.A5' V YJ >,- .. , ' ,7, 0 1 .3 L V U N n O.y`O L Y 60 Y O i U •6, O '0 90 Y ,x 7 �_ g`` E v u L' °” E a E " O av Z a � � ^ � m yc u � Y77 E � � vY a � � c� LL _ s-2, as ? o.0 A °, 0yvy •.. no t `0 . c7CY ExEo n 2 q8 o " um an ..+ L y p` 7 y Z a N n 6 y _ .�.. L L _W L D0 Y • O ] ` N Y `� L L.0 Q u n Z c.0 t a Y C `, Y 7 7°' - L 3' J C 3 C ' d O ,' 0 0 o e o " a0: 55 n n >?t :.. A C L 3 = I n c. aa, CJ L. O• LD - c D c 3 7 = Y L •ri K =7 0 a a ^C j E ui E q .A 3. e C ,, C C iY, E - V L n IIMIN 7°AIL L Y :-. - ,.., cQ/ ao 'y W 17NY � ^ > ?- 3c 3u : o •nt� u2c ''.2- -- 373 " 'r m imi O •Li. C u n;? YO c?a v w=N .- m ` Y J o a > = u"7 m N r 7 CJ. 3 0 W 7 Y ' L t a 8.n C '9" n 7C O ,,o N Z C Fee =.6 ,,,, ,,, V, C = N Z E al c ..,•50 .v 5-. .. 7 G .• 7 4' .0 A A 7 O.3 - V m E G.. Y ;!.... ....i .,... --,,`. >, •C - 2 0 u3r2 - .,,. .0 . i. NrccEc7 of Eo - S _ c7' aV = 5 uy > cc ;, vcSE . 3 •pp� Yc° p�73 � cdr caY �eiaoA x C oC m 7 7°7 5 � I, I,, . 3 ."u Nty 'Sv=c �s NZ � ...: •.; •• cEU- a' ' c 7 3 ,;-,' 3 0 3 v u ,,y 7 L °� Y E ^L.54L S °° • i t,' �`o pad c ,c x o �= 3�> v'_ ot_v0 '-'-= = -' G 1 ..7 -c 1 u ` .3 Ja - a " c • - 6L .A'3'1 7 g .a-8557 - J (C i Sc o� i °-. '; J ±, ccs nvt lfuJ2 -Z.2 Na' c,.o$ c5 CC O �+ 2 co = . 3 cc o .2 . 0 Lug � 5 _ mvEm ckE >. laE. ti, 2 U g 3.Y E.: a.a 37 ' 3 c ,, c 3t- ; gg E:2 ^4.. -e f t-1. La E .�i 7 0 O v tD 6 A N17o a:: �.2 UiAus 7 3E 7 7 2, E • `.. . E.8c wg3�� , m fi 'n..o= ma.o9 it it 0 u . on a) ui (..,--c ., .._, geUVCI; 4) n8 ° n _ o m .I -❑ C y O ° 4) a .o y •••• 61 .0•r •ti Ilk C .❑ em8 y ., uu > 1) ° ,° ., ❑ ❑ •-U) .�.D -; Oo4)v Op� c \ CZ3 o - > 3 u \" v = .. �y� >,�= � = a 8-c y a C m pp m a al .o ., , O 0 E m 8 O .n a 7- 8 'T _7:: _ •1 i.0 01 n L a ., C ro d .,iti V n FC u 01 In 0 'n a a < C < _ U ❑ 4) y y �' L. a m y 3 y 0 y m v•� .,..°. ° 3..-. el a° >.❑ IMO 7 tibli..:-- q C. C 4) m y a ° cm 6 �. c y -si „ 8 " m V CZ d'w...'6. .xxi.c, c 7 4) °D Cha aa) 7 O " in '._ .,17 a v,.O .,(, m a❑ 0 .-0 0: ......Li a° m -' ( " �C� t 3 J ` J CC r, Cai •° o °La, c 7 cava_ u > a° _ ` `) ____1_,___, c uu.0an> C'c _ 7._, a.o._ v,F� d .,L a m 4) ° m a C4 y 8 a C \ U 8 ❑Q �cu o o6' yaaa �Ja'10 to ❑ m ,t 1 s MO :0,`""0 ' ,n ILLir (1) L'., 7 ° ro ° ❑ 7 y OD y > \.,,,.., Oo C a.. a. 7 >, a V ro 7 o vi .-r CD _c--- .., 0 01 ..-'1,5 ..,-0 ,/ W y E Z O m U c, y a 1. O n • 04) m v4 C v co " yk..Z y m CL ro >l•-•-0—‘..-. C L-, •- U1 To al C 10 y ❑ >, yr 6 " ., n toa • L a u T a ro•^•-. V7 Q ►.L a py O 8 1O .p ❑ • co coa - ams 8 ❑ c "' i '. 4)._ rocy oan 68 �,a.- a CD 0 .... W .,umom ❑ ❑ o0a, 7 Q Evia �.. ,.67oE ccVi ma �:V ma [[ - { -v C d' C a+ 4)'❑ o 6. p 0 ❑ °.O C " y 4)b.+ II ME 5 ... ., aa >, u caa °i E 7 • O _u 10 a,p u v_a a ID 1„. >•,� o m 3 K C p • 0) ..c . in-0 0 .., o f, 0.... ... ..❑ o8vou. 3 ao ,� a a-• m a c o -,y co *A' 7 ❑y� 84) 7 �.X .' `� a 7 C v7 •-p N 4)� c 7 • .* >L 00•m 00 ".17 C a In 1 0 60 'm'tJ vi tl V OD:v O C a .+ m V C� C C U �. • O m O-o-' u al-- a 4) a m �" �0 a ° Qx a -m m a-°c) -I �1 c0 m E a n 3 a tli a y m'. y":3a " m 0 m m •v ° C °� a " m b n'fl m O m o , ro . " 4) n „ ° gym,... a y ro• 7 y"p a.+ 3 " C •t.z.F-- m y �� w C v m v y mb ° .. al L C ...".,... U N . C O v, 1 C . MEM V CJ COCI 6) 5, 61 C x C'_te 0 O C v j , b m a�o • ,{.� C � QC E C.� >`r O W 7 a 0 7 0 7 Lt" .. V '.'L.-s) 7 E > O.O .O 7 0 j`� Or.. d °.b O V Nom`" O a. L. y_00 b �. a >-el C in al_> Cs ® 0.CI) tt o 4) ta u••-•L.. a _ a ea y N n u 00••• 17 L. T� `° 6Ci a m .L4)+ m'U'Q `• 4, m 0 7-- 4, �\ .ci °'c 3 J 0...0 a.; y o t-.t "�.b X V V 6 W l .o .,,.0 co v E eC G co W 01 d o._ \ I BS ., ,,a 7 Oro E.. J m .L) m ^- _ -- V j �`N -o ." " ccal l0 a'p^ a Uma - -. a..biErag . m ° c c. ...'a E o n3 I o .:Qr_: as �� o �A 0 C-4 i-, -C al 4. W • 00 " 111 0Q) >` 6: ., • O' CD E ca. E a '• r d Eei ...t i. II® Cl) (i 9 �- eo m -° E `�� In Q -— a j ,? •0 6- d T,-) j v l 7:3 ` --1 aCE .Vc CU CI .,, - . 0r o , E r- �J o s C. ❑ ---4....' 0 co LJ ooromc � V C0 ti ..•. �.o nN. � _ 11121 a. ALJ.. • => Cl t a� E q y � ' ` , ` > w Y� .