U” TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES DESIGN, EFFECTIVENESS, -

PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Roger Layfield and David Webster

Transport Research Laboratory

1. INTRODUCTION

Traffic calming measures are used to reduce speeds and consequently accidents. The
original work on the development of a suitable profile for speed reducing road humps
was canied out by TRL in the early 1970’s and was based on circular profile (round-top)
road humps of various dimensions. More recently, in order to improve the advice
available to Local Highway Authorities in Great Britain, the Driver Information and
Traffic Management Division of the Department of Environment, Transport and the
Regions (DETR) has commissioned TRL to assess the effectiveness of a wide range of
physical traffic calming measures used on public roads. The work has included measures
involving vertical deflections (round-top humps, flat-top humps, speed cushions,
sinusoidal humps.and ‘H’ and ‘S’ humps); and horizontal deflections (single lane
working and two way chicanes).

This paper summarizes the results that have been obtained by TRL fiom a number of
different test track trials and public road studies of urban iraffic calming measures during
the past six years. It briefly describes the different measures and cokiders how changes
in the dimensions, layout and spacing of the measures affect vehicle speeds. It also
considers the effect of the measures on driver behaviour, passenger discomfort, iraffic
flows and accidents. Public reaction to M i c calming measures is included as well as the
likely impact of the measures on vehicle generated noise, ground-borne vibration and
vehicle exhaust emissions.

Changes in speed have been shown to be related to changes in injury accidents, with a 1
mph reduction in mean speed giving 5 per cent reduction in accident fiequency (Finch et
al, 1994). This has been confirmed for traffic calmed areas by a number of studies
(Webster, 1993; Webster & Macke, 1996).

2. VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS

Vertical deflections (road humps) were developed as a result of trials at TRL using
humps of various heights and lengths (Watts, 1973). These experiments indicated that a
circular profile ‘round-top’ hump 3.7 metres long and 100 mm high would be suitable
for use on the public highway.

The Road Hump Regulations (1986) allowed round-top humps of 75 mm to 100 mm in

height, 3.7 m in length to be installed on roads in England and Wales with a speed limit
of 30 mph or less. Subsequent changes to the regulations have allowed a greater variety
of hump profiles to be used. The Hump Regulations (1990) allowed round-top humps,
flat-top humps and raised junctions of 50 mm to 100 mm in height, 3.7 m in length
(minimum length for flat-top). Other hump profiles were not permitted under the Hump
Regulations (1990) but it was possible for local authorities to apply to DOT for special
authorisation for their use (DETR, 1993). The current Hump Regulations (1996)-.do - not

179
specify an exact hump profile and allow local authorities to install humps, on roads with
a speed limit of 30 mph or less, without the need for special authorization providing the
humps are between 25 and 100 mm in height, at least 900 mm long and with no vertical
face greater than 6 mm (DETlZ, 1996a).

2.1 Round-top and flat-top road humps

Since 1990, when lower humps, flat-topped humps and raised junctions were allowed,
traffic calming has become more widespread in England and Wales. Humps are an
important tool for Highway Authorities because they are effective at controlling speeds,
are generally applicable to most road layouts and the degree of discomfodspeed
reduction can be altered by using different hump heights and ramp gradients.

The effects of road humps on vehicle speeds and accidents in the UK has been
documented in studies by TRZ, (Sumner and Baguley 1979; Baguley, 1981) and updated
to take account of improvements .in vehicle design (Webster 1993). These studies dealt
mainly with lOOmm high round-top humps and lOOmm high flat-top humps with ramp
gradients of 1:lO or steeper. Mean speeds across these humps were in the range 11 to 16
mph. Speeds increase between humps and, in order to obtain mean speeds of 20 mph
midway between lOOmm high humps, hump spacings of less than 85m are required
(round-top humps) and less than lOOm (flat-top humps).

Road humps lOOmm high have proved an effective method of reducing vehicle speeds
but, because of passenger discomfort, these are not usually suitable for bus routes or
where the emergency services may be expected to pass the humps on a regular basis. For
many Highway Authorities the 75 mm high hump has therefore become a compromise as
it provides a good speed reduction for cars without causing too much difficulty for buses
and emergency vehicles.

TRL collected information fiom Local Highway Authorities at 72 sites where 75mm
high humps have been used. The study was primarily concerned with assessing the effect
of the humps on vehicle speeds. Relationships were developed for estimating the mean
speed between humps based on hump spacing and ‘before’ speed (Webster and Layfield,
1996). The results fiom the study show that the overall average mean speeds for vehicles
crossing the 75mm high flat-top and round-top humps were similar to the speeds for
vehicles crossing lOOmm high humps. Installiig 75mm high flat-top and round-top
humps reduced mean and 85th percentile speeds between the humps by an average of
about 10 mph.

