Lehigh and Northampton Counties

Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety Report

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission

PREFACE

This report contains a Part I and Part II. Part I was prepared by the Lehigh ValleyPlanning Commission and is titled Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety ReportSummary. Part II was prepared by consultants, Michael Moule of Livable StreetsInc. and Michael Ronkin of Designing Streets for Pedestrians, titled Lehigh ValleyPedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Report and Recommendations for ReducingCrashes. Part I includes a summary of the findings in Part II, an analysis ofpedestrian-bike/motorist crashes throughout the Lehigh Valley region, and generalrecommendations to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety based on input fromthe local community. Part II contains an overview of pedestrian/bicyclist crashes inthe region, and general and site-specific pedestrian and bicyclist safetyrecommendations. Copies of this report are available from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission,961 Marcon Blvd., Suite 310, Allentown, PA 18109.

COVER PHOTO: Center Square in downtownCity of Easton, Northampton County

LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTONCOUNTIES

Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety Report Summary

October 2006

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission

Documentation for Task 5.1Unified Planning Work Program - FY 2006

The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grants from the U.S. Department ofTransportation and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

2. OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

3. CRASH DATA ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................. 44.1 Background....................................................................................................................................................... 44.2 Crash Locations ................................................................................................................................................ 44.3 Crash Statistics.................................................................................................................................................. 7

4.3a Number of Crashes ............................................................................................................................. 74.3b Crash Severity .................................................................................................................................... 84.3c When Crashes Occur .......................................................................................................................... 84.3d Light Level ....................................................................................................................................... 104.3e Pedestrian Age................................................................................................................................. 114.3f Weather Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 13

4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................. 14

LIST OF MAPSMAPS

1. Population Density.......................................................................................................................................................... 022. Major Pedestrian-Bike Traffic Generators ...................................................................................................................... 033. Pedestrian/Motorist Crashes............................................................................................................................................ 054. Bicyclist/Motorist Crashes .............................................................................................................................................. 06

LIST OF FIGURESFIGURES

1. Number of Fatal Crashes................................................................................................................................................. 072. Number of Injury Crashes............................................................................................................................................... 073. Crash Severity................................................................................................................................................................. 084. Fatalities By Time of Day ............................................................................................................................................... 095. Injuries By Time of Day ................................................................................................................................................. 096. Fatalities By Light Level................................................................................................................................................. 107. Injuries By Light Level ................................................................................................................................................... 108. Fatalities By Age............................................................................................................................................................. 119. Injuries By Age ............................................................................................................................................................... 1110. Fatalities By Time of Day and Age Group...................................................................................................................... 1211. Injuries By Time of Day and Age Group ........................................................................................................................ 1212. Fatalities By Weather Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 1313. Injuries By Weather Conditions...................................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDICES1. Pennsylvania Bike Laws ................................................................................................................................................. 172. Pennsylvania Pedestrian Laws ........................................................................................................................................ 21

INTRODUCTIONThe goal for creating this summary report is to provide a general analysis of pedestrian-bike/motoristcrashes that occurred in the Lehigh Valley and to make some general recommendations to mitigatecrashes. Also, this report will hopefully increase public awareness of pedestrian-bike safety issuesin the Lehigh Valley. The report does not include information on ordinances or other regulations thatwould be used to implement policies for improving pedestrian-bike safety. A comprehensive program of data collection and analysis was done to determine the location,frequency, severity and other characteristics of pedestrian-bike/motorist crashes in Lehigh andNorthampton counties. The data in this report provides general crash characteristics (time of day,day of week, etc.), but is not very helpful in determining how and why crashes occur at specificlocations. PENNDOT's crash database, like other statewide crash databases, does not provide asufficient level of detail to determine the causes that lead to crashes. Areas that contained higherfrequency and greater severity of crashes were designated for site reviews. The Lehigh ValleyPlanning Commission hired consultants Michael Moule of Livable Streets Inc. and Michael Ronkin ofDesigning Streets for Pedestrians, nationally known experts on pedestrian-bike safety issues, toperform reviews at these sites, to recommend solutions to the sites visited, and to make generalrecommendations to improve safety throughout the Lehigh Valley. Their work also includedconducting a 1-day seminar to local officials about pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The seminaroccurred on September 11th and the site reviews on September 12th. Site reviews were conductedto observe existing conditions, to watch how pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers interacted, and torecommend site improvements. Representatives from the municipalities including planners,engineers and police officers assisted in identifying safety problems at the site locations. There weretoo few bicyclists observed to draw meaningful conclusions from their behavior at the sites. Adetailed analysis of findings can be found in the consultants' report Lehigh Valley Pedestrian andBicyclist Safety Report and Recommendations for Reducing Crashes.

