80th and Foster Intersection AnalysisKevin HaceChris HassMatt Palmer

CE 410/510: Bicycle and Pedestrian Engineering Design

Purpose

• Determine effectiveness of 2010 crosswalk enhancement project by comparing before and after video data.

• Recommend mobility and safety changes.

Project Vicinity

Zoning Designation and Crime Rates

Zoning: General Commercial 300-500 crimes annually

Previous ProjectsExisting Crossing Infrastructure (2004)• Crossing at street corner• Limited/ no signage

Crossing moved to Mid-Block (2005)•Pedestrian refuge•Added signage and striping

Issues at Mid-Block Crossing• Many vehicle-pedestrian accidents at

crossing• Limited warning of crossing

pedestrians to approaching vehicles• High volume arterial makes crossing

safely a difficult task.• Low visibility at night

Before Treatment (2005)• Crossing warning signs with arrows• Advance warning signs on both approaches• Center refuge for pedestrians• Continental road markings

After TreatmentIn addition to before items: • Rectangular signs (yellow and black striping)• Pedestrian-activated rectangular LED flash beacon (solar

powered)• Stop bar and associated signage to designate the area where

cars are to stop.

Research Methodology • Field site visit– Measurement of roadway geometrics– Flashing beacon phase time– Characterize surrounding neighborhoods and land uses

• Video review– Traffic video reviewed and analyzed by project team– Pedestrian wait times, non-compliance rates with regard

to pedestrian and vehicles, crossing times, etc.– Video data provided by PBOT

Analysis PeriodBefore Treatment:• Wednesday November 18,2009: 5pm – 6pm • Thursday November 19, 2009: 8am – 9am & 5pm – 6pm• Friday November 20, 2009: 8am – 9am

After Treatment:• Monday March 8, 2010: 5pm – 6pm • Tuesday March 8, 2010 : 8am – 9am & 5pm – 6pm• Wednesday March 8, 2010 : 8am – 9am

*Mondays and Fridays were originally going to be excluded, but were included to provide an adequate number of analysis periods.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes

• Pedestrian movements dominate crossing (70-95%).

• When bicyclist dismount they are considered pedestrians in this research.

• Bicycle volumes are low possibly due to the lack of bicycle facilities in the surrounding area.

BEFOREMorning

BEFOREEvening

AFTERMorning

AFTEREvening

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Pedestrians Bicycles

Crossing Direction

BEFOREMorning

BEFOREEvening

AFTERMorning

AFTEREvening

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

NE Bound SW Bound

• NE bound movements dominate.• Primary reasons:

• Fred Meyer on NE side of crossing• SW neighborhood accessing bus

stop to head downtown on NE side• SW crossings increase in the evenings

due to pedestrians returning to their homes from work.

Pedestrian Delay

• Increased wait times after crosswalk improvements.

• May be due to people becoming reliant on the flasher and not stepping out into the roadway, thereby completely relying on the beacon to stop traffic flow.

MorningAverage

EveningAverage

AFTERMorning

AFTEREvening

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0BeforeAfter

Wai

t Tim

e (s

/ped

)

Average Crossing Times

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0 BeforeAfter

Cros

sing

Tim

e (s

/ped

)

• Crossing times decreased after the crossing enhancement, although the decrease’s significance is questionable.

• Pedestrian crossing times may be decreasing due to the feeling of safety from the flashing beacon. People feel more confident when crossing when a beacon is notifying motorists.

Vehicle Violations per Pedestrians

• Increase in non-compliant vehicles after crossing enhancement.

• Based on our data, more notification is equating to less compliance.

• Commuter traffic may be conditioned to ignore beacon warning.

• Police enforcement may be necessary to minimize vehicle violations.

MorningAverage

EveningAverage

AFTERMorning

AFTEREvening

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2Before

After

Vehi

cles

vio

latio

ns p

er p

edes

tria

n

Percentage of Pedestrian Violations

MorningAverage

EveningAverage

AFTERMorning

AFTEREvening

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Before After

Pede

stria

n Vi

olati

ons p

er T

otal

Ped

estr

ians

• Pedestrian violations (e.g. not crossing at the designated crosswalk) were statistically insignificant

• Before evening data was recorded as zero pedestrian violations.

Percentage Signal Actuations

AFTERMorning

AFTEREvening

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Pede

stria

n Vi

olati

ons p

er

Tota

l Ped

estr

ians

• The percentage of pedestrians not utilizing the actuated flash beacon was unexpected.

• Nearly half of all pedestrians did not actuate the flash beacons upon crossing.

• It was observed that the flash beacon enhanced non-compliant crosses. Pedestrians would hurry and cross diagonally to cross before the flash beacon phase ended.

Recommendations• Increase beacon size

– Could increase vehicle compliance rates

• Medium-mount lighting on sidewalk– Vehicles can see pedestrians waiting to cross– Pedestrians waiting at bus stop feel more “safe”

• Bollards with low-mounted lighting– Bollards increase protection of pedestrians within refuge– Low-mounted lighting will assist pedestrians in navigating at night

• Reduce signal phase– For research data, the average crossing time is much lower than the

existing flashing phase.– Reducing the flashing length will result in increased traffic flows during

peak hours.

Lessons Learned• Just because infrastructure is installed does not mean that

pedestrians will utilize the infrastructure.– Pedestrians not utilizing flash beacon at high rates

• The beacon was not the primary reason for motorists to stop; it is the pedestrian in the roadway that prompts motorists to stop.

• More rigid review criteria for data analysis– E.g. how exactly will pedestrian delay be measured?

Questions?