For sites with ‘before’ mean speeds of about 30 mph, 75 mm high flat-top humps (ramp
gradients 1:lO to 1:15) and 75mm round-top humps can be used to reduce mean speeds
midway between the humps to below 20 mph, provided the spacing between humps is
less than 80 metres. Humps with heights lower than 75mm, or gradients shallower than
1:15 are likely to allow higher speeds and are more suitable for keeping speeds to below
30 mph.

There were no reported problems with vehicles grounding at any of the 75 mm high
round-top or flat-top hump schemes in the study. A number of Local Highway
Authorities have modified the ‘uphill’ ramp gradient of flat-top humps to between 1:15
-
and 1:35 in order to overcome problems of steep ramp gradients and possible grounding
.-

180
with the use of flat-top humps on inclines. Initial results suggest that this has been
successful.

Trafiic flows were reduced by an average of about 25 per cent for the flat-top and round-
top hump schemes. TraEc flows after the schemes were introduced ranged from about
900 to 12000 vehicles per day. A comprehensive before and after accident study was not
carried out, but it is estimated fiom other studies that the reduction in speeds and flows is
likely to produce injury accident savings of about 65% within the schemes.

The emergency services and bus companies generally accepted the need for the schemes
but they were often concerned when areas were becoming blanketed with traffic calming
measures. This could affect response times and operational viability. DETR has issued
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/94 which gives guidance to Local Highway Authorities on
consulting the emergency services about traffic calming schemes. Access can be helped
by a well planned road hierarchy that takes account of emergency routes and bus routes
@E% 1994).

2.2 Speed cushions

Speed cushions were originally introduced in Germany. They are designed to limit the
vertical deflection of large vehicles with wide track widths by allowing these vehicles to
straddle the cushions. Vertical deflection for smaller vehicles, such as cars, with smaller
track widths is maintained as these vehicles are forced to ride over the cushions with at
least one set of wheels.

TRL has carried out an assessment of 34 speed cushion schemes that have been installed
by Local Highway Authorities. Most of the schemes were on roads with 30 mph speed
limits and on bus routes (Layfield and Parry, 1998). Three main types of cushion
arrangement were installed at the sites studied a series of single cushions combined with
carriageway narrowings; groups of cushions in pairs; and groups of cushions three-
abreast.

The results of the study indicate that speed cushions are effective as a speed reducing
measure but not quite as effective as road humps. The overall average mean and 85th
percentile speeds at the cushions (17 and 22 mph respectively) were 2 to 7 mph higher
than those measured at 75mm high flat-top humps and round-top humps.
The relationships between speed at the cushions, cushion dimensions, and ‘before’ speed
were investigated, for mean and 85th percentile speeds, using multiple linear regression
analysis. The variables cushion width, cushion length, o d o f fgradient and ‘before’ speed
were statistically significant, with decreasing width, increasing length, shallower
gradients and higher ‘before’ speeds resulting in higher speeds at the cushions. Narrow
(1600mm) cushions may not provide sufficient speed reduction in 20 mph zones without
additional measures. Mean speeds at 1600mm wide cushions are likely be about 19.5
mph, while 19OOmm cushions would give mean speeds of about 15.5 mph.

The overall average mean and 85th percentile speeds midway between the cushions (22
and 26 mph respectively) were about 1 to 2 mph higher than those measured between
75mm high humps. At a cushion spacing of 60m, a mean speed of about 20.5 mph may
-.

181
be expected for cushions about 1700mm wide. Increasing the spacing from 60m to
loom, increases mean speed by about 4 mph.

Larger vehicles such as buses and heavy goods vehicles are likely to be slowed down to a
lesser extent than cars, particularly at narrower cushions. Motor-cyclists can avoid
cushions and cushions may have little, if any, effect on their speeds. However, in peak
periods, a reduction in the speed of cars and large vehicles may also have a speed
reducing effect on motor-cyclists.

On-road trials have found that passenger discomfort in large buses is likely to be low at
speed cushion schemes, providing the buses straddle the cushion centrally. Bus passenger
discomfort increased when the buses did not straddle the cushions and was similar to that
measured when crossing 75mm high round-top and flat-top humps. Variation in cushion
width did not appear to affect the discomfort rating for passengers in large buses. Some
cushion schemes have been found to be suitable for large single and double-deck buses
but unsatisfactory with respect to the level of passenger discomfort experienced by
passengers in smaller mini-buses and ambulances. Reducing cushion width to 160Omm
would improve the levels of discomfort in mini-buses and ambulances but would be
likely to lead to some increase in the speed of cars.

