Jaywalking Reduction on Miami University's Oxford Campus

8/17/2019 Jaywalking Reduction on Miami University's Oxford Campus

1/17

Jaywalking Reduction

Feasibility Report

By: Donald Stanley III, Jeremy Phifer, Richard Foley

Report Period: 3/31/2016-4/28/2016


2/17

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. IntroductionIII. Criteria

IV. Methods

V. Overview of Alternatives

VI. Evaluation of Alternatives

VII. Recommendations

VIII. Appendix A

IX. Appendix B

X. Sources


3/17

Executive Summary

The jaywalking problem at the intersections of Spring/Patterson and Patterson/73 can

cause traffic backup, a danger to the pedestrians who are jaywalking, and can be a bad

impression when visitors come to view the campus. The object and goal of this report is

to evaluate several solutions to the jaywalking problem, while taking into consideration

the cost, time frame, safety, and how easy it is to implement. The intersections of

Spring/Patterson and Patterson/73 are the main entrance way into the campus of Miami

University, the traffic flow through these intersections are always busy along with

student traffic through this area. Due to the long period of wait time for the walk signal,

many people jaywalk instead of waiting which can cause the traffic to be backed up,

students being put into danger, and a poor view of the school. As of right now, there is

no real punishment for jaywalking, nor is there any plan on fixing this problem.

Primary research was conducted through a student survey and observations of the

intersections to determine what solutions and alternatives could be used to reduce the

amount of jaywalking that occurs. The result of the observations show that nearly half

of all people who cross these streets do so illegally, and that nearly half of those

jaywalkers cross during one specific point in the traffic pattern that constitutes less than

10% of the total time of the traffic patterns. This indicates that the best solution may be

one that targets this part of the traffic pattern directly.

This discovery coupled with the fact that survey respondents favored an alternative that

does just that have led us to selecting the development of a new traffic pattern for these

intersections. This new traffic pattern will increase pedestrian and motor vehicleefficiency and decrease the amount of jaywalking that occurs there.

This solution also meets all of our criteria for an acceptable solution: affordability, ease

of implementation, reversibility, and safety. Developing and implementing a new traffic

pattern is affordable because there is no monetary cost. It is easy to implement

because only electronics need to be digitally reprogrammed; no physical structures

need be purchased or built, and the intersections do not need to suffer any unnecessary

downtime. This alternative is reversible because the pattern need only be returned to

its previous settings if something goes wrong. Finally, the solution is expected togreatly increase pedestrian safety by decreasing jaywalking, an act that puts

pedestrians in danger of being struck by a motor vehicle that has the right of way.


4/17

Introduction

The solutions and alternatives proposed in this report are necessary to reduce the

problem of jaywalking at the intersections of Spring/Patterson and Patterson/73 on

Miami University’s Oxford campus. The implementation of one of these solutions would

improve traffic flow at these intersections, increase pedestrian safety, and make the

entrance to the campus more pleasing for incoming visitors who might otherwise be met

with a flood of jaywalkers as a first impression.

Out of the alternatives that are going to be set forth in this document, we recommend a

change to the programming of the traffic lights at these intersections. Student feedback

and observation of student and vehicle habits at these crosswalks have indicated that

changes to signal lengths and/or traffic and pedestrian light cycling order would make it

more convenient and safe for pedestrians to cross the street, and make it easier for

drivers to navigate the intersection without delays.

Criteria

Our criteria for a reasonable solution are the following: the solution must be affordable,

relatively easy to implement, reversible, and safe. Affordability is gauged by the amount

of money that must be spent by the university on the implementation of the solution.

Ease of implementation is determined by the duration of the period of implementation,

and what downtime the intersections will face, if any, due to the solution. Reversible

refers to the ability to return the intersection to its original state if the plan fails to reduce

jaywalking, makes the jaywalking worse, or causes any other unforeseen negative

effects. Finally, the solution must increase pedestrian and motorist safety: any newdesign to the intersection or change in traffic pattern must not be confusing or timed in a

way that could endanger anyone for the sake of convenience.

