Comparative Performance Analysis of Bumps and Humps In Terms of Ride Speed Calming

Öz

The study was evaluated speed control undulations (SCUs), as one of the crucial speed management tools in urban areas, performance in reducing passenger car speeds. The evaluations investigated two narrow-type SCU (Bump) and two wide-type SCU (Hump) with 5 cm and 10 cm height. The performance of SCUs in reducing vehicle speeds has been examined by reading speed values from video records. Vehicle speeds have been determined at a distance from the SCUs that does not affect the speed of the drivers (approx. 125-150 m) and also at a distance of -60 m, -40 m, -20 m, 0 m (passing over), +20 m, +40 m and +60 m according to the SCU. All speed measurements were made in two different traffic flow regimes, free flow (FF) and oversaturated flow (OSF). Between the measured vehicle speeds and speed reduction rates, statistical evaluations were made for each SCU at different measurement points and the exact measurement points between different SCUs. It has been determined that the 10 cm high hump would be the right choice for reducing vehicle speeds.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bump
• hump
• traffic calming
• speed management

Dar ve Geniş Hız Kesici Tümseklerin Sürüş Hızını Sakinleştirme Açısından Karşılaştırmalı Performans Analizi

Öz

Çalışmada, kentsel alanlarda çok önemli hız yönetimi araçlarından biri olan Hız Kesici Tümseklerin (HKT'ler), binek araç hızlarını azaltmadaki performansları değerlendirilmiştir. Değerlendirmelerde, 5 cm ve 10 cm yüksekliklerdeki iki adet dar tip HKT (Bump) ve iki adet geniş tip HKT (Hump) incelenmiştir. HKT’lerin taşıt hızlarını azaltma konusundaki performansları kamera görüntülerinden hız değerleri okunarak incelenmiştir. HKT’lerin sürücüleri hızlarını azaltma konusunda etkilemediği bir mesafede (yaklaşık 125-150m) ve ayrıca HKT’ye göre -60 m, -40 m, -20 m, 0 m (üzerinden geçişte), +20 m, +40 m ve +60 m mesafelerdeki taşıt hızları belirlenmiştir. Tüm hız ölçümleri serbest akım ve doygun akım olmak üzere iki farklı trafik akım rejiminde ayrı ayrı yapılmıştır. Ölçülen taşıt hızları ve hız azaltma oranları arasında gerek her bir HKT için farklı ölçüm noktalarında gerekse farklı HKT’ler arasındaki aynı ölçüm noktalarında istatistiksel değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır. Değerlendirmelerde taşıtların hızlarını azaltma konusunda 10 cm yüksekliğindeki geniş tip HKT’nin en doğru tercih olacağı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dar hız kesici tümsek
• geniş hız kesici tümsek
• trafiği sakinleştirme
• hız yönetimi

Kaynakça

1. Chadda, H.S., Cross, S.E., “Speed (Road) Bumps: Issues and Opinions”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 1985, 111 (4): 410-418.
2. Parkhill, M., Sooklall, R., Bahar, G., “Updated guidelines for the design and application of speed humps”, ITE 2007 Annual Meeting and Exhibit. Pittsburgh, USA: Institute of Transportation Engineers, (2007).
3. Cottrell, W.D., Kim, N., Martin, P.T., Perrin, H.J., “Effectiveness of traffic management in Salt Lake City, Utah”, J Safety Res, 2006, 37 (1): 27-41.
4. OECD, “Speed Management. European Conference of Ministers of Transport”,OECD, Paris, France, (2006).
5. Ashton, S.J., “Vehicle design and pedestrian injuries”, Pedestrian accidents, Wiley, London, (1982).
6. Mak, K.K., “A further note on undulation as a speed control device”, Transportation Research Record, 1986, 1069: 13-20.
7. Vis, A.A., Dijkstra, A., Slop, M., “Safety effects of 30 km/h zones in the Netherlands”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 1992, 24 (1): 75-86.
8. Antić, B., Pešić, D., Vujanić, M., Lipovac, K., “The influence of speed bumps heights to the decrease of the vehicle speed – Belgrade experience”, Safety Science, 2013, 57: 303-312.

9. Pau, M., Angius, S., “Do speed bumps really decrease traffic speed? An Italian experience”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2001, 33 (2001): 585-597.
10. Ewing, R., “Impacts of traffic calming”, Transportation Quarterly, 2001, 55 (1): 33-46.
11. Evans, D., Traffıc Calming: The First Five Years and The Oxfordshire Experience, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, 1994, 103 (1): 9-15.
12. Watts, G., “Road humps for the control of vehicle speeds”, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire (1973).
13. Agerholm, N., Knudsen, D., Variyeswaran, K., “Speed-calming measures and their effect on driving speed – Test of a new technique measuring speeds based on GNSS data”, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2017, 46: 263-270.
14. HCM. “Highway capacity manual”, Transportation Reseach Board, Washington, DC, (2000).
15. Weber, P.A., Braaksma, J.P., “Towards a North American geometric design standard for speed humps”, Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE Journal, 2000, 70 (1): 30-34.
16. Ess, J., Antov, D., “Unified methodology for estimating efficiency of traffic calming measures – example of Estonia”, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 2016, 11 (4): 259-265.
17. Pau, M., “Speed Bumps May Induce Improper Drivers’ Behavior: Case Study in Italy”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2002, 128 (5): 472-478.