When the approach and exit from a cushion layout was unaffected by parking, about half
the cars and almost all the buses were found to drive over the cushions, straddling them
centrally or approximately centrally. At some cushion pair layouts with relatively wide
gaps in the centre of the road between the cushions, motorists have tended to drive
through the gap rather than over the cushions, resulting in complaints and some
collisions. Gap sizes have subsequently been reduced. In general, this problem is likely to
develop at sites with central gaps between cushions greater than 120Omm. Parked
vehicles can prevent cars from straddling the cushions centrally and will therefore
increase the discomfort for drivers and passengers. When cushion layouts were combined
with carriageway narrowings, the parked vehicles had less effect on vehicles approaching
the cushions.

Most cyclists and motor-cyclists avoided the cushions and used the gaps between the
cushions and the kerb. When these were obstcucted by parked vehicles, cyclists and
motor-cyclists generally moved to the centre of the road and avoided riding over the
cushions.

Vehicle flows decreased on roads with speed cushions. The average reduction in flow
was 24 per cent, a reduction in flow similar to the average reduction found on roads with
7 5 m high humps.

The reaction to speed cushions from both the bus operators and the emergency services
has generally been positive. Questionnaire surveys have indicated that residents are less
suppoaive and some prefer road humps to speed cushions. This may be as a result of
residents feeling that speed cushions are less effective at reducing speeds, uncertainty as
to the lateral position of cars when they cross speed cushions, and anxiety about damage
to car exhausts

-. .-

182
2 3 Siuusoidal humps

Humps with a sinusoidal profile (sometimes called the bell shape hump) are similar to a
round-top hump but have a shallower initial rise. Reports fiom the Netherlands, Denmark
indicate that sinusoidal humps are more comfortable, particularly for cyclists, than round-
top or flat-top humps but they provide little evidence as to the degree of difference in
discomfort between the hump profiles @e Wit, 1993; Hass-Klau et al, 1992; Lahrmann
and Mathiasen, 1992).

Sinusoidal humps (height 120 mm, length 4.80 m) have been used in Dutch 30 kmm
zones and are the recommended road hump profile for use on cycle routes because they
are less ‘annoying’ for cyclists than the round-top or flat-top profiles (Lines and
Castelijn, 1991). In the city of Edinburgh, 100 mm high sinusoidal humps constructed
ftom asphalt have been installed on residential roads and have reduced speeds to values
similar to those found at schemes with round-top humps.

Track trials were held at “RI-. in 1997, measuring passenger discomforC vertical
acceleration, and ground-bome vibration as a range of vehicles crossed different hump
profiles. The results of these trials indicated that compared with a round-top hump, a
sinusoidal hump would produce some reduction in discomfort for cyclists (both humps
75mm high, 3.7m long). However, the reduction was small and cyclists taking part in the
tests indicated that it was probably more important for Local Highway Authorities to
ensure that there was no large upstand or discontinuity at the edge of a hump where it
meets the road surface. The discomfort and peak vertical acceleration levels for car and
bus occupants were similar at the two types of hump. Differences in noise and ground-
borne vibration levels were small and not consistent for the different vehicle types.

The exact profile achieved with on-site construction of asphalt sinusoidal (and other road
humps) depends on the degree of on-site control exercised. The reduction in discomfort
for cyclists obtained fiom the use of 75mm high sinusoidal humps may not be cost
effective in terms of any extra costs in hump construction.

2.4 ‘H’
and ‘S’humps

The principle of the ‘combi’ or ‘H’ hump was developed in Denmark as a result of trials
which showed that it was possible to design a combined car and bus hump with two
longer shallower outer profiles to take the tyres of’buses and with a shorter inner profile
to take cars. The dimensions of the profiles could be chosen so that the car and bus
speeds across the hump were comparable @jemtrup, 1990). The hump is called an ‘ H
hump because the plan view of the half-carriageway hump resembles a letter ‘H’. ‘H’
humps have been used in the Danish town of Heking and Aalborg. (Herrstedt et al,
1993).

Off-road trials of a wide range of vehicles travelling over ‘H’ humps were organised by
Highway Authorities in Scotland in 1992 (Strathclyde) and 1996 (Fife). The main
purpose of the 1996 trials was to find ‘ H hump dimensions which would be suitable for
the British bus fleet and car fleet which would maintain speeds at below 30 mph.
Engineers from Fife Council developed an ‘S’ hump which was also included in the
trials. The ‘S’ hump is similar to the ‘ H hump but has a continuous curve rather than a
-
marked lip between the car and bus ramps and avoids the need for additional drainage
.-

183
gullies which may be required either side of the central portion of the ‘H’ hump (Fife
Council, 1996).

In April 1997, Fife Council installed a traffic calming scheme on South Park Road,
Glenrothes, consisting of 3 pairs of ‘H’ humps and 4 pairs of ‘S’ humps. The pairs of H
and S humps were 75mm high and extended across the whole carriageway. The plateau
length was 7000mm. Some of the ‘ H and ‘S’ humps were combined with pedestrian
crossings and raised junctions.