- .c m `0 J �J eiJff we F SRT `' A-S-S ICN oi rn • WHY CAN'T WE USE 'SPEED BUMPS' ON OUR BLOCK? The speed bump is an increased hazard to the unwary . . . a challenge to the daredevil . . . a disruption of the movement of emergency vehicles . . . and the cause of an undesirable increase in noise. Courts have held public agencies liable for personal injuries resulting from faulty design. Because speed bumps have considerable potential for liability suits, many officials have rejected them as a standard traffic control device on public streets. In addition, tests of various experimental designs have demonstrated the physical inability of a speed hump to successfully control all types of light-weight and heavy-weight vehicles. The driver of a softsprung sedan is actually encouraged to increase speed for a better ride over a bump that may cause other motorists to lose control . The control of speeding in residential neighborhoods is a widespread concern which requires persistent law enforcement efforts . . . not speed bumps. Traffic Information Program Series TIP No. 5 Engineering lor e 14, Number 5 ■ Published by the National Society of Professional Engineers ■ May 1992 investigations 111Milia , ,4/1Pg ' Can Forensic . FORENSIC �� 010►'rtj arta .d« : Work Provide pit-.1 :, 1, .• k.. . ;:'-,;..'-'•.:-..:. _ 0I00.�;� '�' ;,,- - ... _____100 0 0 0 0 1/if�r �► - • • ---..,. Pick-lMe-Up? ` immemo LI Ll LI Ll LJ Wird n Not for Everyone . • U U U U U I y e Ir,l.l_ inn hr, :: �. • • IJ G U L7 0� . 1. l . 1 1.!.... .)1.611WIWI' 00000 f 1,� yl •r. •- , w The way Lyn Man nlug sees It.as llflil.�i'. liii -�. n n a on • h .. IuOg as Were.1C people driving .,y'rpi . r i l.0 s.he'II neves he 111 want 0111usi- ....y r-1III lies '.I'40ple full 11110 tach Whcl • _ - .. ^^~~� s'r'- • all lh.11111e...'41Ihe mechanical . .'.. - lu_nice'mum Nevada.When(hal r i � ... happens..11hhiA1,1u g 1%called m til t Illy t. �. ' ��:: ...11 Ihwugh the N..lap molal a11d 01Ite Ills stn v Iles as:1 1111tllsll.aII- I (1114.1.1 f, • Su111e engineer%may he 11.1k- ' ' crack at mg Ill plluvlde such SefIrkts 10 nger tax. pick up then business during the wink as a Mt/Chile:Call pxuve 1111 h- Many admit they get 11110 Io- engine-via looking lot a alal1 uughl I! sluggish economy. "Many aich1- Lull because til the aticlululu m de- kraal engineering gradually,dal- attend NAVE meetings and work page tib and engineer who imam:illy mantis !ruin prulctpals. •.The mg a Jew cases at a time.Maiming with people there.Slime englnCl r- would decline mvesugation of peublelnwins doing luarurcwurk laugh*Inechalucalengineering at hng colleges offer listens IC y Carps will laded mammal.products.or Sys- in a culvea11,Wlal practice es that. the Unlverslty uI Nevada and Ii- courses,he rotes,but hooking up della arc now undertaking this by and large,a doesn't give work rally built up hu business to the with someone who knows die In channel. Iund01 work bccauscof the slow- to yuur staff,•' says Leavitt, puma where he lacked time to business may be..� .4sgbLpyry page 14 •'" down in the Prulcsson," aaY5 "When a lurensic specialist IS leach. strategy. • Sheldon L.Cav111 til LeaVIu AasUC1- hired. the client wants you.'' Ill. A past president UI ilk:National "There are a IW o1 pet:ullarlllcs • ates in Norfolk,Va. deed,most totemic engineers are Academy ul Forensic Engineers to the work that you canon)),learn gineering Yet,some want that doing such sok raauuoners. NAFE), M • all study P ( g suggests that (Turn w page 1.) as flawed. page20 Research Schools Reminded To Teach •ARTMENTS . . lit AlanL-Iwpplr Aaaulu/w bdaur• "Professors should profess.It as "research" universities. And Mg on the quality of undcrgradu- courses are taught by(teaching as- Ia hard to think of anything more nearly all art those schools—from ate engineering and science edit- slstanlsl,"says a junior at a major Ilogn-ulthan tobecame aumver- MIT to Slanlurd—have demon- cation. Rep. Ray Thornton nudwestemuniversity. "The rest — 7 any professor if one Jars not leant aerated excellence.in the discovery ID-Ark.(threw down the gaunUc': are taught by professors who Sonatas-13m teach So If you don't hunt to of new knowledge. "A tanll uwlde percepuul exuls would rather be working on that Irma Is, you thuuld /rnniedlwrly Iluwever,llicie is growing con- That the balance between teaching eesearch projects.' unit ,«.li IwL for uawltrr p.1,..•--C'hatle% CCM outside til academia.as Well added leSealcII has!14111111e skewed Thal Stark alaeaa111C111 IS INN the 17 Veli. president Ill Massachusens a.'.W1111111,111:11 Wille 111CW I'CleJICIl in favor til rcaeafch alld Ihal Ilk: opinion til students alone. In Nei, Institute til Iedakllogy,addles:- universities excel in Mai alca, quality in undo gladuate sl-Iellct lacully alk(atadetmc leaders are ung his lat:uhy. many have lust sight 01 the other education within this country Ilia :,Iris winning themselves .untatg wngxlmlclt ul their mission:edu- seriously deteriorated. Sludcuu the disaltected. 