OVERVIEWU.S. Census data for the Lehigh Valley shows that 4.7% of workers walked to work in 1990, butdropped to 3.5% in 2000. In 1990 and 2000 only 0.2% of commuters biked to work. In 2000, 3.8% ofworkers walked to work in the Commonwealth compared to 3.5% in the Lehigh Valley. It's difficult toaccount for exactly why pedestrian and bicycle travel modes to work have decreased or remainedstatic. However, the Lehigh Valley, like many areas across the U.S., has experienced the migrationof people from the urban cities to suburban and rural areas that require a car for traveling to work orfor making shopping trips. Pedestrian facilities like sidewalks and crossings are less available inthese areas than in the cities. There is no data available from the U.S. Census on how many non-work related walking or biking trips are made in the region. Most of the recommendations in thisreport encourage more biking and walking.The Lehigh Valley has a smaller percentage of pedestrian/motorist crashes compared to theCommonwealth, but a greater percentage of those crashes resulted in fatalities. Over a 5-yearperiod 1999 - 2004 (excluding 2002) pedestrian crashes in the Commonwealth were 6.4% of totalcrashes and represented 12.4% of fatal crashes. In the Lehigh Valley, pedestrian crashes were5.4% of total crashes, but represented 16.5% of fatal crashes. This information and data generatedfrom the crash data analysis suggest that pedestrian/motorist crashes are a problem and thatmeasures to improve safety are needed. The consultants, Michael Moule and Michael Ronkin,noted that the behavior of motorists towards pedestrians is generally more aggressive than in otherparts of the country where they have performed similar studies. There are various travel demand factors that may contribute to pedestrian-bike/motorist crashes,such as population and employment growth and an increase in vehicle miles traveled. From 1990 to2000 population grew by 8.1% in Lehigh County and 7.2% in Northampton County. Population isexpected to steadily grow through 2030. Population density is expected to increase in somesuburban areas from 2000 to 2030 (see map 1). High-density land use areas tend to attract agreater concentration of pedestrians and bicyclists along roadways. Vehicle miles traveled increased

BETHLEHEM(LC)

SALISBURYSALISBURY

WESTEASTON

NORTHCATASAUQUA

CHAPMAN

FREEMANSBURG

FOUNTAINHILL

PORTLAND

WALNUTPORT

EASTBANGOR

COOPERSBURG

STOCKERTOWN

TATAMY

ROSETO

COPLAY

ALBURTIS

GLENDON

HELLERTOWN

CATASAUQUA

MACUNGIE

SLATINGTON

PENARGYL

WINDGAP

WILSON

NAZARETH

NORTHAMPTON

BATH

BANGOR

HANOVER(LC)

EMMAUS

UPPERNAZARETH

HANOVER(NC)

EASTON

LOWERNAZARETH

BETHLEHEM(NC)

SOUTHWHITEHALL

UPPERMILFORD

WASHINGTON(NC)

WHITEHALL

LOWERMILFORD

EASTALLEN

BETHLEHEMTWP.