Each half-carriageway ‘H’ hump had shallow (1 in 24) outer ramps, 650mm to 80Omm
wide, set 1950mm apart and a steeper (1 in 12) inner ramp with a width of 140Omm at
the bottom and 1950mm at the top. The transition between the outer shallow ramps and
the inner steep ramp was constructed with a gradient of 1 in 8. Each half-carriageway ‘S’
hump had a minimum gradient of 1 in 33 for the outer shallower ramps used by large
vehicles and a maximum gradient of 1 in 8 for the steeper inner ramp used by cars.

TRL have been monitoring the operational performance of the scheme in conjunction
with Fife Council. The 85th percentile speeds between the humps (spaced about lOOm
apart) were reduced by 7 mph lkom about 36.5 mph to about 29.5 mph. The mean and
85th percentile speeds at the humps are given in Table 1. The limited data for bus and
lony speeds indicate that lorry speeds were within 2 mph of car speeds but bus speeds
were about 5 to 6 mph lower than car speeds. The mean speeds for cars and buses over
the ‘ H and ‘S’ humps (21.9 mph and 16.6 mph respectively) are about 6 mph higher
than mean speeds over 75mm high flat-top and round-top humps (15.3 mph and 10.4
mph respectively; Webster and Layfield, 1996).

Table 1 Speeds at ‘H’ and ‘S’ humps on South Park Road, Glenrothes

n =number of observations

The ‘ H and ‘S’ humps, with shallower ramps for large vehicles and steeper central ramp
for cars, have proved successful in maintaining the majority of speeds along the road to
below 30 mph and increasing the mean speed that. buses could travel over the humps.
However, there is still a 5-6 mph difference in speedbetween buses and cars.

An ‘S’ hump has been used recently in Northampton to replace a set of rubber speed
cushions which were suffering fiom maintenance problems. Further ‘S’ humps may be
installed if this proves successful. The mean speed of buses over the ‘S’ hump in
Northampton (16.4 mph) was similar to that in Fife (16.9 mph). The mean speed of cars
over the ‘S’ hump in Northampton (19.0 mph) was lower than that in Fife (21.9 mph).
This may be due to the different site environments; in Northampton the site was close to
a shopping centre with many pedestrians crossing the road.

