MARKET STREET STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

Transcription

1 MARKET STREET STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION This technical report is one of over a dozen reports prepared to support the Market Street Study. The purpose of the technical reports was to identify key issues and evaluate potential solutions. The techincal reports were developed in consultation with the Market Street Study Technical Working Group, which consisted of representatives from the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic, Municipal Railway, Planning Department, and Redevelopment Agency. Supplemental assessments may be required prior to the implementation of some specific recommendations contain in the Market Street Study Action Plan.

2 Market Street Study Pedestrian Circulation Technical Report Purpose Market Street is a highly multi-modal corridor serving as a major carrier of vehicles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Market Street has the highest number of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in San Francisco. The purpose of this analysis is to systematically examine these collisions for patterns in such things as collision factors, party demographics, or roadway conditions. These patterns, in turn, will be used to suggest potential engineering, planning, and policy measures to reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Survey Methodology The study method consisted of detailed analysis of existing data sources. The Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS), a compendium of statewide traffic collision reports maintained by the California Highway Patrol, formed the basis of the analysis. SWITRS forms an abstract of all motor vehicle collision reports filed by law enforcement agencies in the state. As such it provides a wealth of information on such factors as collision location, date, time of day, weather, severity, culpability, pavement condition, and parties involved. However, since it is an abstract, it does not contain any information related to the complex multi-modal environment specific to Market Street. For instance, the presence of boarding islands is probably a significant factor in pedestrian collisions on Market Street, but SWITRS has no way of dealing with these boarding islands. Further, SWITRS is first and foremost a description of motor vehicle collisions, which means that as a database, it is ill equipped to deal with pedestrian-based data. For these two reasons, the pedestrian collision analysis supplemented SWITRS with the actual police reports, kept on file at the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT). These reports were carefully examined; close attention was paid to the witness and party narratives. The intent was to glean any more information about the collision factors that are present but inadequately described in SWITRS, such as the involvement of boarding islands, the pedestrian movement preceding the collision, homelessness, and pedestrian intoxication. Survey Area The analysis was for pedestrian collisions that happened on Market Street or within 0 feet of it, between Steuart and Octavia Streets. Data from 996 to 00 were examined. Data Collection Notes There are numerous shortcomings with this sort of analysis. First, both SWITRS and the police reports only contain data on collisions between pedestrians and motor vehicles that have been reported to the police. Underreporting of collisions must always be a consideration. That being said, a DPT report that Page of 6

3 compared SWITRS collision data with emergency room data suggests that SWITRS appears reasonably representative. Second, these data are also typically based on a single officer s interpretation of facts and witness accounts, and are collected for legal reasons and not as a causal engineering assessment. This makes the reliability of the reports somewhat questionable. Furthermore, it was not uncommon to find the collision description and witness accounts at odds with the section of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) listed as that violated, especially when it came to the party at fault. When such a discrepancy appeared, the narrative was chosen as correct. Finally, this analysis only looks at actual pedestrian collisions, and not at what might be called nearmisses. A near-miss is a situation in which either the pedestrian or the motorist has altered his behavior to avoid a collision. This could include something as dramatic as the motorist swerving or slamming on the brakes, to something as basic as the pedestrian slowing down to avoid an automobile that is running a red light. In general, near-miss data are as valuable as collision data but by their nature are hard to collect. Near-miss rates may or may not map closely to collision rates. However, it is felt that on Market Street, due to its high pedestrian volumes, its relatively low vehicle speeds, and its operating characteristics (no unsignalized intersections, pretimed signals, etc), the near-miss rates and collision rates are highly correlated. Despite the limitations of this method, it is still considered to provide a valid description of pedestrian safety on Market Street. Survey Results The results of this collision analysis found that the highest number of pedestrian collisions took place in the mid-section of the stretch between Van Ness Avenue and the Embarcadero. This section is generally bounded by th Street to the east and 7th Street to the west. In particular, the intersections of Market Street with th, th, 6th, and 7th Streets had high collision rates. Not coincidentally, this is also the portion of Market Street that experiences the highest traffic volume. While no statistical analysis has been conducted to validate this conclusion, it appears that there is a fairly strong relationship between the number of vehicles on Market Street and the number of pedestrians involved in collisions, a conclusion that makes sense intuitively. There does not appear to be a similar correlation between pedestrian volumes and pedestrian collisions. The largest factor in pedestrian collisions is jaywalking, specifically, pedestrians crossing to the boarding islands other than at the crosswalk. Pedestrians were found at fault in 60% of all pedestrian collisions. In the 0% of collisions in which motorists were found at fault, the major factor was motorists failing to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. A common perception is that the homeless population is disproportionately involved in Page of 6

