enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments in santa monica ite 2012 western district annual meeting...
TRANSCRIPT
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Treatments in Santa Monica
ITE 2012 Western District Annual MeetingSession 8CWednesday June 27, 2012
Sam Morrissey, P.E.City Traffic EngineerCity of Santa Monica
Introduction
2
Introduction (Cont’d)
3
Introduction (Cont’d)
4
Introduction (Cont’d)
5
Background
July 2008
September 2008
December 2010
6
City Request to Experiment
7
Evaluation Locations
In-Roadway Warning Light Systems• Santa Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street• Pico Boulevard/3rd Street• Pico Boulevard/10th Street• 2114 Colorado Avenue (Midblock crosswalk)
8
Evaluation Locations (Cont’d)
Flashing Beacon SystemsSanta Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street• 2 lanes ea. dir.• Center TWLTL• Spd. Lmt. 30 mph• 85th %tile ~32 mph• 28,000 ADT
9
Evaluation Locations (Cont’d)
Flashing Beacon SystemsSanta Monica Boulevard/Stanford Street • 2 lanes ea. dir.• Center TWLTL• Spd. Lmt. 30 mph• 85th %tile ~32 mph• 28,000 ADT
10
Deployment
2114 Colorado Avenue (Midblock crosswalk)
11
Deployment (Cont’d)
Pico Boulevard/10th Street
12
Deployment (Cont’d)
Pico Boulevard/3rd Street
13
Deployment (Cont’d)
Santa Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street
14
Deployment (Cont’d)
Santa Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street
15
Deployment (Cont’d)
Santa Monica Boulevard/Stanford Street
16
Evaluation
17
In-Roadway Warning Lights – Daytime
Evaluation (Cont’d)
18
In-Roadway Warning Lights – Summary
Location: Santa
Monica/Princeton Pico/3rd Pico/10th Colorado Midblock
Device: IRWL IRWL IRWL IRWL Time of Day
State of Operation
Yielding Response (Approx.)
AM Off 91% 95% 86% 85% On 86% 88% 86% 95%
Change -5% -7% 0% +10% Dusk Off 77% 62% 81% 75% On 91% 100% 100% 77%
Change +14% +38% +19% +2% Night Off 45% 95% 81% 27% On 95% 95% 95% 73%
Change +50% 0% +14% +46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Perc
ent D
river
s th
at Y
ield
ed to
Ped
estr
ian
Average Distance Brake Lights Were Observed (feet)
Data Comparison for Study AM Session (9-11AM) Average
Santa Monica/Princeton - ON (RRFB)
Santa Monica/Princeton - OFF
Santa Monica/Stanford - ON (CRFB)
Santa Monica/Stanford - OFF
Evaluation (Cont’d)
19
Flashing Beacons – Daytime
Evaluation (Cont’d)
20
Flashing Beacons – Summary
Location: Santa Monica/Princeton
Santa Monica/Stanford
Device: RRFB CRFB Time of Day
State of Operation
Yielding Response (Approx.)
AM Off 65% 85% On 80% 90% Change +15% +5%
Midday Off 70% 90% On 90% 95% Change +20% +5%
PM Off 85% 75% On 85% 90% Change 0% +15%
Dusk Off 85% 75% On 80% 100% Change -5% +25%
Night Off 60% 80% On 95% 90% Change +35% +10%
Comparisons
1. Generally, both systems increase driver yielding response rates
2. The RRFB seems to result in a greater increase in driver yielding response than the CRFB
3. Compared to IRWL systems, both systems appear to be as effective as IRWL systems
21
Next Steps
• City’s experiment still ongoing
• Continue through 2013• Periodic updates to
CTCDC & FHWA• Alternate locations of
C/RRFBs• Investigate “human
factors”• Testing other devices
22
Questions?
Sam MorrisseyCity Traffic EngineerCity of Santa Monica1685 Main Street, Room 115Santa Monica, CA 90401T: [email protected]
Steve WeinbergerW-Trans490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201Santa Rosa, CA 95401T: [email protected]
23