Designing for Pedestrian Safety in Washington, DC

Transcription

1 Designing for Pedestrian Safety in Washington, DC February 25, 2014 George Branyan Pedestrian Program Coordinator District Department of Transportation

2 DC Journey to work mode split: 2012 Means of Transportation to Work 0.1% 4.1% 11.9% 0.4% 4.6% 34.1% Drove alone Carpooled: Public transportation (excluding taxicab): Taxicab 0.5% Motorcycle Bicycle Walked 38.6% 2012 American Community Survey 5.6% Other means Worked at home

3

4 Pedestrian Crashes/Fatalities Pedestrian Crash Trends DC Pedestrian Crashes and Fatalities Source: MPD Year

5 25% DC Pedestrian Crash Types Pedestrian Action, % 23.0% 20% 15% 15.3% 13.5% 10% 5% 4.3% 6.9% 5.4% 3.2% 6.6% 0%

6 Most Frequent DC Ped Crash Types Left on green Right on green Turning vehicle conflicts with pedestrians happen often at signalized intersections Right on red without stop

7 Most Frequent DC Ped Crash Types Uncontrolled crosswalk- Fail to yield

8 DC Pedestrian Master Plan: Major policy recommendations: 1. Crosswalk Marking Policy - Recommends enhancements for multi-lane arterials with high traffic volumes 2. Advance Stop Lines on multi-lane arterials at: - Uncontrolled marked crosswalks 3. Uncontrolled Crosswalk Side-of-Street Sign (Boulder, CO and MDSHA) 4. Rapid Flash Beacons (St. Petersburg, FL and Boulder, CO) 5. HAWK Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (Tucson, AZ) 6. Far Side Bus Stops (Arlington, VA and Portland, OR) 6. Pedestrian Crossing/Refuge Islands 7. Curb Extensions 8. Leading Pedestrian Interval Signal Timing

9 Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (Zegeer, 2002):

10 Uncontrolled crossing index

11 FHWA Guidance on Uncontrolled Crosswalks New marked crosswalks alone, without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence, should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and either: A. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater; or B. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater MUTCD, Section 3B-18 (page 384)

12 FHWA Guidance on Uncontrolled Crosswalks The results of this study should not be misused as justification to do nothing to help pedestrians to safely cross streets. Instead, pedestrian crossing problems and needs should be routinely identified, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark or not mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines, HRT , September, 2005

13 Uncontrolled Crosswalk Policy Volumes Below 1500 vpd Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Treatment D Parallel Crosswalk and/or W11-2 assembly High Visibility Crosswalk and Side of Street Ped Law Sign In-Street Stop For Peds Sign and/or Traffic Calming Activated Pedestrian Device (RRFB, In-road LEDs, etc.) Something with a red signal (Ped Hybrid, Full Signal)

14 DDOT Side of Street Crosswalk Sign (R1-6a Custom) - Not MUTCD compliant Evaluated by Boulder, CO: 17 locations, 37% average increase in driver yielding vs. W11-2 signs

15 High Risk Crashes, Unsignalized Crosswalk: Multiple Threat crash type In crosswalk, no signal, multiple threat

16 Advance Stop Lines: Multiple threat crash problem at uncontrolled multi-lane approach DDOT Evaluation at RRFB: Before: 59% of drivers stopped 30 ft. or less from crosswalk. 34% less than 20 ft.

17 Multiple threat crash solution Multiple threat solution DDOT Evaluation at RRFB: After: 23% of drivers stopped 30 ft. or less from crosswalk. 6% less than 20 ft.

18 Uncontrolled Crosswalks (2-4 lanes/< 15,000 ADT): Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB): Pedestrian actuated, solar powered, high intensity LED beacons that flash in a stutter pattern at approaching drivers 3 Locations in DC Interim Approval from FHWA (2008)

19 RRFB Evaluation Results- Baseline

20 RRFB Evaluation Results- 100 days

21 RRFB Evaluation Results-6 months

22 Uncontrolled Crosswalks: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon/ HAWK Signal For use at selected uncontrolled crosswalks on major arterial streets

23 HAWK Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon in DC Major roadway sees a beacon/signal Minor roadway sees a stop sign Dark when not in use FHWA Study: Up to a 69% reduction in pedestrian crashes Up to a 29% reduction in total crashes. DDOT study showed 97% compliance No problem observed with stopcontrolled side street Minor roadway gets less cutthrough traffic

24 DC HAWK Brochure and Video

25 DC HAWK-PHB Evaluation: Nearly half of pedestrians (49% overall) did not activate the HAWK signal when crossing the intersection. This led to more pedestrian-vehicle conflicts than crossing with the signal activated.

26 HAWK GENERAL FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Motorists turning onto Georgia Avenue from Hemlock Street who took advantage of the stopped traffic on GA Ave. generally yielded to pedestrians using the crosswalk. A number of drivers exhibited aggressive driving characteristics, such as hesitating or slowing down briefly for crossing pedestrians to clear the driver s travel path, and then proceeding to drive across the intersection on the flashing red without stopping. Even though the signal is hot response and not coordinated, there were minimal traffic operational issues at the intersection and, in general.

27 Operational Issues with the PHB/HAWK in DC 1. Some Drivers do not understand that they may proceed on Flashing Red: Not observed as safety problem Reduces somewhat the operational advantage of the PHB DDOT posted a sign to help explain the Flashing Red phase 2. Some reports of drivers moving on the Flashing Red in a manner that seemed hazardous to pedestrians: Lengthen the solid red phase Enforcement

28 Signalized Intersections: Leading Pedestrian Interval or LPI Pedestrian head start Works best with NTOR Implementation Policy: Look for high right turn/ped crash locations Over 115 locations to date FHWA CRF: 5%

29 New R10-15 sign with symbolic design: New MUTCD Old MUTCD DC Stop version

30

31 100% Fatalities based on speed of vehicle A pedestrian s chance of death if hit by a motor vehicle 90% 80% No Injury 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Injury Death 0% 20 mph 30 mph 40 mph Killing Speed and Saving Lives, UK Department of Transportation

32

33 Columbia Heights Traffic Calming through land use 2010 Large scale neighborhood revitalization Public plaza and widened sidewalks and streetscape 1968

34 Road Diet Technique 4 to 2 lane with center turn lane conversion rates a CRF of 29% for all crashes (FHWA).

35 Sherman Ave. NW Road Diet, 2013 Before: Before ADT: 17,000 After ADT:? After: Example of the give and take required to right size a street and make a former auto-dominated corridor with poor pedestrian, bike and transit facilities function as a complete street.

36 Sherman Ave. NW Road Diet: 2013 Before: After:

37 Sherman Ave. NW Road Diet

38 Geometric Improvements: Crossing Islands Before: Very cost effective way to improve crossing safety, convenience and calm traffic. FHWA CRF: 46% decrease in pedestrian-vehicle crashes at marked crossings, and 39% at unmarked crossings. After: Allows a crossing to be made in two stages and provides a protected waiting area. Usually no drainage impacts

39 Geometric Improvements: Crossing Islands SRTS project Low cost/high impact

40 Geometric Improvements: Curb Extensions Source: Toole Design Group

41 Curb Extensions- Cautions and Concerns Keep in mind large vehicles, bicycles Bike lane squeeze 12 th St. NE, Brookland neighborhood

42 George Branyan Pedestrian Program Coordinator