184
 3. HORIZONTAL DEFLECTIONS

Various types of horizontal deflections have been used in traffic calming schemes to
reduce the speed of traffic. Chicanes are one type of horizontal deflection, formed by
building out the kerbline to narrow the carriageway, usually on alternate sides of a two
lane, single-carriageway road. The buildouts may be combined with central islands and
ovenun areas. Drivers reduce speed to negotiate the lateral displacement in the vehicle
path. There is no ‘standard! chicane type but, on low flow, two way roads, traffic may be
restricted to single lane working through the chicanes. There is generally .less passenger
discomfort associated with chicanes
~ ~.
~~ than with road humps and it is possible to narrow the
~~~~ ~ .~
carriageway whiEXfiIEl1ag accessibili-for~laigevehicies and^ emergency vehicles
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

by incorporating overrun areas’ into the chicane design.

~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.

In 1994, TRL carried out (off-road) track trials which involved monitoring the behaviour
of car, bus and commercial vehicle drivers when travelling through a wide range of
chicane types constructed on the TRL test track. The trials confnmed the potential of
chicanes as traffic calming measures and allowed relationships to be established between
the mean vehicle speeds through chicanes and the four chicane parameters: stagger
length’, free view width3, lane width and visual restriction4(Sayer and Parry,1994).

Following the track trials, TRL collected data on chicanes from 134 Highway
Authorities. Forty-nine chicane schemes, representing the seven most common chicane
types, were selected for detailed study.

The average mean and 85th percentile speeds observed at the chicanes were 23 mph and
28 mph respectively. These each represented average speed reductions of 12 mph,
compared to speeds observed before the schemes were installed. The average mean speed
at the chicanes was substantially higher (by about 9 mph) than the average mean speed
reported for vehicles travelling over 75 mm high road humps. However, it should be
noted that mean ‘before’ speeds at the chicane schemes were about 7 mph higher, on
average, than those at road hump schemes.

After the schemes were installed, average reductions of 7-8 mph were recorded in mean
and 85th percentile speeds between chicanes. The average mean and 85th percentile
speeds between chicanes were 29 mph and 31 mph, respectively.

There was an inverse relationship between path angle’ and mean (and 85th percentile)
speed at the chicane; the greater the path angle, the lower the mean speed. Two way
working chicanes generally had smaller path angles (by about 5’ on average) and higher
‘Before’ speeds (by about 1 to 3 mph on average) than single lane working chicanes. The
average mean and 85th percentile ‘After’ speeds &the two,way working chicanes were
about 5 mph higher than those at the single lane working chicanes. The average mean
and 85th percentile ‘After’ speeds between the two way working chicanes were about 7
mph higher than those at the single lane working chicanes.

On average, flows were reduced by 15 per cent on roads with single lane working
chicanes and 7 per cent on roads with two way working chicanes. For the 17 schemes
with known ‘before’ and ‘after’ accident data,there was an overall reduction in injury
accident frequency of 54% The possibility of cars hitting chicane furniture or buildouts

185
is an important safety concern and, although the injury accident frequency appears to
decrease, the frequency of damage only accidents may increase.

Chicanes can take up a significant amount of road space and can cause loss of on-street
parking spaces. They are generally more expensive to construct than road humps and
may have a much greater impact on the environment, so their aesthetic acceptability by
residents and users is important. At chicane sites where carriageway widths are
particularly narrow or motor vehicle flows are high, separate cyclists bypasses are
recommended.

4. PUBLIC ATTITUDES

The previous sections of this paper have shown that vertical and horizontal deflections
are important tools for Highway Authorities because they can be used to reduce speeds
and consequently accidents. However, it is increasingly clear that the success of such
schemes is not determined only by objective measures of their effect (on speed, flows
and accidents) but that subjective assessment is also important.

If measures are introduced which the local public do not like then they soon become
discredited. Indeed, examples of situations exist where pressure from local communities
(resulting, for example, from noise being generated by vehicles crossing measures) has
led to the removal of measures. Clearly this is not a cost-effective way to proceed; it is
far better to be able to estimate the likely public reaction to the scheme before it is
installed. Design advice can then be provided so that schemes have a better chance of
acceptance and situations liiely to prove unpopular can be avoided.

TRL has reviewed the published literabxe describing 45 studies of public attitudes to
traffic calming schemes (Webster, 1998). The overall percentage of respondents who
approved of the schemes, across all the reviewed studies, was 65%. This varied
according to the types of measures in the schemes: it was 72% for schemes including
road humps; 53% for schemes including speed cushions; 59% (but particularly variable)
for schemes including horizontal deflections.

Surveys which provided direct information on the relative popularity of different

measures indicated that round-top road humps were the most popular measure, followed
by flat-top road humps and table junctions, speed cushions, chicanes and mini-
roundabouts in descending order.

Comparisons between objective measures of the effectiveness of schemes,(where they

were made) and public reactions to those schemes indicated that there was no
relationship between the magnitude of measured reductions in speed, flow and safety and
the percentage of respondents who thought that these things had been affected.

The results of the study show that public attitude surveys are useful in establishing
overall approval levels of traffic calming schemes and in identifying the relative
popularity of individual measures and any problems associated with them. However,
public attitude surveys cannot be a substitute for objective measures of the effectiveness
of a scheme. Perceptions of changes in speeds, flow and safety, which might appear on
the face of it to be easy to judge, are relatively poor. Changes in the environmental

186
measures ground vibration, noise and air pollution are even more difficult to assess
subjectively.

The differences between objective and subjective assessments suggest that the methods
of objective measurement should perhaps be reviewed to determine measures that more
accurately reflect peoples’ concerns. For example, if measured noise levels have been
reduced but people think they have increased, it may be because the noise characteristics
have changed.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Concern has been expressed that speed control measures which involve vertical
deflection may have an adverse effect on noise and vibration levels experienced by
occupants of properties nearby. The effect of traffic calming measures on vehicle exhaust
emissions and air quality is also a topic of concern. The UK National Air Quality
Strategy gives air quality standards and objectives for the main pollutants. For some
traffic related pollutants, these objectives will be achieved by national initiatives such as
tighter emission control. However, for others such as nitrogen dioxide and particdates
(PMl0),supplementary local actions will be necessary and it will be important to consider
the effect of traffic management measures (including traffic calming) on exhaust
emissions and air quality (Cloke et al, 1998).

5.1 Noise

The introduction of a speed reduction measure such as a road hump or cushion can
influence traffic noise levels in a number of ways. For example, lowering the speed of
vehicles may mean that vehicle noise emission levels are lowered. In addition, after the