LOWERMT. BETHEL

WASHINGTON(LC)

LOWERMACUNGIE

PALMER

ALLENTOWN

UPPERMACUNGIE

LOWERSAUCON

NORTHWHITEHALL

UPPERSAUCON

LOWHILL

ALLEN

FORKS

HEIDELBERG

WILLIAMS

WEISENBERG

PLAINFIELD

UPPERMT. BETHEL

BUSHKILL

LEHIGH

MOORE

LYNN

SCHUYLKILL

COUNTY

CARBON

COUNTY

MONROE

N.J.

COUNTYBU

CKS

MONTGOMERY

COUNTY

BERKS

COUNTY LEHIG

H

COUNTY

NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY

LEHIGH

COUNTY

NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY

COUNTY

N.J.

N.J .

SCHUYLKILL

COUNTY

CARBON

COUNTY

M ONROE

N.J.

COUNTY

BUCKS

MONTGOMERY

COUNTY

BERKS

COUNTY LEHIG

H

COUNTY

NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY

LEHIGH

COUNTY

NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY

COUNTY

N .J.

N .J.

LYNN

MOORE

LEHIGH

BUSHKILL

UPPERMT. BETHEL

PLAINFIELD

WEISENBERG

WILLIAMS

HEIDELBERG

FORKS

ALLEN

LOWHILL

UPPERSAUCON

NORTHWHITEHALL

LOWERSAUCON

UPPERMACUNGIE

ALLENTOWN

PALMER

LOWERMACUNGIE

WASHINGTON(LC)

LOWERMT. BETHEL

BETHLEHEMTWP.

EASTALLEN

LOWERMILFORD

WHITEHALL

WASHINGTON(NC)

UPPERMILFORD

SOUTHWHITEHALL

BETHLEHEM(NC)

LOWERNAZARETH

EASTON

HANOVER(NC)

UPPERNAZARETH

EMMAUS

HANOVER(LC)

BANGOR

BATH

NORTHAMPTON

NAZARETH

WILSON

WINDGAP

PENARGYL

SLATINGTON

MACUNGIE

CATASAUQUA

HELLERTOWN

GLENDON

ALBURTIS

COPLAY

ROSETO

TATAMYSTOCKERTOWN

COOPERSBURG

EASTBANGOR

WALNUTPORT

PORTLAND

FOUNTAINHILL

FREEMANSBURG

CHAPMAN

NORTHCATASAUQUA

WESTEASTON

SALISBURYSALISBURY

BETHLEHEM(LC)

MAP 1POPULATION DENSITY

Year 2000

Year 2030

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, 2005

LEHIGH VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION961 Marcon Boulevard, Suite 310

Allentown, PA 18109-9397(610) 264-4544

LVPC

1" = 9.0 miles

±0 3 6 9

Miles4001 or more2001 - 4000501 - 20000 - 500

Population Density(persons per square mile)

