policy brief

The Eighty-Five Percent Solution: Is Crowdsourcing Speed Limits the Best Approach to Traffic Safety?

Publication Date

September 1, 2020

Author(s)

Brian D. Taylor, Mark Garrett, Yu Hong Hwang

Areas of Expertise

Safety, Public Health, & Mobility Justice

Abstract

Setting appropriate speeds on roadways requires balancing the economic and social benefits of higher vehicle speeds on one hand, against the greater safety, environmental, and human activity costs of fast-moving traffic on the other. While drivers and commercial shippers typically favor faster limits, those living, walking, biking, or playing in proximity to roads often want slower limits. The most common method for setting speed limits, however, leaves it to drivers to collectively decide how fast is too fast. According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), most places in North America set speed limits using the “85th-percentile rule.” This long-established standard calls for observing the speeds of free-flowing traffic on a roadway without posted speed limits, and then setting the limit at a 5 mph increment above or below the speed at which 85% of vehicles travel. So, for example, if 85% of drivers on a particular road are observed to travel at 43 mph or less, the speed limit would be set at 45 mph.

published journal article

The Eighty-Five Percent Solution: A Historical Look at Crowdsourcing Speed Limits and the Question of Safety

Publication Date

June 30, 2020

Areas of Expertise

Safety, Public Health, & Mobility Justice

Abstract

The “85th percentile rule” is commonly used to set speed limits in jurisdictions across the U.S. Modern interpretations of the rule are that it satisfies key conditions needed for safe roadways: it sets speed limits deemed reasonable to the typical, prudent driver, reduces the problematic variance in travel speeds among vehicles, and allows law enforcement to focus on speeding outliers. Authoritative publications regularly assert that the rule came about because early driving surveys often found that drivers moving at or below the 85th percentile of a speed on a given roadway were within one standard deviation of the mean speed for that roadway and were in the low involvement group for traffic incidents. But does this widely used rule for setting speed limits really have such a scientific pedigree? Given debates in cities around the U.S. about competing uses of street space, we examine where this rule of driver-set speed limits actually came from and whether rule developers’ rationales still hold true today. While most observers trace the rule to safety research and a 1964 report, we find that the 85th percentile rule actually emerged decades earlier amidst the nascent traffic engineering profession’s preoccupation with “traffic service” to increase vehicular throughput; and with respect to safety, the rule was explicitly intended as a starting point in speed limit setting, and not the last word.

other

Working Paper: How Does Traffic, or the Fear of it, Affect Housing Affordability? Examining the Effect of Traffic Impact Analysis on Housing Production and Affordability

Areas of Expertise

Travel Behavior, Land Use, & the Built Environment

Abstract

Traffic impact analysis (TIA), which estimates the traffic impacts of proposed land development, tends to bias against higher-density developments in urban areas where traffic is often congested and travel alternatives plentiful. This has important implications for housing supply and affordability, suburban sprawl, and private vehicle dependence. The research team examines the understudied implication of TIA on housing by drawing on empirical evidence from distinct bodies of research in the transportation and land use planning literature to describe the mechanisms through which TIA may affect housing market conditions. The researchers conclude that TIAs likely have negative effects on urban housing production and affordability.

published journal article

Traffic Trumps All: Examining the Effect of Traffic Impact Analyses on Urban Housing

Areas of Expertise

Travel Behavior, Land Use, & the Built Environment

Abstract

Traffic impact analysis (TIA), which estimates the nearby traffic effects of proposed land development, tends to bias against higher-density developments in urban areas where traffic is often heavy and travel alternatives plentiful. This has important implications for housing supply and affordability, suburban sprawl, and private vehicle dependence. We examine the understudied implications of TIA on housing by drawing on empirical evidence from distinct bodies of research in the transportation and land use planning literature to describe the mechanisms through which TIA may affect housing markets. We conclude that TIAs likely have negative effects on both urban housing production and affordability.

policy brief

Traffic Trumps All: Examining the Effect of Traffic Impact Analyses on Urban Housing

Areas of Expertise

Travel Behavior, Land Use, & the Built Environment

Abstract

Traffic impact analyses (TIA) are widely used by local governments to assess the traffic impacts of proposed land use developments. TIAs are often measured in terms of expected changes to traffic flows through nearby intersections using a metric called “level of service” (LOS). This process tends to be biased against higher-density developments in urban areas where traffic is already congested and travel alternatives are plentiful. Researchers have found that the projected traffic impacts of developments in already built-up areas tend to be overestimated, which leads to higher traffic impact fees and related costs associated with the TIA process. Often, local residents use such analyses as evidence to oppose new developments on traffic grounds. The result is that TIAs can help discourage new housing production in built-up areas where demand is greatest, which likely exacerbates the housing affordability crises in places like California.In essence, the logic of TIAs is that the human activities and the built environment in cities should vary to keep nearby traffic flowing smoothly. The fundamental problem with LOS-based TIAs is that they measure vehicle mobility and not the more fundamental goals of economic and social accessibility. While California has been a national leader in changing the metric by which traffic impacts are evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act, from LOS to vehicle miles of travel effects, LOS-based analyses of development proposals are still typically conducted by local governments — even in the Golden State.This study reviewed and synthesized research on TIAs and their effects on land use planning, and found that mobility-focused transportation planning likely contributes to the housing affordability crisis plaguing many places. Further, research shows that gradually shifting away from mobility-centered metrics, like LOS, and toward more accessibility-centered evaluation tools, will enable more comprehensive assessments of development impacts, which could help ease California’s housing affordability crisis.

