Traffic crashes involving speeding drivers are a major source of traffic fatalities and serious injuries. The societal cost of speeding-related fatal and serious injury crashes in Washington exceeded $850 million in 2011 alone. Washington currently allows automated speed enforcement in school and construction zones to detect speeding vehicles. To explore the use of this technology in other types of locations, the Washington State Legislature passed a 2009-2011 transportation budget proviso, which was extended through the 2011-2013 biennium, for automated speed enforcement pilot projects in Seattle and Tacoma. The proviso directed the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) to evaluate the pilot projects and report to the Legislature on the use, public acceptance, outcomes, and other relevant issues regarding automated speed enforcement cameras. The 2011 Evaluation Report to the legislature contains the pilot project’s initial 18-month results. The current report presents the updated results through the 2012 project period. Project Summary: Both Tacoma and Seattle passed city ordinances (required under RCW 46.63.170), selected treatment and control sites, set fine schedules, planned for revenue distribution, and made additional administrative adjustments. Major differences between the Seattle and Tacoma pilot projects included the type of camera system used, camera trigger speed setting, and camera enforcement operation hours and duration. Tacoma installed a fixed camera system on the East Bay Street curve in November 2009. Full speed enforcement operations began December 1, 2009 after an initial two-week warning period. The camera takes photos of vehicles travelling 10 MPH or more over the posted speed limit of 35 MPH and has operated around-the-clock up to the present (except for a single month in 2011 when the camera was vandalized), thereby providing continuous speed enforcement at that site. Seattle has used one mobile speed camera unit and has alternated enforcement between the two pilot project locations, Elliot Avenue W and 35th Avenue SW, since beginning operations in March 2010 (except for two six-week ‘hiatus’ periods resulting from equipment problems–one in November-December, 2011, and the second in April-May, 2012). Construction at the Elliot Avenue W site limited the van use resulting in only two deployments in 2012. The camera takes photos of vehicles travelling 8 MPH or more over the posted speed limit of 35 MPH. Outcomes: Project outcomes for the Tacoma site demonstrated a reduction in average speed, an initial decrease in the percentage of vehicles triggering the camera (i.e., violations), and a decrease in crashes resulting in injuries. Average speeds decreased from 30.3 MPH at the 2010 baseline, to 27.8 MPH in quarter two of 2012; however, these average speeds are below the posted limit of 35 MPH, meaning that the decrease may also be attributed to other factors, such as traffic congestion and seasonal weather. The number of monthly violations decreased steadily in 2010, and levelled off in 2011 and 2012. The number of crashes resulting in injury decreased from six during the last half of 2009 to just one during the first half of 2012, though the small size of the numbers involved prevents us from reaching statistically-valid conclusions. Project outcomes for the Seattle sites did not show a reduction in average speeds at either site; however this may be due to the use of a mobile speed unit (rather than a fixed camera) that alternated between the sites (and other non-project sites). It is important to note that average speeds at both sites remained consistently between 34 and 36 MPH. The number of infractions issued each month is dependent on the number of days, hours, and time of day the mobile unit is deployed, so it was not possible to determine if the number of infractions issued is decreasing as a result of deploying the mobile unit. Public Acceptance and Other Relevant Issues: A 2012 survey of Seattle and Tacoma residents measured public knowledge and attitudes about the use of automated speed enforcement in their cities. Survey results indicated: ?Respondents in both cities favoured the use of automated speed enforcement cameras in ‘school zones’ (71.6% in Seattle, 69.8% in Tacoma) and on ‘roads with a high number of speeding deaths and serious injuries’ (68.6% in Seattle, 71.0% in Tacoma). However, general support for automated speed enforcement has declined since the first survey was conducted in 2010. ?35% of respondents felt excess infraction revenues should go into a ‘City Traffic Safety Project Fund’, 22% chose a ‘City Law Enforcement Fund’, and 19% thought excess revenues should be directed to a ‘City General Fund’. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting