Transportation Education Series (TES) Alaska - 2012 Pedestrian Crossings March 5, 2012 Anchorage AK March 6, 2012 Fairbanks AK March 7, 2012 Juneau AK Gary Katsion, P.E.
Overview National Practice and Local Laws Pedestrian Characteristics Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks Basic Crossing Treatments Enhanced Crossing Treatments Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment o NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 Liability Risk Management Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2
National Practice and Local Laws National Practice and Local Laws Pedestrian Characteristics Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks Basic Crossing Treatments Enhanced Crossing Treatments Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment o NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 Liability Risk Management Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 3
Disclaimer The following slides are based on the understanding of the law from an able-bodied professional civil engineer and not from those with a legal background Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 4
Do crosswalks exist at all intersections? National and Alaska Practice o A crosswalk at an intersection is defined as the extension of the sidewalk or the shoulder across the intersection, regardless of whether it is marked or not. o The only way a crosswalk can exist at a midblock location is if it is marked. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 5
Can an Agency close a crosswalk? National and Alaska Practice o After an engineering and traffic investigation, the (State highway commission) and local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may designate unmarked crosswalk locations where pedestrian crossing is prohibited or where pedestrians must yield the right of way to vehicles. Such restrictions shall be effective only when official traffic-control devices indicating the restrictions are in place. [UVC 15-108] Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, 1998 Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 6
When do vehicles have the right-of-way? Alaska Law o Pedestrians must comply with traffic and pedestrian-control signals and are subject to the applicable restrictions in this chapter. [13 ACC 02.150] o The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian who is on a sidewalk, vehicle way or area, or who is crossing a roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. [13 ACC 02.155] o A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. [13 ACC 02.160] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 7
Is Jaywalking Illegal? National Practice o Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. [UVC 11-503] Alaska Law o Between adjacent intersections in a business district or residential district in which traffic control signals are in operation, no pedestrian may cross except in a marked crosswalk. [13 ACC 02.160] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 8
Establishing Crosswalks at Midblock Locations 2009 MUTCD o At non-intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. o Because non-intersection pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the road user, warning signs should be installed for all marked crosswalks at non-intersection locations and adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions. [Section 3B.18] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 9
Establishing Crosswalks at Midblock Locations 2009 MUTCD o Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. o An engineering study should be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. o The engineering study should consider the number of lanes, the presence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed limit or 85thpercentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors. [Section 3B.18] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 10
Establishing Crosswalks at Midblock Locations 2009 MUTCD o 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. 4+ travel lanes without a raised median island and ADT of 12,000+ vehicles; or B. 4+ travel lanes with a raised median island and ADT of 15,000+ vehicles [Section 3B.18] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 11
Why Provide Marked Midblock Crossings? Provides a legal crossing where pedestrians want to travel Connects origins and destinations between intersections Can be safer for pedestrians than crossings at intersections; traffic conflicts are constrained to only two directions Marking the midblock crossing switches the right-of-way between motorists and pedestrians o Unmarked Pedestrians yield to motorists o Marked Motorists yield to pedestrians Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 12
Next Section Pedestrian Characteristics National Practice and Local Laws Pedestrian Characteristics Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks Basic Crossing Treatments Enhanced Crossing Treatments Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment o NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 Liability Risk Management Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 13
Key Research Documents Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition Highway Capacity Manual, 5th Edition (TRB 2010) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, NCHRP Report 562 (TRB 2006) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 14
Key Research Documents Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (FHWA September 2005) Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks (FHWA April 2008) Accessible Public Rights-of-Way, Planning and Designing for Alterations (July 2007) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 15
Pedestrian Speed Observed walking speeds (NCHRP Report 562) o Average walk speed: 4.75 ft/s o 15 th percentile walk speed: 3.67 ft/s Older pedestrian walking speeds o Average walk speed: 4.41 ft/s o 15 th percentile walk speed: 3.11 ft/s US population growing older MUTCD o Previous 2003 Version: 4.0 ft/s o 2009 Version: 3.5 ft/s Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 16