County Boundary

n£ n£

n£

n£ n£

n£

n£ n£n£ n£ n£n£n£ n£n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£

n£

n£n£n£ n£

n£n£ n£ n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£

n£n£

n£ n£n£ n£

n£

n£ n£n£

n£n£

n£

n£

n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£

n£ n£

n£ n£

n£

n£

n£ n£ n£ n£

n£

n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£

n£

n£n£

n£n£ n£

n£ n£

n£ n£n£ n£ n£

n£ n£n£ n£

n£

n£ n£n£ n£

n£ n£

n£

n£n£ n£ n£

n£n£ n£ n£ n£ n£n£n£

n£ n£

n£

n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£n£

n£ n£

n£ n£

n£

n£n£

n£

n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£

n£ n£

n£ n£n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£

n£

n£

n£ n£

n£n£

n£

n£ n£ n£

n£

n£

n£n£

n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£

n£n£ n£n£ n£n£ n£ n£

n£ n£

n£n£

n£ n£ n£

n£ n£

n£

n£ n£ n£ n£

n£ n£ n£

n£n£ n£n£

n£

n£ n£

n£ n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£

n£

n£

n£

n£

n£

n£

n£ n£

n£ n£ n£n£

n£

n£

n£ n£ n£ n£

n£

n£n£n£

n£

n£ n£

n£

n£

n£

n£ n£ n£

n£

n£n£

n£ n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£

n£

n£ n£

n£ n£

n£n£

n£n£

n£ n£

n£n£ n£

n£

n£

n£ n£

n£

n£n£

n£ n£ n£n£

n£n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£n£

n£ n£ n£

n£

n£

n£ n£

n£ n£

n£ n£ n£

n£ n£

n£

n£

n£ n£ n£ n£

n£ n£

n£ n£

n£

n£ n£

n£ n£n£ n£

n£

n£

n£

n£n£

n£

n£ n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£ n£

n£ n£ n£ n£

n£ n£

n£

n£ n£

n£

n£ n£

N.J.

COUNTY

COUN

TY

NORT

HAMP

TON

COUN

TY

LEHIG

H

COUN

TY

NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY

LEHIGH

COUNTY

BERKS

COUNTY

MONTGOMERY

BUCKS

COUN

TY

N.J.

MONR

OE

CARB

ON

COUN

TY

SCHU

YLKIL

L

COUNT

Y

ALLE

NTOW

N

BETH

LEHE

M(N

C)

EAST

ON

EMMA

US

BETH

LEHE

M(LC

)

BANG

OR

BATH

NORT

HAMP

TON

NAZA

RETH

WILS

ON

WIND GAP

PEN

ARGY

L

SLAT

INGT

ON

MACU

NGIE

CATA

SAUQ

UA

HELL

ERTO

WN

GLEN

DON

ALBU

RTIS

COPL

AY

ROSE

TO

TATA

MY

STOC

KERT

OWN

COOP

ERSB

URG

EAST

BANG

OR

WALN

UTPO

RT

PORT

LAND

FOUN

TAIN

HILL

FREE

MANS

BURG

CHAP

MAN

NORT

H CA

TASA

UQUA

WEST

EAST

ON

LYNN

MOOR

E

LEHI

GH

BUSH

KILL

UPPE

R MT

. BET

HEL

PLAIN

FIELD

WEISE

NBER

G

WILL

IAMS

HEID

ELBE

RG

FORK

S

ALLE

N

LOW

HILL

UPPE

RSA

UCON

NORT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

LOW

ERSA

UCON

UPPE

RMA

CUNG

IE

PALM

ER

LOW

ERMA

CUNG

IE

WASH

INGT

ON(LC

)

LOW

ER

MT. B

ETHE

L

BETH

LEHE

MTW

P.

EAST

ALLE

N

LOW

ERMI

LFOR

D

WHITE

HALL

WASH

INGT

ON

(NC)

UPPE

RMI

LFOR

D

SOUT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

SALIS

BURY

LOWE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(NC)

UPPE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(LC

)

SALIS

BURY

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

£¤22

£¤22

£¤22

£¤222

OP29

OP33

OP29

OP33

OP329

OP100

OP987

OP309

OP145

OP143

OP329

OP873

OP309

OP145

OP512

OP611

OP329

OP191

OP191

OP946

OP946

OP512

OP248

OP378

OP412

OP145

OP100

OP309

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP987

OP987

OP378

OP412

OP100

OP873

OP863

OP946

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP191

OP512

MAJO

R PE

DEST

RIAN

-BIK

E TR

AFFI

C GE

NERA

TORS

Sourc

e: Le

high V

alley

Plan

ning C

ommi

ssion

, 200

5LE

HIGH

VALL

EY PL

ANNI

NG C

OMMI

SSIO

N96

1 Marc

on Bo

uleva

rd, Su

ite 31

0All

entow

n, PA

181

09-93

97(61

0) 26

4-454

4LV

PC

±1"

= 5.4

miles

02

46 Mi

les

Coun

ty Bo

unda

ry

Major

Roa

d

Munic

ipal B

ound

aryOt

her R

oad

n£LA

NTA B

us St

ops

Parks

& Ot

her O

utdoo

r Rec

reatio

n Fac

ilities

Major

Shop

ping A

reas

Scho

ols

MAP 2

36% from 1993 to 2003, a disproportionately high rate compared to population growth during thesame time period. More vehicles on the roadways tend to increase the chances of pedestrian-bike/motorist conflicts. Proximity to pedestrian-bike traffic generators at residential and employmentlocations increases the likelihood of pedestrian-bike traffic. Map 2 shows major traffic generators forpedestrian-bike trips made in the Lehigh Valley. These include parks, schools, major shoppingareas and LANTA bus stops.

CRASH DATA ANALYSISBACKGROUNDCrash history information including location, type, and contributing factors of pedestrian-bike/motoristcrashes was extracted from PENNDOT's crash database for analysis. The source of this informationoriginated from police crash report data collected at the crash site. The data analyzed covers a five-year period 2000 to 2005 (excluding 2002). At the time of the analysis, PENNDOT's crash recordsfor 2002 were incomplete. All crashes that occurred on state routes were mapped on PENNDOT'sstreet centerline database using crash record route, segment and offset data. Crashes on localroads (non-PENNDOT roads) did not contain location information other than by municipality andwere not mapped in the GIS, but were included in the crash statistic tabulations. The PENNDOT crash database includes reportable crashes only. A reportable crash is defined asone that results in an injury or death, or damage to any vehicle to the extent that it cannot be drivenand has to be towed. Undoubtedly, there are some injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists that are notreported. They may include incidents that occur off the public roadway (in parking lots, parks,driveways, etc.), and those that do not involve another vehicle (falls from bikes, collision betweenbicycles, and between bicycles and pedestrians). CRASH LOCATIONSPedestrian/motorist crash locations were mapped to identify crash concentrations (or clusters) ofcrash incidents. The mapped crashes were analyzed for crash frequency and severity. Corridors orintersections that contained higher frequency and greater severity of crashes were rated as highpriority areas to perform site reviews. Map 3 shows crash locations with clusters at various locationsin the urban areas where pedestrian activity and traffic volumes are greater compared to the ruralareas. Crash clusters include those in Allentown, South Bethlehem, Easton and Nazareth Borough.Corridors and intersections in these clusters were identified for site reviews. The crash clusters inAllentown occurred along 7th Street from Washington Street south to Union Street, and on TilghmanStreet from 12th Street east to 4th Street. The intersection of 7th and Tilghman Streets wasidentified for site review as well as areas along Tilghman and 7th Streets. The crash clusters inSouth Bethlehem occurred along Broadway from Fiot Avenue to 4th Street and then on 4th Streetfrom Broadway to New Street. A site review was recommended at the 5-points intersection atBroadway, PA Route 378, Wyandotte Street and Dakotah Street. The review took into considerationBethlehem City's one-way pair proposal to improve traffic flow at the 5-points intersection. Crashclusters occurred in the City of Easton at the intersection of Northampton Street and Larry HolmesDrive, and along Northampton Street from 7th to 22nd Streets. Reviews were recommended in bothareas. Also, a review was recommended in Nazareth Borough along Broad Street. All these crashcluster areas share similar characteristics in that they contain fairly high density population coupledwith destinations within walking distance that result in increased pedestrian activity. Bike/motorist crash locations were mapped to identify hot spots of crash incidents. Map 4 showsthere are no clear patterns of crashes except for some clusters that occur in Allentown along 7th andTilghman Streets. Bicyclists ride on all roads and the crashes are more randomly dispersed. Therewas not enough bicycle/motorist crash record data in the PENNDOT database to make meaningfulconclusions of crash characteristics, so no bicyclist crash statistics were generated. However,bicyclist recommendations were included in the site reviews and are part of the consultants' reportLehigh Valley Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Report and Recommendations for Reducing Crashes.