measures are installed traffic flows may be reduced, leading to M e r reductions in noise
levels. However, vehicle noise emissions may also depend upon the way vehicles are
driven: a passive style of driving, at a lower but constant speed, contributes to lower
noise levels; an aggressive style, with excessive braking and acceleration between speed
control devices, gives rise to a highly fluctuating noise level which can contribute to
noise disturbance to residents. In addition, the use of road humps and cushions to reduce
traffic speed may give rise to vehicle body noise (eg. body rattles, suspension noise etc)
which may be a cause of noise disturbance.

Noise measurement methods applicable to assessing both the absolute and relative
acoustic benefits of different traffic management schemes can be divided into two
categories: vehicle noise measurements and traffic noise measurements. These methods
are primarily intended to assess the acoustic emission characteristics of different types of
vehicles, and the total noise exposure, respectively. .

TRL has studied vehicle and traffic noise levels alongside road humps in Slough and
speed control cushions in York (Abbott et al, 1995a and 1997). The general fmdings of
these studies was that for light vehicles, noise levels were reduced substantially, these
reductions being attributable to the change in vehicle speeds. The reductions in traffic
noise at these sites (with low flows of heavy commercial vehicles) were such that they
would be expected to produce a reduction in disturbance to residents caused by road
traffic noise.
-..

187
For light vehicles, the within-scheme variation in noise levels were highly correlated with
the variation in vehicle speed and this was related to the spacing between the measures.
To minimise fluctuations in vehicle noise emissions it is important, therefore, that the
design and spacing of cushions is optimised so that average speeds are reduced whilst
maintaining a fairly constant speed profile along the road section !reated.

Following the noise measurements in Slough and York, research was undertaken on the
TRL test track to measure maximum noise levels from a range of heavy vehicles passing
over a selection of road humps and cushions (Abbott et al, 1995b). The results showed
that at typical road speeds and at sites located alongside the measure, installing speed
cushions or humps would lead to: substantial reductions in light vehicle noise levels;
smaller changes in noise levels for buses; and generally an increase in maximum noise
levels for unladen commercial vehicles with steel leaf suspensions, despite reductions in
vehicle speeds.

Based on an assumed reduction in vehicle speed, estimates of the change in traffic noise
levels following the installation of cushions or humps showed that, where the traffic flow
consists of all cars, substantial reductions would be expected. As the percentage of
commercial vehicles increases to 10%, together with an increase in the percentage of
buses to I%, these reductions deteriorate dramatically, particularly for wide cushions and
flat-top humps, for which traffic noise would increase substantially @ E m 1996b).

Additional tmck trials have confirmed that noise levels generated by heavy commercial
vehicles crossing road humps or cushions are dependent on vehicle loading, the type of
suspension system, the hump or cushion profile and whether the vehicles straddle any
speed cushions. When assessing the potential noise impacts of traffic calming schemes
involving road humps or cushions, consideration needs to be given to the number of
commercial vehicles, particularly those in the heavier category which are fitted with steel
leaf suspensions and are unladen. It is also important to ensure that the incidence of
commercial vehicles not straddling any cushions is minimised.

5.2 Ground borne vibrations

Traffic generated ground-borne vibrations are in the 8-20 Hz frequency range and are
produced mainly from the interaction between the rolling wheels of vehicles and the road
surface. The magnitude of the vibrations is affected by type of any discontinuity in the
road profile, the vehicle loading, the vehicle speed, the vehicle suspension, the distance
from the vibration source and the soil type. Ground-borne vibration diminishes as it
radiates from the source. The f m e r the soil in the vicinity, the more localised will be the
vibration effects. Traffic vibrations are generally experienced by fewer people than traffic
noise. However, once vibration is experienced, it is &ore likely to cause a high degree of
disturbance or annoyance. Extensive research by Watts (1990) failed to find any
conclusive evidence that traffic-induced vibrations can cause significant building
damage.

Track trials have been carried out at TRL to assess the effect which road humps and
speed cushions might have in generating ground-borne vibrations when commercial
vehicles are driven over them. Measurements of vibrations were made for a wide range
of vehicle types crossing a selection of road humps and speed cushions at a range of
speeds. The results of this study show that speed cushions and road humps can Froduce
.-

188
 perceptible levels of ground-borne vibration and that vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
over 7.5 tonnes generate the highest levels. This can lead to complaints under the most
severe conditions and anxieties concerning building damage. However, even under these
worst case conditions it is very unlikely that the introduction of the road humps and
speed cushions pose a significant risk of even minor damage to property (Watts et al,
1997). For a given speed, the narrowest cushions (150Omm) produced the least vibration.
This was expected as commercial vehicles can straddle the cushion and the wheels do not
rise to the full height of the cushion, limiting the peak vibration levels generated. On the
road, different hump and cushion profiles influence speed to a different extent and the
lower vibration levels of the narrow cushions are offset by higher crossing speeds. Based
on typical crossing speeds, wide (19OOmm) cushions generally gave higher maximum
and mean vibration levels for commercial vehicles than did the 75mm high road humps
and narrower (1500-16OOmm) cushions. A 75mm high round-top hump gave lower
vibration levels than a 75mm high flat-top hump. Vibration levels increased when
vehicles did not straddle the narrow cushions and care should be taken that cushions are
placed so that they are likely to be straddled by commercial vehicles.

The results from this study have been included in the DETR Traftic Advisory Leaflet
8/96, and used to provide an initial guide to the predicted minimum distances from
dwellings to avoid vibration exposure. This is of particular relevance in trying to avoid
locating road humps and cushions near dwellings where, because of the soil type,
complaints might arise @Em1996b).

5 3 Vehicle exhaust emissions and air quality

Low speeds are generally associated with high rates of exhaust emission because they
usually involve a high proportion of acceleration and deceleration. However, smooth,
low speed driving, in as high a gear as possible, will result in relatively low emissions.
The effect on emissions, therefore, of any traffic calming scheme will depend on how the
scheme influences both the average speed of traffic and the amount of speed variation. A
number of theoretical and experimental studies have examined these effects. These have
been reviewed by TFU Poulter and Webster;1997) and their results display wide
variation, and sometimes conflict. However, it seems likely that road humps and speed
cushions will generally increase rates of emission. This is not surprkiig since, if widely
spaced, the driving pattern they encourage is one of alternate deceleration and
acceleration. Many calming schemes are used in residential areas on roads that carry low
flows of traffic, so when considered in the context of emissions from a wider urban area,
it may well be &at their effects, either positive or negative, are of little practical
significance.

The results from a recent TFU study of an area k d e traffic calming scheme at h i g h
~~ ~~~~ Parkin-~avant-indicate-that-tra~c-calmin~schemes-~y-have-li~le~impacton-loca~ air~
~- ~
~~~~