Pedestrian Characteristics - Distance Out-of-direction travel drastically reduces willingness to walk Provide frequent crossings Signals every 1/4 mile doesn t work for pedestrians! o (2 x 660 ft.) 3.5 ft./sec. = 377 seconds of delay (halfway) o > 80 seconds is LOS F for autos Want crosswalks as short as possible o Takes least amount of time from other traffic movements Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 17
Pedestrian Safety Many effective treatments are available: o Marked markings o Curb extensions o Raised crossing o Raised median island o Signage Ped-Bike Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) is free software to identify mitigations o FHWA publication, July 2006 o http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/pbcat/index.cfm o Suggests treatments based on prevalent crash types Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 18
Designing for Pedestrians Three primary aspects to quality transportation environments: o Safe, Comfortable AND Convenient Intersection design should satisfy all three Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 19
Designing for Pedestrians Understanding ADA Guidelines Americans with Disability Act (ADA) o Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities Horizontal clearance Longitudinal grades Cross slope Accessible Public Rights-of-Way, Planning and Designing for Alterations o Alterations to existing facilities and associated constraints o Examples of numerous design solutions o Curb ramp examples Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 20
Next Section Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks National Practice and Local Laws Pedestrian Characteristics Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks Basic Crossing Treatments Enhanced Crossing Treatments Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment o NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 Liability Risk Management Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 21
Unmarked Crosswalk Most common pedestrian crossing Vehicles required to yield to peds in unmarked crosswalks o Legally the same as marked crosswalks Practically this is not the case Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 22
Marked Crosswalk Increase visibility of pedestrians Alert motorists to the likely presence of pedestrians Often accompanied by supplemental signs and markings Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 23
Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks What is happening at marked crosswalks? o False sense of security? o Differences across populations Most vulnerable are drawn to crosswalks Multiple threat crashes higher at marked crosswalks Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Federal Highway Administration, 2005. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 24
Pedestrian Safety Unsignalized Crossings Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Federal Highway Administration, 2005. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 25
Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks Research results in guidelines for where: Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Federal Highway Administration, 2005. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 26
Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks According to the 2009 MUTCD, marked crosswalks alone are insufficient when, either: o Speed > 40mph o Multilane roads without medians where, ADT >12,000 o Multilane roads with medians where, ADT >15,000 Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 27
Next Section Basic Crossing Treatments National Practice and Local Laws Pedestrian Characteristics Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks Basic Crossing Treatments Enhanced Crossing Treatments Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment o NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 Liability Risk Management Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 28
Geometric Modifications Curb Extensions Reduce crossing distance and pedestrian exposure Increases ability of pedestrians to see oncoming traffic Can introduce drainage issues if designed improperly Decreases vehicular delay Can reduce travel speeds Increases visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross o Moves pedestrians out from behind parked cars Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 29
Geometric Modifications Curb Extensions Restriped parking aisles reduces visibility of original curb extension Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 30
Geometric Modifications Tighten Curb Radii Reduce crossing distance and pedestrian exposure Decreases speeds for right-turning traffic Decreases vehicular delay Increases visibility of pedestrians Challenging at intersections with large design vehicles Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, 1998 Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 31
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands Simple solution for roadways with two-way left-turn lanes Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 32
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands Allows pedestrians to make 2-stage crossings Improve safety and comfort Reduced crossing delay Refuge area for slower pedestrians Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 33
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands Can be used with or without marked crossings Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 34
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands Offset crosswalks (2-stage crossings) o Position pedestrians to face oncoming traffic Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 35
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands Disadvantages o Potential false sense of security for pedestrians o Street sweeping and snow plow o Fixed object in roadway for vehicles o Could require right-of-way to widen roadway for installation Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 36