policy brief

Sources of and Gaps in Public Transit Ridership Data

Areas of Expertise

Public Transit, Shared Mobility, & Active Transportation

Abstract

Public transit in the United States is ailing. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, transit ridership fell by more than 800 million annual transit trips, or about 7.5%, between 2014 and 2019. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020 only compounded these losses. Both before and during the pandemic, the changes in transit ridership were uneven, varying across metropolitan areas, built environments, times of day, days of the week, trip purposes, operators, modes, and directions.With high-quality, accessible, up-to-date data, practitioners and researchers can diagnose the causes of America’s transit ridership woes, as well as evaluate and recommend possible cures. The availability of detailed transit data, disaggregated across a number of axes, is more important than ever to the recovery of the transit industry and the mobility of those who rely on it. Moreover, data about transit use can answer pressing questions beyond patronage declines, including analyses of transportation equity, evaluations of proposed capital and operating improvements, inquiries into the effects of private shared mobility services, and projections of emissions and pollution, among others. All of these topics rely on a growing — though still incomplete and often incompatible — set of transit data sources collected in different ways, from different sources, on different timeframes

policy brief

Raising Truck Speed Limits in California Could Increase Mobility But May Also Increase Crashes

Publication Date

January 1, 2021

Author(s)

Michael Zhang, Sarder Rafee Musabbir

Areas of Expertise

Safety, Public Health, & Mobility Justice

Abstract

Highway speed limits inherently represent a tradeoff between safety and mobility. While higher speed limits shorten travel times and foster economic benefits (especially for the trucking and logistics industries), they can also increase the likelihood and severity of crashes, as higher vehicle speeds require longer stopping distances and generate more energy during a collision. Highway speed limits are increasing nationwide. While there is no consensus on the optimal speed limit (Figure 1), research generally shows that lower speed limits reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Likewise, there is mixed evidence on whether a universal speed limit (trucks and passenger vehicles subject to the same speed limit) or a differential speed limit (trucks subject to a lower speed limit than passenger vehicles) is safer. While some evidence indicates that setting lower speed limits for heavier trucks that are slow to stop has safety benefits, other research suggests that differential speed limits create bottlenecks that may actually cause more crashes as cars attempt to overtake slower trucks. California is one of only seven states that set differential speed limits.

policy brief

Environmental Reviews Fail to Accurately Analyze Induced Vehicle Travel from Highway Expansion Projects

Publication Date

January 1, 2021

Author(s)

Areas of Expertise

Travel Behavior, Land Use, & the Built Environment

Abstract

Induced travel is a well-documented effect in which expanding highway capacity increases the average travel speed on the highway, which in turn reduces the perceived “cost” of driving and thereby induces more driving. This increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increases congestion (often back to pre-expansion levels) and air pollutant emissions, reducing or eliminating the purported benefits of the expansion. Yet highway expansion projects continue to be proposed across California, often using congestion relief—and sometimes greenhouse gas reductions—as a justification for adding lanes. These rosy projections about the benefits of highway expansion projects indicate that the induced travel effect is often not fully accounted for in travel demand models or in the projects’ environmental review process.With this problem in mind, researchers at the University of California, Davis developed an online tool to help agencies estimate the VMT induced annually by adding lanes to major roadways in California’s urbanized counties. The researchers also applied the calculator to estimate the vehicle travel induced by five highway expansion projects in California that had gone through environmental review within the past 12 years. They then compared their estimates with the induced travel analysis completed for the projects’ actual environmental impact assessments. This policy brief summarizes findings from that research, along with policy implications.View the NCST Project Webpage

research report

Future of Public Transit and Shared Mobility: Scenario Planning for COVID-19 Recovery

Publication Date

January 1, 2021

Author(s)

Stephen Wong, Susan Shaheen

Areas of Expertise

Public Transit, Shared Mobility, & Active Transportation

Abstract

In 2020, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic enveloped the world, leading to a public health crisis that profoundly changed all aspects of society, especially multiple sectors of transportation such as public transit and shared mobility. With so much uncertainty about the future of travel, the transportation sector needs to move rapidly to shape the nature of public transit and shared mobility services during the COVID-19 recovery period. Consequently, the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies (UC ITS) and the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Executive Committee launched a scenario planning exercise from June to September 2020 involving 36 transportation experts. The exercise resulted in a series of policy options and research directions across three timeframes (i.e., within 12 months, one to three years, and four to six years) that could guide the recovery of the public transit and shared mobility industries. This report offers several key takeaways. First, external forces beyond COVID-19 (e.g., economy, political will, etc.) will significantly drive the future of public transit and shared mobility and determine the effectiveness and feasibility of any policy strategies. Second, while public transit and shared mobility face a dire future in the short run, steps can be taken immediately to reduce the effects of the current crisis, while also laying the groundwork for more sustainable transportation in the future beyond COVID-19. Actions taken to only address the current crisis will not prepare public transit and shared mobility for the future. Finally, future policies and actions will not be effective without in-depth analysis and development. Research and lessons learned from demonstration and pilot projects will be critical for crafting policies, identifying all positive and negative outcomes, and shaping actions toward a future transportation system that is more resilient, socially equitable, and environmentally friendly.

research report

Sources of and Gaps in Data for Understanding Public Transit Ridership

Areas of Expertise

Public Transit, Shared Mobility, & Active Transportation

Abstract

This report presents and reviews the available sources of data on public transit riders and ridership. The research team intends it to be a resource for those who manage or simply wish to understand U.S. transit. In conducting this review, the team considers the advantages and disadvantages of publicly available data on transit from a variety of public and private sources. The research team also considers as well the relatively scarcer and less available sources of data on other providers of shared mobility, like ride-hail services, that compete with and complement public transit, as well as pieces the team sees as missing from the transit analytics pie. The research paper concludes by discussing how data gaps both align with existing inequities and enable them to continue, unmeasured, and how the COVID-19 pandemic has made closing these gaps all the more important.