01 Anacnca's 3500 colleges and cation. and parents alike ale voicing des- Consider the experience of universities,about IOU ate k1uW11 At a Iecellt congressional hear- sallala431Wh W1111 an academic sys- Uellle.l anion—now an associate teal(hal appears to have lust sight professor of eleuneal and cons- ul the edusannual needs of as SUP puha engineering at the Univer- T /� dans." ally of Wisconsin-Madison— Enntneers Take Backseat iii -I'osulne.les more than p<rcepr during her lreshnlunyear alMIT: kj hum. "A lot oh try engineering (Turn rulxmgr 10.) Handbook on Building Design By Li:Crwdhrr No Paper Tiger aa hull Wrarr pu*casiWlal cigm•ceis are up in and Engineering Kegtstra A flight of 114 lett 9 inches may put a nine-sill(-one-half-pwund anus over a recently published Laws" was designed as a joust paper irpla airplane with a WIIlgapall ul inure than 30 I4CI and its design a team of Virginia high school students til the Guinness Book of World handbook IW building ellen 0111• publication 01 state arelullc{url Records. L rea,whacll,they say.suggests 411- and engineering bawds lur Jutn Tile apparent record-breaking flight by the White Pehcwl sur- glneers always have a subordinate Duluth to budding code ulhcaa's. rule in building design.Mus{state But according to the Nauunal 1 Ihl previous long-distance mark of more than gS fralf laws allow either engineers or ar- Council 01 Examiners for Engi- achlevcd by a plane whose wingspan measured nearly 16 and a half church10 serve as tile prune pat- 'leering and Surveying, NCAKB lea Irsswaal cur Ilse design til never requested input urutvulve' 1a. piaae—Iluwninahan aratNASALangleyResearchCenter buildings. nhcnt Isom ill engineering cutin- In I lamplun,Va.—was designed and built by 17 students Iran four Wnu4n by me Nauunal Cou11- tellun. high schools in southeastern Virginia. with assistance from their til in henAlCbye'h are N Keglslra{1(111 Ihl'N('AKH ilio uu14m stales teachers and engineering advisors Iron the American Institute of oil oh s,the"Model 11aegistr l cur Uh t are N('A eclx uveal he tun- Aclunuuuca and AstrWwmles.C'entncauII01 Ule iLghtis being sem Building UI hurls un ArchtectWe (Turfs u,1lugr I 1 lit the Guinness Book of World Records.scoutJig to AIAA. :t y 4i''4ft.1' * '" ai..n } l ,Y> '1-rl 4. "'?nk ;A4 r-'.tr$,r f ='el • 3 r ere ' P. ..5 T T ;- a}:vztt s:e:Kf +1 • Even a Lowly Hump Takes Good Engineering Bt Ftiedrnie l rhM-apse: I t ti Shin!Eduw Engineers gu to a 101 01 trouble l0 and kung-wheel-base vehicles.kw free and g01 seriously injured.- .--igwrA.i. make roads %mouth. Rai lately exaliplc.may not be good eaten- So Lu. wever.there appear to - nn ie and more IetghburhliaM.ls in. dates lur humps. -'A fin: truck be nu succeoslul lawsuits. ITE .d __ ._idol by spec okrs have been ask- wean over one al a normal pace.- says II hued nu evidence Indican- - ' ung them to add a hump. Gtunia say.."ants bound that the tug that speed lumps have caused - ' That owl Iwai be as simple as II lu%1111lgetlec1 broke NOON:wells in or contributed to accidents tar III. 1 I RiS Sp.-ed humps-as up- ike haunt te 111C111Ctruck." ms ci eased ae.hent rates.In la .the .i t I.` - \ posed to the s111allei.1110(1:dr./silt. Un the other hand. David institute's data land m show Ila: 1 ii; humps-arc illsea'45trl) on le Nlaudemll. a iallia operamnls 'ales111nel stay111gevenol dee'reas- T WTI. • - ' agenda tri PLS linulaed 111 1141110 emgitll•cr In Seta mmoIt: Cuusly, lug. engillccrttg.whumum bring Ill the i.la..ithuill lcrSanew.llallopped In northern slates 1110* re- WW1 ) i. deign of Ihcse luw•prolde de- design with gradual approaches. 111val can gilled policy. Oppu- - tics)11c ail the 1.1111t skills and says he tested lire trucks SNI II. nems of speed humps charge that _ . ' o• 1 ludgneni needed an building bud- They passed over omit:well"he the raised markers sometimes . lel.4114.1highs.a)1. lutes Ill add11on1,he cites a pub- placed near curbs to prevent"gut- _ - Clearly. um malty tan gu11'g Inked statement by Ile public ler run mmg•'-drtnug with IMI: ,.."......1•-- ti • •, i It.Irsl endangers.Morro.ere• *oaks dreutur In his county ac.