Geometric Modifications Raised Crosswalk Platforms Reduces vehicular speeds across crosswalk Primarily works for low speed roadways Brings vehicles to sidewalk elevation (rather than pedestrians to street elevation) Can introduce drainage challenges Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 37
Signing Enhancements Additional Warning Signs Overhead signs add extra emphasis to crossing Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 38
Signing Enhancements High-visibility Treatments Increase awareness of pedestrians Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 39
Signing Enhancements High-visibility Treatments After 1 month After 5-months Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 40
Striping Enhancements Advance Stop Bars on Multilane Roadways 2009 MUTCD Figure with Advance Stop Bars Stop Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 41
Striping Enhancements High Visibility Lines Add diagonal markings to standard parallel crosswalk lines to improve visibility of crossing Studies show improved visibility with continental crosswalk markings over parallel lines 2009 MUTCD, Figure 3B.19 Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 42
Electronic Enhancements Illumination at Crossings Addresses safety of pedestrians at night Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 43
Other Enhancements Crosswalk Flags Heavily used in municipalities such as Kirkland and Salt Lake City Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 44
Other Enhancements Crosswalk Flags Adds visibility for pedestrians using crosswalk Low cost solution Potential for confusion to other flagging equipment (school crossing guards, flaggers) Theft and replacement considerations o Some agencies have implemented adopt a crosswalk programs Visually-disabled pedestrians are not likely to use device Device not currently approved in the MUTCD Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 45
Other Basic Crossing Treatments Rumble strips in advance of crosswalk Striping o Pavement legends in advance of crosswalk o Non-reflective colored pavement within or along crosswalk Pedestrian barriers to discourage unwanted crossings o Landscape buffers, fencing, railings, etc. Removal of on-street parking Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 46
Combining Treatments Raised median Off-set marked crossing Advance stop lines Pedestrian warning signs (black on yellow) Regulatory pedestrian signs (black on white) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 47
Next Section Enhanced Crossing Treatments National Practice and Local Laws Pedestrian Characteristics Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks Basic Crossing Treatments Enhanced Crossing Treatments Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment o NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 Liability Risk Management Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 48
Pedestrian Beacons Increase visibility of pedestrian crossings Typical applications of Warning Beacons include o Supplemental emphasis to warning signs o Emphasis for midblock crosswalks Warning Beacons that are actuated by pedestrians, bicyclists, or other road users may be used as appropriate to provide additional warning to vehicles approaching a crossing or other location [2009 MUTCD, Section 4L.03] Photo: ITE Pedestrian-Bicycle Council Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 49
Pedestrian Beacons Continuously-Flashing Low speed environment with heavy pedestrian usage Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 50
Pedestrian Beacons Continuously-Flashing May not be the best solution for all crossing locations Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 51
Pedestrian Beacon Comparison Advantages Pedestrian-Actuated Beacons o Higher compliance rate with beacons that are only active when needed o More consistent with the MUTCD Warning Beacons should be operated only during those periods or times when the condition or regulation exists [2009 MUTCD, Section 4L.03] Advantages Continuously-Flashing Beacons o Requires a pedestrian to actively engage the beacons (pushbutton) to be effective unless passive detection (radar/microwave) is present o Removes possible confusion for users to enter crosswalk prior to confirming stopped vehicles o Cost Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 52
Pedestrian Beacons Pedestrian Actuated Active Detection Passive Detection o Pushbuttons o Pressure pads o Video o Microwave o Infrared o Radar Photo: Dan Burden Photo: ITE Pedestrian-Bicycle Council Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 53
Pedestrian Beacons Pedestrian Actuated Advantages Active Detection o User familiarity with device (pushbutton) o Typically more reliable and less expensive o Ease of maintenance for the owner Advantages Passive Detection o Passive detection (should) detect all users; not all users will elect to use a pushbutton o Can be used to extend the activation for slower pedestrians o Visually-disabled pedestrians may not be able to locate pushbuttons (that do not include audible devices) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 54
Electronic Enhancements In-Roadway Warning Lights Enhancement feature at marked crosswalks 2003 and 2009 MUTCD provide standard and guidance statements regarding use o Shall only be used at marked crosswalks accompanied with warning signs Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 55
Electronic Enhancements In-Roadway Warning Lights Advantages o Decreased wait times for pedestrians o Increased visibility of crosswalk to motorists o Increased utilization of marked crosswalk vs. other adjacent unmarked crossing locations o Can operate with active (pushbuttons) or passive (sensor) detection Disadvantages o Pedestrians misinterpreting flashing lights and/or not waiting for traffic to stop prior to entering crosswalk o Maintenance costs and pavement impacts o Motorist compliance rates o Decreased illuminance of lights due to dirt, glare, standing water, etc. o Decreased visibility for vehicles in a queue vs. overhead beacons Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 56