4 pedestrian collisions. The collision data analysis suggests that this is not the case. The survey results can be seen graphically in Figures through. In certain cases, the section of CVC that was violated is listed. Study Locations In order to gain an even better understanding of the collisions that are occurring on Market Street, four intersections were selected for a more detailed review of collisions: Market at th, th, 6th and 7th Streets. As noted above, these intersections were chosen because they had the highest number of pedestrian collisions, and also because they have attributes that are prototypical of the Market Street corridor, meaning that improvements recommended at these locations may have application throughout the corridor. Collisions Analysis In general, the data indicates a higher number of pedestrian collisions near MUNI boarding islands. Observations indicate that in many locations, even though collisions are taking place at or near islands, they may be related to heavy jaywalking (crossing the entire width of Market Street) rather than travel between the curb and the island. This is particularly prevalent near the UN Plaza and Powell Street cable car turnaround. Pedestrian collisions at the four study intersections are summarized below: th /Stockton/Ellis: Eight pedestrian collisions occurred at this intersection, all resulting in injuries, but none resulting in a fatality. The eastbound approach of Market to th Street had the highest number of collisions with six collisions reported; four apparently at or near the eastbound Muni bus platform and two in the south crosswalk (crossing th Street on the south side of Market) related to vehicles turning right from eastbound Market Street. See Figure. Market@ th /Eddy: Nine collisions were reported, resulting in 0 injuries (no fatalities) at this intersection. Six of these collisions occurred east of the intersection, where field observations also indicate a high number of jaywalkers crossing between the San Francisco Centre and the base of Powell Street. See Figure. 6 th /Taylor/Golden Gate: Eight collisions occurred at this intersection, four on the west leg related to vehicles traveling eastbound on Market Street. Observations indicate a high number of jaywalkers at this location crossing to and from the UN Plaza. See Figure. 7 th /McAllister: Five pedestrian collisions occurred at this location: two on the west leg involving vehicles traveling eastbound on Market and two on the south leg involving vehicles traveling northbound on 7 th Street. See Figure. Suggested Safety Enhancement Measures The following section suggests possible changes that could be implemented to improve pedestrian safety. They generally fall into one of three categories: improvements that could be considered for the length of Market Street, site intersection improvements, and channelization improvements. The attached figures depict some of the improvements described below. Page of 6