~~li~-(~lo~~l-998-);-Emission-modelling-was-~~e~-~ut-using-a-m~~l-~ss~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~

model MODEM and experimentally derived ‘before’ and ‘after’ speed profiles. The
results showed that on roads with speed cushions, with no change in traffic flow,
emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide increased by up to 25
per cent and emissions of nitrous oxides decreased by about 10 per cent. However, when
changes in traffic flow were considered, emissions of all pollutants decreased. Air quality
~ ,~
.
~ ~~ ~
~~ ~~ . ~~~~~~ ~
-“s
~~

.,.3nn
.~A3k. ,;
yuL a t - t h e - s ~ ~ m ~ a
~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~

benzene concentrations at kerbside monitoring sites on the traffic calmed roads. This
-... was

189
achieved against an overall decline in concentrations throughout the area, as measured at
control sites. Other air quality studies of traffic calmed areas are being carried out by
TRL as part of the assessment of the environmental impact of the Gloucester Safer City
Project.

There remains considerable uncertainty and more detailed work on vehicle emissions at
tm%c calming schemes is currently being undertaken for the DETR by TRL.
Experimentally derived speed profiles for different traffic calming measures are being
used to obtain calmed and uncalmed exhaust emission measurements on a chassis
dynamometer for a range of passenger cars.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Physical traffk calming measures using vertical and horizontal deflections are an
effective 'medicine' for the treatment of injury accidents in urban areas; producing
accident reductions of up to 65 percent. However, like .many medicines, in some
circumstances they may produce unwanted side effects such as discomfort, delay,
concern about driver behaviour and vehicle damage, increased noise, vibration and
exhaust emissions. Thus the measures used should be chosen with care, particularly on
roads with bus routes, roads used by emergency service vehicles on a regular basis, and
roads with a significant proportion of commercial vehicles.

No individual measure is suitable for all applications. Usually a range of traffic calming
measures will be needed, designed to suit local circumstances after thorough consultation
with the local community. In order to help the selection of the most suitable measures,
the DETR has provided advice for Highway Authorities in a comprehensive series of
leaflets based on the TRL research described in this paper @ E m 1998).

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to Mr E H E Wyatt @river Information and Traffic

Management Division, DETR) for his advice and support and to Mr E Ross (Fife
Council) for his work on the development of the 'S' hump. They also aclcnowledge the
help given by many Local Highway Authorities in collecting data on traffic calming
measures and the extensive contributions made over the years by many TRL colleagues.

8. REFERENCES

ABBOlT, P., PHILLPS S., and LAYFELD R(1995a) Vehicle and traffic noise
surveys alongside speed control cushions in York., The Department of Transport. TlU
Project Report PR103, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

ABBOTT, P., TYLER J., and LAYFIELD R. (1995b) Traffic calming: vehicle noise
emissions alongside speed control cushions and road humps. The Department of
' T Report 180, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.
Transport.

ABBOTT, P., TAYLOR M., and LAWIELD R. (1997) The effect of traffic calming
measures on vehicle and traffic noise. Trafiic Engineering and Control, 38 (9) 447-
453.

190
BAGULEY, C. (1981) Speed control humps - Further public road trials. Department of
Transport, TRRL Report LRlOI 7, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

BOULTER P., and WEBSTER D. (1997) Traffic calming and vehicle emissions: a
literature review. Transport Research Laboratory, ZRL Report 307, Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthome.