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) Interim approval from USDOT in July 2008 o http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/ia11_rrf b_iapmemo.pdf o Based on testing showed very high yield rates Used to supplement marked crosswalks with crossing warning signs o Not a supplement to regulatory signs Must have activation o Passive detection o Pedestrian push-buttons Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 57
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) High motorist yield rates Consistent over 1-year period Van Houten, R., J. Shurbutt, and S. Turner, Analysis of Effects of Stutter Flash LED Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians Using Multilane Crosswalks, Transportation Research Board, 2008. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 58
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) An RRFB shall only be installed to function as a warning beacon. An RRFB shall only be used to supplement a W11-2 (Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning sign with a diagonal downward arrow (W16-7p) plaque, located at or immediately adjacent to a marked crosswalk. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 59
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) An RRFB shall not be used for crosswalks across approaches controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic control signals (except for at roundabouts). An additional RRFB may be installed on an approach in advance of the crosswalk, as a warning beacon to supplement a W11-2 (Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning sign with an AHEAD: (W16-9p) plaque. This additional RRFB shall be supplemental to and not a replacement for RRFBs at the crosswalk itself. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 60
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) Two pairs of signs required per approach Installed on the same post as the warning sign and plaque. 2 horizontally-aligned yellow indications located between the two warning signs. The indications flash in a rapidly alternating "wig-wag" pattern. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 61
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) The RRFB shall rest in dark, shall initiate operation only upon pedestrian actuation, and shall cease operation after use. If pedestrian pushbuttons (rather than passive detection) are used to actuate the RRFBs, a pedestrian instruction sign with the legend PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON WARNING LIGHTS should be mounted adjacent to or integral with each pedestrian pushbutton. Can install a small light visible to pedestrians to provide confirmation that the RRFB is in operation. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 62
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) Planned installation along US 20 (Greenwood) in Bend o Solar panel o Signage o Rectangular flashers o Pedestrian push button o Post with foundation NE 12 th St Excerpts from design plans for the City of Bend by DevTech Engineering, LLC Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 63
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) Advantages o Lower cost option compared to other devices that produce similar vehicular yield rates o Research shows a higher yield rate than a regular round beacon o Research shows highest yielding rate of all devices that do not feature a red display Disadvantages o Pedestrians misinterpreting flashing lights and/or not waiting for traffic to stop prior to entering crosswalk Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 64
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal Effective tool to allow pedestrian crossings Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 65
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal Midblock crosswalks shall not be signalized if they are located within 300 feet from the nearest traffic control signal, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. [2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.01] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 66
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal A midblock crosswalk location should not be controlled by a traffic control signal if the crosswalk is located within 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP signs or YIELD signs. [2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.01] Pelican Signalized Crossing Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 67
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal Required to meet MUTCD signal warrants o Few locations can satisfy this warrant 2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4C Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 68
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal Advantages o If warranted, can adequately handle large volumes of pedestrians o Can be designed as a two-step signal that only impacts one direction of vehicular traffic at a time (if a wide median exists) Disadvantages o Potential for misuse if not operating efficiently o May force mainline traffic to stop for pedestrians when adequate gaps in traffic exist (off-peak conditions) o Cost Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 69
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Half Signal Stop signs on low volume approach, traffic signal indications for major street Pedestrian push buttons for activating signal Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 70
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Half Signal Conflicts with the MUTCD o If this warrant [Warrant 4 or Warrant 5] is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then if it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 71
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) HAWK = High-Intensity Activated CrossWalK o Approximately 50 in Tucson; 2 in Portland; 1 in Klamath Falls o Included in 2009 MUTCD as Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 72
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) 97% motorist compliance recorded in Tucson Not statistically different than a full pedestrian signal Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 73
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) Vehicular displays rest in dark Pedestrian displays rest in DON T WALK 2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4F Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 74
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) 2009 MUTCD includes installation guidelines o Can use at locations that do not meet traffic signal warrants o Can also be placed at a location that meets traffic signal warrants while a decision is made to not install a traffic control signal. o Requires a CROSSWALK STOP ON RED sign 2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4F Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 75
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) 2009 MUTCD includes installation guidelines 2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4F Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 76
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) City of Tucson received approval for experimentation in 2006 o Request documented need at midblock and intersection locations o Accommodates areas where traditional signal warrants are not met 2009 MUTCD restricted the used of the HAWK to only midblock locations o When an engineering study finds that installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon is justified, then the pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs o NOTE: Above phrase not included in original draft version of the 2009 MUTCD Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 77
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) Advantages o Reduces delay on major street by allowing motorists to proceed during the pedestrian clear out interval o At intersections, side street vehicular traffic demand does not impede through traffic on major street o Compliance rates equivalent to a standard and a half signal o Documented safety results o Can be coordinated with other traffic signals along a corridor Disadvantages o Potential for motorist confusion with dark signal displays (i.e. is there a power outage = all-way stop?) o At intersections, motorist confusion potential along side-streets o Cost Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 78
What comes after Signals? Grade Separation FHWA: Warrants for Pedestrian Over/Underpass o Roadway vehicle speeds above 40 MPH o At least 300 pedestrians per hour for the 4 highest continuous hours in urban areas (not freeways) o Vehicular volumes over 10,000 during same 4-hour period (or ADT over 35,000) o At least 600 feet from nearest safe crossing location Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 79
What comes after Signals? Grade Separation Advantages o Accommodates high volume pedestrian crossings o Avoids vehicular/pedestrian conflicts o Pedestrian safety o Can be designed around topography Disadvantages o Cost o Out-of-direction travel o Safety/Crime/Security (undercrossings) o Drainage o Visibility of crossing to unfamiliar users o Can be difficult to meet ADA requirements for grade Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 80
Next Section Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment National Practice and Local Laws Pedestrian Characteristics Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks Basic Crossing Treatments Enhanced Crossing Treatments Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment o NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 Liability Risk Management Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 81
Evaluating Crossings 2010 HCM Highway Capacity Manual is currently being updated for the 2010 edition Emphasis on Quality of Service and multimodal LOS throughout new Manual Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 82
Pedestrian LOS at Unsignalized Locations New unsignalized pedestrian LOS estimation method Estimates pedestrian delay based on 4 factors o Traffic volume - # of lanes crossed o Crossing distance - Motorist yield rate Allows consideration of different crossing treatments LOS Control Delay (s/ped) Comments A 0 5 Usually no conflicting traffic B 5 10 Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic C 10 20 Delay noticeable to pedestrians, but not inconveniencing D 20 30 Delay noticeable and irritating, increased likelihood of risk-taking E 30 45 Delay approaches tolerance level, risk-taking behavior likely F > 45 Delay exceeds tolerance level, high likelihood of pedestrian risktaking Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 83
Example Pedestrian LOS Calculation Existing Conditions: 2-lane arterial with marked crosswalk, but nobody is yielding Inputs: Output: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles 2 lanes crossed 30 feet crossing distance 10% yield rate Average delay = 44 seconds Ped LOS = E Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 84
Pedestrian LOS at Unsignalized Locations Example (cont.): Install rectangular rapid-flash beacons (RRFB) to improve driver compliance Inputs: Output: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles 2 lanes crossed 30 feet crossing distance 80% yield rate Average delay = 6 seconds Ped LOS = B Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 85
Selecting Treatments - NCHRP 562 NCHRP 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings o Field study of motorist yielding for multiple crossing treatments o Delay-based method to select appropriate crossing treatments o Generally consistent with FHWA marked vs. unmarked crosswalk study Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 86
NCHRP 562 Effectiveness of Treatments High-visibility Treatments Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, NCHRP Report 562, TRB, 2006. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 87
NCHRP 562 Effectiveness of Treatments Active when Present Treatments Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, NCHRP Report 562, TRB, 2006. Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 88