- wheel In the goiter to avoid slow- 11 arc, noise. adds to air pollution. knuwledging mat humps do nut mg down-uuencre with various i mom am41gCrerall)makes.ularea uuds- d 11cmcigcncyvducks're- na11ucnateeactivities.Maybe so, . v1Y"M - •• agar- Ilk \ .Irahie of using. S.1 *Ilan s the ,pMM11e•111nemantes. but the ates aden'I essential. lk , ..mllu•Cr,i it et ung speed 1k sign details go I ar in oillu- and the humps. says Geurg. _ • • humps Ile gleam hghl' Cowing c 'I acsepwmCC. 1-ramgus,trails.:engineer ail 1luw- \sl'1: member Paul l;iuila. Rollrtnasterrides ate anulsalec. aid County. Md.. ate -only a • ..1I dmg11leci ail Ne*hit, plass.. bol with salely amt C011110 11 111 1r rapine 111 the had as lar as a if • . rate taut w Il11 die ell) s l>,w111 ail ulnas.N1cIMk11111s says his vCI51)1 plow Is co ncenied.-. al.krnw•n. hating appraisal sev- Lan be uavclNed at 25-WI mph. .• ;ral requests sur humps. staled We did idle studies. .owl lie Obstacle Course s.nn the hails. ..nllm15M45n. speeds calssmlg the hump very MamuClr10CCIs uesthemiselyes - whl.tl upptned themr alu,ely matched the speeds be- may present an obstacle course. \loch .1 ole debate resolved Iweert humps." he points out. According in rFE.humps shuuld an•wwl wtlt.h ,landatds w. use. •foul al 101.115 they Marl IctilMn- eitteild Tully:cross die road Ir01n •1 .c 11e4c1 seen au) •_uu1Cb111:1 Inc ••cry un.tilllurlable vety lurk incudh.Lim MIN nm'lalways !tom ass uI the puuies..onal asst.- last." taslblc because of drainage cull- lY6lghbOrin0Ud5 ase hndang mai spaeea humps atter spea�cr.rlq tralhc-0ut ata Cost.installallon ante can run aoout$900 each.ansa aeslneucauy. ...Ikons I lm In\ulvad w llh.01 any reins. "Ina teary smarm .nus- with SU and Diversion /pts signs the humps can cane up snort. .d Ills•tartan o1 slat a54na4s-' num. Cnuna observes, .'*len Gonna'.n• "I take me position Still.1114:a'd tntntps may not Don you get J hoi 01 511w twang pushed end I0 else umerest,'. remarks street.Kr a 111-mph target speed. Mal ii s 001.almaa1 lair tic ill just slow down tralllc tut divert 11 100. h1 the edge.1 the toad by plows, Mike Cyllecki, the city's Irahlte rrE suggests a scparallwl of 2i0 a10.ran1) ;ale su111eu11c else s 011ell wavers will simply Icruule the passage ol watt Ill the goiter engineering supervisor. Installa- let "It makes sur ugly real Cs• .ersm.n•.•a,peCJ lump and adopt tua parallel sheet.allgenng neigh- is blocked as de snow trtC\ its 11,1 euMs atllul VAX)t Cr hump,he tate."'Giunta cmmpiamn. .1 as..air.11) ,desigil. ntits..iliousand Oaks,Calls..one melt.Thai could conceivably lead says. aiit1Ual IllaIIIICita11ce runs NieUdetl,us courtiers dial argo• it the lint aleas in the U S. to I. prodderatioll 01 ICC bur gal about Il5tl-$21X1. nem: "Residents have esr.a• (,uidelinrs install amt closely study the cilect each end UI the hump,which le- Warning signs and markings. meed years ail people!lyingdu•n (a.unta nut. 4u.1 tel limp Irina of speed humps.sound a solution. conies a dangetuus cululitw11." perhaps even Hashing lights.are their streets. They've had their tWdchlCs wlrently under descl- "Oliver,are willing h1 stay can a UI course.hi s not all e11g11eet- generally pan of speed hump lit- pets killed. feared isle Ihelr lhtl- •pin.m 04 the ksmute ail Itans- toad wwli a Iwo-inch hump.-' mg. politics and budgets when Sialla11O n.Wil:e stripes m a pal- Well. and !caress to tali out or non Engineers illI Ihcu uiI,mlieuis (i.s Myels.acivil cot- dose tk.isums. C45sis nude the tela clearly dalIslenl 110111 their thisswass.Itell them.'ll.ul drab notes alar the humps talsu glilixr nI time suilulunity•s public Newlon Wall*:cdnnmssidn 111111k standard pedksuulerussmgs.and lit all that,but I've gut w pall kIM1wn as"sleeping pub/CUICu"1, works depannenl."With a three- twice about Ince lhng smile speed iii sonic cases the word"bump." your strtZl.'They say.'Cant on usually three m lour itches high unh hump they'll try to land an- humps. Dues ii make linanclal alert dnven. in.. -- al•..lit w I:Icet long salely and tallier gamic.- seise for taxpayers Io 604 the hilt While some residents have :nom%el% .0111101 venni':sits.... Liability Is antler major cut,- or highly ktsah/ed lralhc prob. Unsibhllr• been so duappomucd with the when properly designed aid m- .enutrcu)etigu'eers.In Newlutl. Ions.city uncials wondered. Some bind such leamles visu- humps'perlWnnaliie trial they've ailed. Guiana recalls.'•A IMay on J bac).- Phuctts. An/.. tequmes rest- .Illy tarring.especially since only asked sur their renusal. sulk a I•tt the cngi ter taking a.baud sae deeded lit try to see how high deans nut only Its show thong dos- a p11dlciuusly spaced series of teat huh seems alypeal. Most.as ,.1 .peed Imnlps. salct) is a lip lie..Iuh11 IIy glllllg..vet the!MINI. Innen tall suptMMI hod I ps Int plumps will el11:4:11 Vely educe the M)ers says• --will 4111 lit keep ,esu.' NlreCls used by eines gem.y I IC lust.141111u1 atdl flanged duo a also to toy lul Ilelll.--I loll they average speed oI a ars all along time dem ail." Alter surslamg a humlpy sun. 1I looks like geed humps nay he here to stay. War mobility Water Woes SlgndlcJnl %deet qualms pion. leans IClmaw in the ll.'s despite Alamo,-,styrie • t.dlu11n11 .u11m451 p14511 Ilse %auuhue w.I tetu.n lido 1h:Lnti- Iouo11e11a11'w1a11u11 \rills s ( .1111111 a11un 11.111 .1511..ai l twat land,and 111 h.Iil...ea,1s senI• oils .11141 wmlcsprCask Ll':\ also I espies,e...n.cmI lilliul hick posh• 1..udox11rspec Lit M1ulcgcssunlhfor being amenthe:of your T ■/y�■e■■.r i 1111.1111. tun ,U11J:a' SS Mel a1141 ass,s.trona.. \a IK trot gul'sl 01the 1111 a e Alamo up it�radt'ams' i use One Free u�` a Fluuldiwalet._itis 111.1 oil aJJhia lu • • ltta•Iled serldlaate lug our nest rtill:ll \\e re sure YUu II nils/)'it along Q we11.11111s.11 foss 1Ie...will!) •Sauk....Inv .1.01.....,1,.1. •W .aJr.w..-1...011,1.1 I Ile leading waierqualu)pull,. with aur usher manbrnhgn hoicks sot h as dtxuumCd daily and yx cit .h••••- •.Ill dr Usl\.Wk.u.a..wy.......J....rto•11ACtiv..laW y...r1... I4111%Iluw.stun Itulll wen w4.11114'I .scum%Lies untumeJ pet 1111atugr.I-rupuciit Flyer pruj;ram belleltu, .11111116-lti..int...Q►.W 5..11...ay...yIt...a.p.p•.a1...c..rl.klyggums 1... and sour sala..uuhum un our se01 sect ail lute l,cleral M01 .s Lan. ..1 ah. lunun. xcurdulg w uuumwuun •i n...rn..1.iu,1.111.11..rM.a...a 1s t.. .vsl.Ilk.tu. •••1641 tai..•.1...a deYcl45tla•d by the stats Ill.in. . I.ku. a lar..d . .. . . .,v v .. ... a I....aa. •is. ......y.•..J Clunks lur.IL ail hall..uld suburban - •IM....11.....rolr•ala..lt o.........dy.s1...w...s.a..k....walAtsorrr Inn I a.J1/0 is 64 nu,.W..••.. VI Iumll 110111 alb a.(is'tics as /// �l I..Ihllt•. gra/ung. tutlsIrucl / t t1f mas •.MkY.aW NNr(M IJItlM!1....t.+lbw`s: UIIW/) I• - Iu1ClUy. ..-Cam .ha111 N'I I/Jam Ml. -_ I W tow...l..b..phi'U,.0us /.....,s1./.....,/.....,s1.......l!lul .•. all yogi.I'nay. .. .A 1.....1 .111 ..1 Aga.... Willing. lie I u1nh nulI s11 - � - i -• _ ,aa.Wu..a 1-W10.b27-%15illsI -.._._ uses imilutaits such a•sill.114111 1- illi U0522•%%IUt ) cuts. Ill s1.: Ole 1111ials. a11d �_ - 101 tams..yWsl tam l..k bl..d .i A�afri . p1.us Ides.Sad1e 01 alms(Ad1usiss1 •.. - We)•.11 IIM'IIdC.IYp1 IU IlWlat't ��V Rent ACM 1161)Il.;.II the rise and 1451114 111ay AMI tJ all the intim he 11101 lhrtlughullpru%cd tl -� • i�I](lli) L�a by'22 161 1 are(tee umnwuring capathh•1ds and .he - dc•rC.ne III pM11t-N111rsC trlllU- J 111111.l'.l.'\IM/es. • C N • N N `O N N ,.. .',, V 7 a. n O Nin N '.n y. j O y._E O n E. L •!C ••••E.: C 1 LO E .n L v N N •n i ' o N a d N • aE' c Eo i° c� ,� c � y ' N�_N ,- EO _ oc 'ao ilcl, N� NO wLim. j N T C a O V VC -5-, °7 D j L LL' p.° oa ea ca . •�•� N c o •o °t . N T.'aN N o r° ED o �1v1 m o.E2 o= a u .o eon 0' y= c .: Eit° :-v Wnl oco E•OO4 � No O � N.So�.•°Nr Uva, a1, :Z °c' c7y,na W N O N 5 V� •9 N •o n E u .n W ,o t! C.c..4 JD aL+ aC.V o Q�/� , n C y .t ? V ,T,'j CD :N =`-- F ed N"C .V N-.` Oa `2 v:' is N. -, m'n W -o q p 0 u. O-fl N ar'O V .. ...D N ` y C. 0 C�� 'n N(1' u m C N 9 H m.o p V D '^ W 5 r. F.. u- N vau c y d c v •O is-a N :t•--O 'a v, o"u V.v, C N N - L' L D N .^ _ 7 a, a,; c �� v • . .0 a,0 .c L,, 0 w.- , .n t o v c.„..., c 1. cNuyL' : •no73 c_ � NeoC � N n.NN N ..�O N•- F `ro-• r•9 v'O.,0):' v, 0E 2:, N2'y, �EA.�V wt > Lco '-iN C.ea u 60.n.: % C •_= C - C G7 n c + o - Ot. "n p D N a r -xTvt i 0 j .. G -- Np C , L .4—' - Wj •. nNL ._ O -, C aO a, 1u.roucN 00 .Y Ntyc ! :n '° `' . VC` E= r � 0C __yW ° . cm' o = L .a CC p L Li N C '^- O L u M° N ?D y- E D °. N ■� m `"� a. ac� - L' t ✓ cc la-• x ° 00 • �._ - o, o 4. • ''L 'O • N :: - N a r t: C 2. v L iy 0 u wta ICw y _37 N ✓ N '^ rr .`_-Cn Q. t a, Y 0a> v ., lavev �m N vi cn c m v c~ E - a� a E c CM N C • O aJ •L.D fd N W- 30 c to N N ?O Y7 L °' N 7 ,- N D - —C = O A &N > c gNN7bD N ~'— �' 'o-: �t9 L 0) 47 V .n -So .- u v. .o 'L u `L i .7 N • O C u V N NCV O'.t O�, a j O n C c0 •v -, �y,a' v, o c m a m� p N I,CC c •n 3 . 'd.. u RI Q . ..1... O V W L 11 o ' C NY-O u E - `•- ` u d •., '''' ,Dc ,:: Q V/ £ .n• 8 `' E '-D�- O— c— N v..u.