Methods

The research methods used in this study were a survey to gather self-reported

perceptions and habits, primary observation of the intersections in question to

determine when and how often jaywalking happens, and limited secondary and

historical research of jaywalking. To expedite timeframe of the study and conserve

resources, exact cost research has not been done, and no numerical figures can be

given for cost or duration of implementation; however, each solution has a reasonably

intuitive, qualitative scale of cost and implementation. That is to say, without

quantitative backing at this time, it is reasonably easy to determine at a glance that

certain solutions would come at greater cost and delay than others simply due to

required methodology of implementation.


5/17

A survey was extended to students with the purpose of collecting self-reported data on

jaywalking habits and perceptions. 38 students responded to the survey. The results of

this survey indicate that students at Miami are aware of this problem, but value

convenience over contributing to the solution by waiting and not jaywalking. In addition

to this, the limited pool of survey respondents clearly favor one of our proposed

alternatives over the others.

The first question of the survey indicated that two out of three survey respondents agree

that jaywalking is a problem at the intersections discussed in this report. Figure 1

shows that despite recognizing the problem, Miami students still jaywalk at these

intersections quite frequently:

Percent of Respondents giving this answerFigure 1 - results of first survey question, indicating self-reported jaywalking frequency

at Patterson/Spring, Patterson/73


6/17

Figure 2 indicates that the most preferred solution for this problem is the implementation

of a new traffic pattern at these intersections. (No data is available for the alternative of

building new crossing infrastructure, as that alternative was developed after the creation

and conduction of this survey):

Figure 2 - Respondent preferences based on a weighted scale system (most,

somewhat, less, least likely) of self-reported expected habit changes

Observations have been made to determine at what times of day pedestrian traffic

peaks, as well as when jaywalking is most prevalent. The timings of the lights have also

been analyzed so that a new system can be proposed by combining these two sets of

data. In combination with the intersection timings, pedestrians were tracked for periods

of time to determine during which parts of the cycle jaywalking was most prevalent.

In total, five hours of observations were made, with a total of 1,690 pedestrian crossings

accounted for. Out of these, 744 were illegal. Not-surprisingly, 44% of all people whocrossed these intersections during our five hours of cumulative observation did so by

jaywalking. Interestingly, nearly half of these jaywalkers crossed during a time period

that constitutes less than 10% of the total time during which jaywalking can technically

occur. This highlights a point in the traffic pattern that could be potentially improved to

remove the incentive for jaywalking or make crossing the street at this time legal.


7/17

Overview of Alternatives

The first alternative is to implement and enforce penalties to students for jaywalking. As

of now it is unheard of to receive any penalties for jaywalking, and students will

knowingly jaywalk with miami law enforcement present at the intersection. To fix this

problem, more penalties would be issued, and the public would be made aware of these

penalties. Public knowledge that people are starting to receive fines for jaywalking, may

deter students from jaywalking. Also no changes would need to be made to the

intersection itself, so there would be no downtime as some of the other alternatives

would have. Students would also need to be educated about the dangers of jaywalking

as well as being respectful to drivers who also only have a limited time to get through

the intersection.

The second alternative is to construct new infrastructure, such as a pedestrian bridge or

a tunnel. This would fix the problem completely, due to always having access to cross

the street. This would also fix the problem of traffic backup on these streets because

without having to stop traffic for students the traffic can continuously move. The

crosswalks and walk signs could be removed. Also an added benefit of the bridge or

tunnel is now that there is always constant access in crossing the street, students could

make it to class on time.

The third alternative is to change the current traffic patterns of the two intersections,

thus increasing or redistributing the walk time for pedestrians. As of now there is only

one chance for the pedestrians to walk, this causes a long wait period for students

which causes them to jaywalk. By increasing the chances for people to walk or justredistributing the walk time, people would be more willing to wait. This would also be a

time to optimize vehicle signal timing, so that the traffic is not backed up due to either

jaywalking or poor signal times. This alternative needs no construction or purchases of

any kind, due to just needing to change the timing in the computerized traffic control

box.

The last alternative is to do nothing, this is always an option, and would cost nothing nor

would it take any time. Also there would be no confusion about new traffic patterns or

rules that would be put into place with the other alternatives. If later on in time theywould want to fix the jaywalking problem this alternative is fully reversible.


8/17

Evaluation of Alternatives

After conducting surveys, the implementation of the jaywalking penalties seemed to

have the least impact as the other alternatives. In order for this to be effective an officer

would have to be paid regularly or overtime depending on how this was setup and they

would have to be constantly stationed at these intersections. So out of all the

alternatives this would cost the second most. Also in order for this to be effective,

students would need to be reminded of the dangers of jaywalking and would need to

learn to be considerate of the drivers on the road. The few upsides of this alternative is

that there is no downtime and it could be implemented immediately. Also this is fully

reversible, if it proves to be ineffective then the officer would no longer be needed to be

stationed there.

Constructing a new infrastructure, such as a bridge or a tunnel, would eliminate

jaywalking completely due to having constant legal crossing, making it safer for the

students. The major problems with this alternative is the financial side, the time frame,

and that it is not reversible. This alternative is the most expensive of all of the options.

Since the university has a budget for renovations, an increase in student tuition would

probably be added (as it did with armstrong). A bridge across 73 would also block the

view of Shideler Hall, which the University recently renovated for the purpose of a

pleasant appearance for people entering campus for the first time. Also since

construction would have to take place, road closings and detours would have to be

implemented, and since Patterson is the main entrance into Oxford this could cause

even more traffic backup. Finally since a bridge or a tunnel is irreversible, this can

cause problems if this alternative does not work. The construction of the bridge islimited by the requirement to allow semis to pass underneath at this important

intersection. This would require that the bridge be approximately 15 feet to allow

appropriate clearance. In order to be ADA compliant, this would require a horizontal

length of 170 feet. Spatially, this would be very inconvenient to find proper area for such

a lengthy ramp. The option for construction of a tunnel may have similar problems, and

would require additional research for the following reason due to the possibility of

underground utilities that would need to be preserved.

The revised traffic pattern alternative was the most popular from the surveys that wereconducted. This alternative meets all the criteria; there is no financial cost to implement

the new traffic pattern due to just needing to change the traffic box and the timing of

each walk signal and traffic signal, there is no intersection downtime due to

construction, it is safer than the original plan that is implemented right now because

students would have more chances to walk thus decreasing the need to jaywalk, and it

is fully reversible if the revised traffic pattern does not work. With the new traffic pattern,


9/17

the only foreseeable problem is students being unfamiliar with the new pattern and

stepping out when they think they have the right away. This can be fixed by sending out

an email, posting it on Miami’s website, placing flyers at the posts for these

intersections, and other sources to alert students of the new changes.

Doing nothing also meets most of the criteria, because there is no downtime, no cost,

and is fully reversible. The problem with doing nothing though is that this does not

decrease the amount of jaywalking therefore students are still at risk. The only upside

is that it is fully reversible, so more research can be done to come up with better

solutions and can be fixed then.


10/17

Recommendations

We recommend the implementation of a new traffic pattern to increase the efficiency of

the intersections and decrease the prevalence of jaywalking. This solution was selected

because it is incredibly cost and time effective: there will be no monetary cost in

changing the programming of the intersection signals, and there will be no time where

the intersection will need to be closed to change anything. In combination with this and

in the interest of student safety we also recommend a notification be sent to Miami

students through My Miami and the general listserv, warning students of the new traffic

pattern and explaining why it will be an improvement over the current one. This will aid

in preventing students who may be used to the current pattern from crossing the street

at a dangerous time.

The traffic pattern will consist of walk signals for individual crosswalks during the

duration of the corresponding left turn cycle, with a full intersection walk cycle to occur

immediately after. This will lead to 2 full walk cycles per traffic cycle instead of thecurrent single one, with partial cycles making it efficient, legal, and safe for pedestrians

to cross the street during left turn cycles just as they do now when they jaywalk. It is

important to note that one of this effectively makes the jaywalking that students are

doing regardless become a legal action. This removes a congestion that occurs due to a

phenomenon in which one student crosses due to noticing the left turn signal begin.

Other students would then slowly begin crossing following the first one. Although the

first individual crossed without incidence, the following individuals have been noticed to

incur congestion as they are still crossing when the traffic signal changes. By changing

this into a legal period, all students will be instantly notified that it is a safe period to

cross, and will be able traverse the intersection in less total time. They would also begiven indication of how long the cycle, and thus the safe period to cross, will last. To

prevent backup of motor vehicle traffic during this time, the two full walk cycles will be

shorter individually than the current walk cycle. This will be supplemented by the fact

that students can legally cross during the corresponding left turn phases. The entire

current traffic pattern is outlined in Appendix A , while our recommended changes are

detailed in Appendix B


11/17

Appendix A - Current Traffic Pattern

North ->(the below diagrams are oriented so that North is to the right)

Layout of intersection. Patterson/Spring is on the left, Patterson/73 is on the right.

Crosswalks are designated with letters and driving lanes with numbers. All arrows

direct direction of traffic.

Pattern 1 - ‘Walk’ cycle, 17 seconds: All crosswalks have a walk sign, and all lanes have

red lights.


12/17

Pattern 2 - ‘Spring’ cycle, 22 seconds: All crosswalks have a don’t-walk sign, Spring

Street is green for both left and right turns, Patterson is green for only Northbound traffic

(4) in order to create a steady flow turning left from 2 to 4.

Pattern 3 - ‘73’ cycle, 22 seconds: All crosswalks have a don’t-walk sign, 73 is green for

both left and right turns (5), Patterson is green for only Southbound traffic (3) in order to

create a steady flow turning left from 5 to 3.


13/17

Pattern 4 - ‘Left’ cycle, 8 seconds: All crosswalks have a don’t-walk sign, the

left-turn-only signals on both sides of Patterson are green.

Pattern 5 - “Straight” cycle, 30 seconds: All crosswalks have a don’t-walk sign,

Patterson has all green lights allowing traffic to pass freely between 1/3/4/6.


14/17

Appendix B - Proposed Traffic Pattern

Pattern 1 - ‘Walk’ cycle, 10 seconds: All crosswalks have go signal and all traffic lights

have red light.

Pattern 2 - ‘Spring’ cycle, 20 seconds: All crosswalks have a don’t-walk sign, Spring

Street is green for both left and right turns, Patterson is green for only Northbound traffic

(4) in order to create a steady flow turning left from 2 to 4.


15/17

Pattern 3 - ‘73’ cycle, 20 seconds: All crosswalks have a don’t-walk sign, 73 is green for

both left and right turns (5), Patterson is green for only Southbound traffic (3) in order to

create a steady flow turning left from 5 to 3.

Pattern 4 - ‘New Left’ cycle, 10 seconds: Motorists are given green light to make left

turns from Patterson onto Spring and from Patterson onto 73. Additionally, the twocrosswalks which have the greatest incidence of jaywalking are given a go signal.


16/17

Pattern 5 - ‘Walk’ cycle, 10 seconds: Pedestrians crossing during left turn are given time

to complete their crossing, and other crosswalks are lit as well.

Pattern 6 - ‘Patterson’ cycle, 30 seconds: All green lights are given across Patterson,

and no crosswalks are lit.


17/17

Sources

1. Norton, P. D. (2007). Street Rivals: Jaywalking and the Invention of the Motor

Age Street. Technology and Culture, 48(2), 331-359.

2. Beaulieu, D. (2011). How to Regulate Traffic in a Sustainable World (Rep.).

Retrieved March 31, 2016, from Transportation Association of Canada

3. Harrell, W. A. (1991). Factors Influencing Pedestrian Cautiousness in Crossing

Streets.The Journal of Social Psychology,131

4. Russell, J. C., Wilson, D. O., & Jenkins, J. F. (1976). Informational Properties of

Jaywalking Models as Determinants of Imitated Jaywalking: An Extension to

Model Sex, Race and Number.Sociometry,39

Jaywalking Reduction on Miami University's Oxford Campus

Documents

Transcript of Jaywalking Reduction on Miami University's Oxford Campus