NCHRP 562 Selecting Treatments Based on estimated pedestrian delay using HCM methodology o More delay = more aggressive treatment Delay Calculation Methodology: Inputs Outputs Walk speed, Crossing distance Critical gap, Traffic volume Delay/ped., Pedestrian Volume Critical gap Delay per pedestrian Total pedestrian delay Worksheet examples in Appendix A (Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 89
NCHRP 562 Selecting Treatments 4 categories of treatments recommended: o No marked crosswalks o Crosswalk o High-visibility/active when present Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) was not included in NCHRP 562, but will likely fall between these two treatments. o Red beacon/signal Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 90
NCHRP 562 Where are treatments appropriate? Delay-based method Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 91
Next Section Liability Risk Management National Practice and Local Laws Pedestrian Characteristics Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks Basic Crossing Treatments Enhanced Crossing Treatments Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment o NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 Liability Risk Management Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 92
Liability Risk Management Thorough documentation of design and decision making process should include the following actions (typical CSD/CSS process): o Consider multiple alternatives o Evaluate and document design decisions o Document stakeholder engagement and involvement o Demonstrate a commitment to mitigate safety concerns o Special care should be exercised with new and creative ideas o Monitor installation to improve future decision making Agency has control over basic design features and elements o Maintain a relatively consistent, non-politicized pedestrian crossing practice Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 93
Next Section Update from TRB National Practice and Local Laws Pedestrian Characteristics Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks Basic Crossing Treatments Enhanced Crossing Treatments Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment o NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 Liability Risk Management Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 94
Update from Transportation Research Board Pedestrian Research Needs Statements in Four Categories o Planning and Policy Institutional issues blocking pedestrian improvements o Design, Operations, and Safety Analysis Improving the service for all users at a signalized intersection through developing a detection-based traffic signal system o Human Capacity & Sensitivity to Environment Improvements for pedestrians with low vision o Society, Culture & Behavior Effect of hand-held communication device use on pedestrian safety Any ideas/thoughts are welcome we will pass them on! Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 95
Update from Transportation Research Board Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) Follow-up Research o Safety Effectiveness of HAWK Pedestrian Treatment o Presented at Transportation Research Board (TRB) in January 2009 o Transportation Research Record (TRR) 2140 to be published in Summer 2010 Paper Findings o Evaluation used data for 21 HAWK sites and 71 reference sites All HAWK sites at locations where minor street/driveway was STOP controlled o 28% reduction in total crashes (statistically significant at 95%) o 58% reduction in pedestrian crashes (statistically significant at 95%) o Changes in severe, rear-end, and angle crashes (not statistically significant at 95%) Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 96
Conclusion - Numerous Research Documents THANK YOU! - Any Questions? Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 97
Do crosswalks exist at all intersections? Oregon Law o Crosswalk means any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere that is distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings... o Where no marked crosswalk exists, a crosswalk is that portion of the roadway described the prolongation of the lateral line of the roadway [ORS 801.220] Washington Law o "Crosswalk" means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line except as modified by a marked crosswalk. [RCW 46.04.160] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 98
Can an Agency close a crosswalk? Oregon Law o Road authorities may regulate the movement of pedestrians upon highways within their jurisdictions by closing a marked or unmarked crosswalk and prohibiting pedestrians from crossing a roadway where a crosswalk has been closed by placing and maintaining signs giving notice of closure. [ORS 810.080] o Whenever marked crosswalks have been indicated, such crosswalks and no other shall be deemed lawful across such roadway at that intersection. [ORS 810.220] NOTE: Other crossings at an intersection are still legal (but pedestrians must yield to traffic) unless signed otherwise Washington Law o No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at an unmarked crosswalk where an official sign prohibits such crossing. [RCW 46.61.240] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 99
When do vehicles have the right-of-way? Oregon Law o A pedestrian commits the offense of pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle if the pedestrian fails to yield the right of way to a vehicle upon a roadway when the pedestrian is crossing the roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. [ORS 814.040] National Practice and Washington Law o Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. [UVC 11-503], [RCW 46.61.240] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 100
Is Jaywalking Illegal? National Practice and Washington Law o Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. [UVC 11-503], [RCW 46.61.240] Oregon Law does not include jaywalking statutes; however, some municipalities have laws prohibiting midblock crossings at unmarked locations o No pedestrian may cross a street other than within a crosswalk if within 150 feet of a crosswalk. [Portland City Code 16.70.210] Pedestrian Crossings Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 101