-0 ..O N 5 .L F- _,-----,- .. 0 L Y L 7 . n G Z O N .n i-- V m 0 ° N `• Z -� aaN N 0r tip 'n ° -''C.ot o �t`4 - d a aE ° C S. `_ E �Y _ 3 Z ,4.III 'n D C .Li.c4 d-r c 0 - .Li,0 'n T7 D .�' 7 .n v.L a v, •n V, Z 7 :_i r ,` �� =��'.�(j�•'y�..j-. , ,...� W _t y tin C_ _.L n ---o to - *"..1.:•.,•:,:".•••°..• :• /•aV.. • ice • f1 - , Z � '• E `•7 •n C Q a .- •0,, •_ .� _ 1 R...•+'.r 1 '....,,p,--i- tel. `:.•- ..' ,J, T r Off ' L'Jrn • ••••. . .ce,..‘.•..$ .".•• .•.4tv,."... ..... . • • "::i 11!3-F4'..;;#74/40',I.;" -f'.• . 0 E c - ,-, .,,' .r: -; 0 • • U E r y .t• ° .'..i..,•,..-.,.::-1,4•:,. -.,•-ae ::ry !• f f r._ lv E° 3 y E L O „�N m n „��,�i moi . r :'. • DT L tL � ta•- F3 ^Y LE v i • ..i .'. _ Agit f� -C -.4., (n �}v'J 'uo N o.4, 'o a, t m�... L a '�• .. P,b+o1 �� mL d cam° ° _ i�1. w1*._'•, .� i J n w .n F- N.o L ... o N E ilk ti .•••'. . . O O 'fl N ,n .. 0011,...-. C.a 7 1= +• `-j•►••,. •••-:'•y=' .v,al •'r '.dal.. .41 fir- en w t'a j E a- a' G L .am u c •`�� ..• •• `*. . .t E o v v, o 0 0 o .C_ E.L F a . •• 1^ !{i:41;1 1, ' % rte' 1�.:, o•. •1 r.n « 7 d F _ b F tfflI ; a�' -. LO .raY• xA j� '�6 1 .�J �neo 10tN.• ro c ° ..fp., fr !IIS w: �:?.� i�� Q .. t v c • I� y`+. ji\'��yy.i• (n j N N V L •.*�. •�' `4. . '':� . yS�• U1 0 .' -5°•,,..:---,..t�• E.o ° >.,v,D L fa -2.4"-""..-'11'.-.4... •` ...-�•k.• 2.', ":: ' ' ' •. ..7 Q1.••.,. •'0�''..4` O vo � N e0 .. N C n �:.. ` .• • L. ��'1111 l:.r ;• VS- tU �/� eo N °= �� E Q a.1 E 1n. �• '-• : // • r f1iRti:/::.‘Y. . •.•••,•:„.l� VJ tea-' ate a' Oy« ovNti • • .1 , ` r } 4,k.,..a.:.t7 C.y v• 7 y N E N y •., I e••✓ '�S' !' •` t ° p u y' -4 N 4: m 'p.. •n a. D 44,0 !' ti F. . N =' U 5 v - Eco3 . r.-:-0 [ • i. • L� N "� N= d wl ,,1.- t 'o U•3 'a a, N N Cb En '•:•"01•••1,.+•,`E► i • • • O 0 DI - o . '� a o y " •—4.4441V. I f= '.:4- oc3E •cv ocN nN LLammo ufir y� f ' mt `= 6,b oY0' NOo . „ 1a:_ 1 , m i....C v Coj� Boy q&t ,,.......u...,....,... Iuo�aluy.t+auvor ibaw Vis, twat Don Bo )':-Th 7-� Y �� '•I-- SEMINOLE COUNTY EDITOR Remove. speed bumps l( • �. ,• R T • M `.} IN A RECENT column, Don Boyett wrote "How •• e speed bumps saved Derbyshire." : +�. • „s pis-... How speed bumps P • - saved Derbyshire Instead of applauding this lunacy, he should call rr4" y for the firing of those responsible for impeding the 1ti T 1i• -;; flow of traffic and the ecological charge of wasting 1 r' ,� Dy the path cannot al- gasoline. Not only should they be removed from of- fice,but they should be made to pay for both the cost Don Bo eft upon a tune, bright men of installing and removing the bumps. invented a locomotion machine, replacing beasts of burden. In the I followed a car on Derbyshire that stopped at vv- SEMINOLE COUNTY EDITOR begiroung, bumpy roads were no tummymaking every bump.This, and the practice of proolem;the mactune was slow. through streets three-and four-way stops, 1 suppose, But in tune, the mactune was is meant to control speeders. made to go faster and Its amen- I believe that to waste vast amounts of our time Humps restrain urs increased to make riding and precious gasoline, not to mention the wear and came n: The machines also be- tear on our cars, is not the answer. Certainly police Derbyshire derby came more affordable. Verily, are capable of handling the speeding problem. many drove them about the land. Only one problem: Bumpy Isn't it time to put the emphasis on smooth-now- roads. mooth flow- root s iu the figures: OK, roads• The complaints Caine in you doubters. The figures (sSac number ing traffic,not slowing and stopping it? are in on the Derbyshire ,:The noble leaders realized this That's the same sort of mentality that has ignored speed humps:THEY WORK would not do, and, lo, they caused the value of cloverleaf interchanges here. The inter Before the humps were in• irse,-gads to be smooth.They were suite and state highway intersections have cross-flow stalled,6 percent of the traffic ex- - ripd,lurtrn es. tragic, requiring lights and six or more traffic lanes seeded 40 mph on the 25 mph•Lm• ;..ii4-tune passed, the machines in each direction,along with lengthy delays for all it residential street. Now,only 0.1 cam<w be ,even faster and more rcent drug that fast. in•oumber, and the roadways Maybe the time has come to withhold our county. y percent stayed to- ;Ire-tried farther. But they were state and federal highway tax dollars from entities � frorerie nl !i posted speed limit; to- always