CLOKE J. (1998) The effects of traffic calming on emissions and air quality: a case
study. ZRL Paper PA 3352/98, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

CLOKE J., BOULTER P., DAVIES G., HICKMAN A., LAWIELD R., MCCRAE I.,
and NELSON P. (1998) Traffic management and air quality research programme. TRL
Report 327, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

DE WJT, T. (1993) Dutch experiences with speed control humps. ITE 63rd AnnuaZ
Meeting, 1993 The Hague.

DETR. (1993) Traffic calming special authorisations. Department of Environment,

Transport and the Regions, TrafficAdvisoiy Leaflet 3/93. Traffic Advisory Unit, London.

DETR. (1994) Fire and ambulance services - traffic calming: A code of practice.
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Traffic Advisoiy Leaflet 3/94.
Traffic Advisory Unit, London.

DETR. (1996a) Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1996. Department of

Environment, Transport and the Regions, Traffic Advisoiy Leaflet 7/96. Traffic Advisory
Unit. London.

DETR. (1996b) Traffic calming: traffic and vehicle noise. Department of Environment,
Transport and the Regions, TrafficAdvisoiy Leaflet 6/96. Traffic Advisory Unit, London.

DETR. (1996~)Road humps and ground-borne vibrations. Department of Environment,

Transport and the Regions, TrafficAdvisoiy Leaflet 8/96, Traffic Advisory Unit, London.

DETR. (1998) Traffic calming bibliography 1998. Department of Environment,

Transport and the Regions, Trafic Advisoiy Leaflet 3/98. Traffic Advisory Unit, London.

FIFE COUNCIL. (1996) Innovative road humps trial report. Fife Council Roads
Service, Fife

FINCH D., KOMPFNER P., LOCKWOOD C., and MAYCOCK M. (1994) Speed,
speed limits and accidents. TRL Project Report PR58, Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthome.

HASS-KLAU C.,NOLD I., BOCKER G., and CRAMPTON G. (1992) Civilised streets:
a guide to traffic caZming. Environmental and Transport Planning, Brighton.

HERRSTEDT et AL. (1993) An Improved Traffic Environment. A Catalogue of ideas.

Report 106. Danish Road Directorate, Stationsalleen42, DK-2730, Herlev, Denmark.

191
KJEMTRl.JP K. (1990) Speed reducing measures. Conference on speed management
in urban areas, Copenhagen..

LAHRMANN H., and MATHIASEN P. (1992) Bumpudfomming (Hump design).

Dansk Vejtidsskrift Nr 9, pp16 - 22. (In Danish).

LAYFIELD R, and PARRY D. (1998) Traffic calming - Speed cushion schemes. TRL
Report 312, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

LINES C., and CASTELLIN H. (1991) Translation of Dutch 30 kph zone design manual.
TRRL Paper PA2046/91. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

SAYER I., and PARRY D.(1994) Speed control using chicanes - a trial at TRL. TRL
Project Report PRI 02. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

SAYER I., PARRY D., and BARKER J. (1998) Traffic calming - An assessment of
selected on-road chicane schemes. l7U Report 313, Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthome.

SUMNER R, and BAGULEY C. (1979) Speed control humps on residential areas.

Department of Transport, TRRL Report LR878, Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthome.

WATTS G. (1973) Road humps for the control of vehicle speeds. The Department of
Transport, TRRL Laboratoly Report LR597, Transport and Research Laboratory,
Crowthome.

WATTS G. (1990) Traffic induced vibrations in buildings. The Department of Transport,

TRRL Research Report RR246, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

WATTS G., HARRIS G., and LAYFIELD R. (1997) Traffic calming: vehicle generated
ground-borne vibration alongside speed control cushions and road humps. l7U Report
235, Transport and Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

WEBSTER D. (1993) Road humps for controllhg vehicle speeds. The Department of
Transport, ZE Project Report PR18, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

WEBSTER D., and LAYFIELD R (1996) Traffic calming - Road hump schemes using
75mm high humps. The Department of Transport, l7U Report 186, Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthome.

WEBSTER D., and MACKIE M. (1996) Review of traffic calming schemes in 20 rnph
zones. TRL Report 215, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

WEBSTER D.(1998) Traffic calming - Public attitude studies: a literawe review. ZE

Report 311, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome.

Copyright Transport research Laboratory 1998;

This paper has been produced by TRL under a Contract placed by the Department of
Environment, Transport and the Regions. Any views expressed are not necessarily those
of the Department. - ..

192
Notes

'overrun area. A m consmcted by slightly raising the surface witbin limits set by the Highway
(liafiic Calming) Regulations 1993. Usually consmcted on contrasfing materials, to
give the appearance of a narrower Carriageway thereby inhibiting speeds.
2
Stagger length. Distance between the outermost points of the chicane buildouts.
3Freeview width. Width of the central gap between the chicane buildouts. This can be positive or
negative, if buildouts on opposite sides of the road overlap.
%is& rest-iction. Resbictionto vision across chicane buildouts.
'Path angle. Angle through which the carriageway is displaced.

193
194