5 Corridor Improvements: Several of the improvements suggested for specific sites would be applicable to most or all of the remainder of the Market Street corridor. Restripe crosswalks: Many of the pavement indications, and particularly the crosswalk indications, are faded and/or damaged. Stripe advanced stop bars: While many locations have advanced stop bars (stripes four feet in advance of the crosswalk intended to encourage vehicles to stop further from the crosswalk, thereby improving pedestrian sight distances and decreasing the number of vehicles who stop in the crosswalk), many do not, and many of the existing stop bars are in poor repair. It is important to note that moving the stop bar further from the intersection may reduce the effective length of the bus platforms. Bus platforms are generally long enough that two buses can board and alight at one time. When buses stack closely at the platform, a third bus is able to board and alight from the front doors only. With the advanced stop bar, the likelihood that a third bus will be able to access the platform with its front door will decrease. See Figure. Review sign visibility: Many of the signs, particularly the low-mounted signs on the sides of the street such as the 0 MPH signs near the Muni platforms, are not visible because of sidewalk obstacles. The most frequently observed obstacles were newspaper racks. Review signal directionality: At some locations, the traffic signals are not pointed toward the oncoming traffic that they are intended to control. Maintenance crews should review the corridor and re-direct the signals where appropriate. Consideration should be given to replacing 8-inch traffic signal lenses with -inch lenses: Most of the signals along Market Street have 8-inch signal lenses. These are less visible than the larger -inch lenses used by most jurisdictions. Consideration should be given to replacing older equipment. If this proves impractical, some benefit could be derived from replacing 8-inch incandescent bulb with LED (light emitting diode) bulbs, which are brighter. Extend boarding islands: Consideration should be given to adding a small nose island on the far side of the crosswalks adjacent to the boarding islands. These islands would create a refuge area within the crosswalk adjacent to the boarding islands. Extended boarding islands are illustrated conceptually in Figures through. Provide special treatment, such as textured and/or colored pavement, between the boarding islands and curb to create a pedestrian zone : Conceptual examples of the special treatments are illustrated in the attached figures. This treatment may have the benefit of alerting drivers to the potential for pedestrian crossings. However, it also may have the adverse effect of encouraging pedestrians to feel comfortable crossing in this area. As with all of the recommendations in this memorandum, further study is recommended prior to implementation. Replace pedestrian scale street name signs: Pedestrian-scaled street name signs were once located on the pedestrian signals, but when the signals were replaced, the signs were not. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to identify the names of the cross streets on Market Street. Intersection Improvements: In most cases, the corridor improvements described above would address the bulk of the pedestrian safety concerns. However, in a couple of instances (e.g., th and 6 th Streets), additional improvements are recommended. At these two locations, the movements across Market Page of 6

6 Street are offset resulting in the west crosswalk (crosswalk on the west approach crossing Market Street) being set back from the intersection by 0 to 0 feet. This condition creates some confusion for drivers about where to stop at a red signal and whether it is legal to make right turns on red. The following improvements are recommended at these locations (many of these are also illustrated in Figures and ): Place No Right Turn On Red signs at the signal mast arm. Place Stop Here On Red signs at the stop bars in advance of the crosswalks. Remove stop bars (at th Street) on the far side of the crosswalk. Relocate eastbound signal indication to the near side of the intersection so that it is within 0 feet of the stop bar. At th Street, an additional signal indication exists on the near side, but the far side indication still confuses drivers and should be removed. If drivers are still confused about where to stop after the above changes have been implemented, consider adding KEEP CLEAR stencils in the are on the far side of the crosswalks. Review traffic volumes, particularly the right-turning volume to determine whether the exclusive right-turn lanes could be removed. Channelization: In two cases, pedestrian barriers that would channelize pedestrians to appropriate crossing locations are worth consideration. This would be accomplished by installing bollards with chains, similar to those used at other areas of Market Street, along the curb line. These would discourage jaywalking and may be appropriate adjacent to UN Plaza and Powell Street cable car turnaround. These are illustrated in Figures and. In order to make the westbound Muni bus platform more accessible at the Powell Street cable car turnaround, it may be advantageous to extend the board island to the mid-block signalized crossing just east of th Street. This would likely require replacement of the ADA-accessible lift with an ADA-accessible ramp. Estimated Costs for Safety Enhancement Measures The following table provides planning level cost estimates for the pedestrian safety enhancement measures described above. Cost estimates are provided for each individual element, as well as for the application of the typical number of elements at an intersection. For example, restriping crosswalks is estimated to cost $ per linear foot. A typical intersection requires about 80 linear feet of crosswalk striping, which is estimated to cost $,0. Page of 6