smooth. The people were that engage in such practices. Marwood E.Fish day, 67 percent observe it. Before, P-cl ; the no:le leaders were C EL,BERRY the average speed was 31 mph; rtreirccctrd now it Is 24 mph. I at.u. hyPpmess was not to be We need speed bumps And get this, daily traffic has 1 fever after. Some :among the 11/10/91 dropped from 5,405 vehicles W people ran their mactunes much +912. (rad est, bringing great tear to HARWOOD FISH'S letter opposing the speed rficae living along•the roadways. bumps on Derbyshire was not based an factual infer The humps — not bumps — P Q,(ti one roadway. Derbyshire, In tgere metalled about a month ago C9tovincr or Seminole, 85 per- matron. rad have been met with either ein!'-of the machines traveled at For starters, an overwhelming majority of those love ora hate. People living alongt Mote than 47 mph, though the living along the street asked for those bumps. They loveborhhat love them; would-be limit was 25 mph. probably should be a foot high; we still have cars Qirbysh hate them. :Again.,compLunts came in great passing at high speed. Theirdtesign is such that the nyrrtber, and the brows of the no- j live on this street and don't like the bumps,but I typical vehicle — depending ole.leaders were caused to Aurum welcome them to "impede traffic." They would nut yP pendin on deeply. It came to pass that e our attitudes wheel base — traveling at the ectliehts were sent :bout the Land be necessatf we would all change speed limit will cross them with W enforce the law. Lo, many cita- about the neighborhoods wetravel through. rlatively little notice. The higher tors were issued. If you don't like my bumps,seek another route. the speed,the greater the nonce. '}bon, the speed slowed and the Carl'"ferry"Pempek FERN PARK The design was first used on people were pleased. But nut fur Eastbrook more than a year ago, long. In time speeding driversC^Iii--ote '..,c,o4,--,-'-bump and that test showed the humps to learned of the ways of the knights 9 humps be an unqualified success to con- and to avoid detection by them. trolling speed. Alack, the knights increased their � where Should you be one of those hat- ing to hold the speedbdown. woes ase in the humps,card noble leaders. g put the name Da- nis will not do. Why, it costs us vid Nicodemus beneath the sil- $24.82 to keep a knight and ma- E When Seminole put gutted petition to gel the humps houette on your dart board. He in other locations works in the Seminole County clone stationhu foa just one honr.e speed humps on a Greta Barncord. president of roadway ayeight hours a week on one speeders street. the, SUtheast Scminuk voters Traffic Engineering Department roadway comes to$1U,000 a year." speeders moved to Association which represents and is the fellow who improved on Unrest, you see, was abroad in nearby roads. Chuluota property owners. said the"Watts Hump"that an English the real solution would be the chap came up with some 15 years the land over spendind.The noble proposed bypass, leaders were concerned. By Ines Davis Parrish Other bnght men, however, res o.nr 5.1.1.4i sear But the S3.2 million protect ago. isn't planned for the nexte coven Watts Humps are somewhere soned that, if smooth roads in- soeight nedh under the even creas roads CHULUOTA — When rest- ty's list of protects using the ex- between a "Nicodemus Hump" woulded speed,I bumpy dents alongSecond Street de-decrease it And, lo, theyera sales to money and your typical shopping center cided they'd had enough of the designed bumps. cut.tRrough traffic and speeders. The 16-mile road would take spring buster. Not jamng bumps, as in park- they asked the county to do traffic f Col of untd Street and y Road eta to presented a something Nicodemus recently pr trig lots. The rathi and height al The county did.and now rest- Snow Hill Road.County officials a xf on his redesign at the Na - rd a fairly smooth rile at post- dents along Third and Seventh included the bypass in the road paperonal Institute Of Transportation rd speeds but an increasingly un- streets are upset because all the prosect list because of the safer traffic has been pushed over to hazards on Second Street and Engineers and has been swamped Alas, t;te at higher speeds. their streets. the need for Sete er transp t n bycalls from all over the nation Alm, rt ride ou not in such Nine speedehumps—smooth- tion to bumps,except fur the area.�n up wanung more intormauon. et-than Spred Comfort as without bumps, but speeders — costing $800 each aha,humps provide an immc• purpose was lLd, weer installed along/,SW feet of date solution to the safety prob- So it came to pass that a lesson Second Street to force dnvers to tem.Nicudemus said go the 25 mph speed limit was learned:Technology Can bear humps work,according to -The residents along Second many fruits.Unfortunately,not all David Nicodemus. Seminole Street are happy. but the 1,000 can handle them. La, because of County traffic operations engi- or so drivers who cut through neer there aren't. But this is not a Ural, the nde for the majority can- Before the humps were in- popularity contest.-he said. not always be smooth. stalled last fall,25 percent of the Speed humps, which Ntcode vehicles traveled 31 to JS mph. mus designed using an idea de- After the humps, the speeding vcMpcd mute than IS yews ago. ;mule:Though the 12 bumps along dropped to 5 percent. The per have been insulted on(tsar oth- cent of cars traveling the speed tar residential rods in the coum Derbyshire roadway cost X9,000, limit increax'd „rum 21 percent et-ty The speed humps are dr that was $1,000 less Ui:ari Just one before the humps to 68 percent signed su the typical vehicle year's very part-Ume vngdance by after. traveling the speed limit will Drivers who don't like being cross them with relatively little the knights. forced to go the speed limit cut notice The higher the speed. And the bumps don't ask for a through on Third and Seventh the greater the impact on the ve- strtets and E Street. Mole. raise or complain about working The volume of traffic dropped Nicodemus said the residents weekends. from 2.502 cars per day to 1776 un Second Street after the along Third Street `nin h luota humps were installed- need to sign a petition support the installation Nicodemus said he toldn the mg and of huhey mps.anit's likely the pro. ru gene this wldl happen roved. w gge+led they fill out the n•- loot would be aVV SPEED HUMP STATUS REPORT 3/ 22 / 95 SPEED HUMPS COMPLETED Petition Approval / # of LOCATION Received Denied Installed Humps Avenue E,7th Street/ 3rd Street 5/92 Approved 7/92 8 Balmy Beach 9/92 Approved 4 /94 8 Broadmoor Road (Lake Marv ) Request Approved 3/92 7 Camden Road 4/91 Approved 6/91 4 Canter Club 5%92 Approved 4/94 5 Country Club/Jefferson 7/92 Approved 4/94 2 Dakota Trail 2/92 Approved 4/92 5 Doverwood Rd 10/92 Approved 4/94 4 Eastbrook Boulevard ( file missing) Approved 92 Falmouth Road 10/90 Approved 3 Holliday Ave 9/92 Approved 4/94 10 Lake Howell Road 1/92 Approved g Linneal Beach Dr. 12/92 Approved 4/94 12 Live Oak ( Sanford) 3/91 Approved 6 Ridge Road 5/92 Approved 2/93 2 Roxboro/Pressview 2/92 Approved 2/93 9 2nd Street Chuluota ( file missing) Approved 92 South St/Prairie Lk Dr/ Highland Drive 9/92 Approved 4/94 10 Sterling- Park/Eagle 9/92 Approved 4/94 9 Tangerine/Betty 3/93 Approved 4/94 12 Tollgate Trail 3/93 Approved 4/94 14 Virginia Ave . 4 /93 Approved 4 /94 3 Winston Rd. 3/92 Approved 2/93 6 • LOCATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED 3/22/95 Croton Drive 12/12/94 DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA Gum Street 3/95 NOT RECOMMENDED Lake of the Woods 6/20/94 DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA Lakeview 6/91 NOT RECOMMENDED/DISAPPROVED Request Bridle Brook Dr. 9/91 NOT RECOMMENDED/DISAPPROVED Laural Way 4/92 NOT RECOMMENDED/DISAPPROVED 2/93 & 5/20/4 N. Jericho Drive 9/92 DOESN'T MEET CRITERIA AT THIS TIME Derbyshire Road 11/92 NOT RECOMMENDED - NOT COUNTY MAINTAINED Loch Arbor S/D (W.Crystal Dr. ) 11/92 NOT RECOMMENDED/DISAPPROVED Oak Street 3/95 NOT RECOMMENDED Ortega 10/94 NOT RECOMMENDED/DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA Queen Avenue 3/93 Private Road (re-study 4/94 ) Queensbridge DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA Sleepy Hollow/Icabod/Tarrytown/Brombones/Ravenbrook 10/94 NOT RECOMMENDED Sterling Oaks Drive 95 NOT RECOMMENDED Winfield Reserve 10/92 NOT RECOMMENDED/DISAPPROVED Main Rd. (cty. Lk Mary) 12/92 NOT RECOMMENDED Princess Gate Blvd. 3/21/95 NOT RECOMMENDED W. Springtree Way 9/91 NOT RECOMMENDED Winter Woods NOT RECOMMENDED Howard Boulevard 11/92 NOT RECOMMENDED Tuscarora Trail 1/93 NOT RECOMMENDED Lauren (E. & W) Court/Hamlin NOT RECOMMENDED 2/93 & 3/95 LOCATIONS NbT RECOMMENDED 3/22/95 E. Oakhurst ,St. 2/93 NOT RECOMMENDED 5th Street Chuluota 4/93 NOT RECOMMENDED