7 Individual Measure Cost Typical Application Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Item Quantity Unit Cost Corridor Improvements Restrip Crosswalks LF $ Four Typical Crosswalks 80 LF $,0 Strip Advance Stop Bars LF $ Four Typical Stop Bars 0 LF $60 Replace Signs EA $00 Two Typical Signs EA $600 Replace 8" with " -Section Heads EA TBD Typical Intersection TBD EA TBD Use 8" LED -Section Heads EA $70 Typical Intersection 8 EA $6,000 Install Boarding Island "Nose" EA $0,000 One "Nose" EA $0,000 Provide Ped. Paving Treatment SF $0 One Treatment 800 SF $8,000 Install Ped. Level Street Signs EA $00 Typical Intersection EA $,00 Intersection Improvements Place "No Right Turn on Red" Sign EA $00 Two Typical Signs EA $600 Place "Stop Here on Red" Sign EA $00 Two Typical Signs EA $600 Remove Stop Bars LF $ Two Stop Bar Removals 60 LF $00 Relocate signal indication EA $,000 One Signal Relocation EA $,000 Add "Keep Clear" Stencils EA $,00 One Set of Stencils EA $,00 Remove Right-turn Lane EA $,000 One Right-turn Removal EA $,000 Channelization Install Bollards and Chains LF $00 One Typical Installation 00 LF $0,000 Extend WB Muni Platform at th SF $0 One Platform Extension 000 SF $0,000 Page 6 of 6

8 Fifth Street Ellis Street Market Street 6 MUNI Island Stockton Street 7 Fourth and Market 6 7 Move stop bar from intersection back to crosswalk Move signal from far side of intersection to crosswalk Add noses to MUNI islands after crosswalks Consider adding raised crossing from MUNI island to sidewalk Consider designating pedestrian crossing zone within lane between MUNI island and curb using special pavement treatment and signage. Consider adding rumble strips in right lane prior to MUNI island. Consider eliminating right turn lane onto Fourth Street Fourth Street MUNI Island Third Street 6 MARKET STREET STUDY Figure Fourth and Market Streets Pedestrian Safety Measures

9 Eddy Street Mason Street Cyril Magnin Street Sixth Street MUNI Island Fifth and Market Fifth Street MUNI Island Market Street 6 6 Add noses to MUNI islands after crosswalks Consider adding raised crossing from MUNI island to sidewalk Consider designating pedestrian crossing zone within lane between MUNI island and curb using special pavement treatment and signage. Consider adding rumble strips in right lane prior to MUNI island. Consider extending outbound MUNI island east all the way to the crosswalk at the foot of Powell Street Add bollards and chain to keep pedestrians from crossing to west island from north sidewalk Fourth Street MARKET STREET STUDY Figure Fifth and Market Streets Pedestrian Safety Measures

10 Seventh Street Golden GateAvenue MUNI Island Taylor Street 6 Sixth and Market Sixth Street MUNI Island Market Street 6 Move signal from far side of intersection to crosswalk Add noses to MUNI islands after crosswalks Consider adding raised crossing from MUNI island to sidewalk Consider designating pedestrian crossing zone within lane between MUNI island and curb using special pavement treatment and signage. Consider adding rumble strips in right lane prior to MUNI island. Consider eliminating right turn lane onto Sixth Street Fifth Street MARKET STREET STUDY Figure Sixth and Market Streets Pedestrian Safety Measures

11 UN Plaza McAllister Street MUNI Island Market Street Seventh Street MUNI Island Seventh and Market Add noses to MUNI islands after crosswalks Consider adding raised crossing from MUNI island to sidewalk Consider designating pedestrian crossing zone within lane between MUNI island and curb using special pavement treatment and signage. Consider adding rumble strips in right lane prior to MUNI island. Add bollards and chain to keep pedestrians from crossing to west island from north sidewalk Sixth Street MARKET STREET STUDY Figure Seventh and Market Streets Pedestrian Safety Measures

12 Figure Total number of pedestrian collisions Source: SWITRS, data

13 Figure 6 Total collisions Ped is homeless Source: SFCTA, data

14 Figure 7 Total collisions Pedestrian jaywalked (CVC 9) Source: SFCTA, data

15 Figure 8 Total collisions Driver entered crosswalk on red light (CVC a) Source: SFCTA, data

16 Figure 9 Total collisions Driver failed to yield to ped in crosswalk (CVC 90a) Source: SFCTA, data

17 Figure 0 Total collisions Pedestrian disobeyed Don t walk signal (CVC 6) Source: SFCTA, data

18 Figure Total collisions Pedestrian suddenly entered roadway (CVC 90b) Source: SFCTA, data

19 Figure Total collisions Pedestrian failed to yield to vehicle in roadway (CVC 9) Source: SFCTA, data