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

N.J.

COUNTY

COUN

TY

NORT

HAMP

TON

COUN

TY

LEHIG

H

COUN

TY

NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY

LEHIGH

COUNTY

BERKS

COUNTY

MONTGOMERY

BUCKS

COUN

TY

N.J.

MONR

OE

CARB

ON

COUN

TY

SCHU

YLKIL

L

COUNT

Y

ALLE

NTOW

N

BETH

LEHE

M(N

C)

EAST

ON

EMMA

US

BETH

LEHE

M(LC

)

BANG

OR

BATH

NORT

HAMP

TON

NAZA

RETH

WILS

ON

WIND GAP

PEN

ARGY

L

SLAT

INGT

ON

MACU

NGIE

CATA

SAUQ

UA

HELL

ERTO

WN

GLEN

DON

ALBU

RTIS

COPL

AY

ROSE

TO

TATA

MY

STOC

KERT

OWN

COOP

ERSB

URG

EAST

BANG

OR

WALN

UTPO

RT

PORT

LAND

FOUN

TAIN

HILL

FREE

MANS

BURG

CHAP

MAN

NORT

H CA

TASA

UQUA

WEST

EAST

ON

LYNN

MOOR

E

LEHI

GH

BUSH

KILL

UPPE

R MT

. BET

HEL

PLAIN

FIELD

WEISE

NBER

G

WILL

IAMS

HEID

ELBE

RG

FORK

S

ALLE

N

LOW

HILL

UPPE

RSA

UCON

NORT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

LOW

ERSA

UCON

UPPE

RMA

CUNG

IE

PALM

ER

LOW

ERMA

CUNG

IE

WASH

INGT

ON(LC

)

LOW

ER

MT. B

ETHE

L

BETH

LEHE

MTW

P.

EAST

ALLE

N

LOW

ERMI

LFOR

D

WHITE

HALL

WASH

INGT

ON

(NC)

UPPE

RMI

LFOR

D

SOUT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

SALIS

BURY

LOWE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(NC)

UPPE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(LC

)

SALIS

BURY

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

£¤22

£¤22

£¤22

£¤222

OP29

OP33

OP29

OP33

OP329

OP100

OP987

OP309

OP145

OP143

OP329

OP873

OP309

OP145

OP512

OP611

OP329

OP191

OP191

OP946

OP946

OP512

OP248

OP378

OP412

OP145

OP100

OP309

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP987

OP987

OP378

OP412

OP100

OP873

OP863

OP946

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP191

OP512

PEDE

STRI

AN/M

OTOR

VEH

ICLE

CR

ASHE

S

Sourc

e: Pe

nnDO

T, Ye

ars 20

00 - 2

005 (

exclu

ding 2

002)

LEHI

GH VA

LLEY

PLAN

NING

COM

MISS

ION

961 M

arcon

Boule

vard,

Suite

310

Allen

town,

PA 1

8109

-9397

(610)

264-4

544

LVPC

±1"

= 5.4

miles

02

46 Mi

les

Coun

ty Bo

unda

ry

Road

sMu

nicipa

l Bou

ndary

MAP 3

Fatal

Othe

r Injur

yMa

jor in

jury

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

N.J.

COUNTY

COUN

TY

NORT

HAMP

TON

COUN

TY

LEHIG

H

COUN

TY

NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY

LEHIGH

COUNTY

BERKS

COUNTY

MONTGOMERY

BUCKS

COUN

TY

N.J.

MONR

OE

CARB

ON

COUN

TY

SCHU

YLKIL

L

COUNT

Y

ALLE

NTOW

N

BETH

LEHE

M(N

C)

EAST

ON

EMMA

US

BETH

LEHE

M(LC

)

BANG

OR

BATH

NORT

HAMP

TON

NAZA

RETH

WILS

ON

WIND GAP

PEN

ARGY

L

SLAT

INGT

ON

MACU

NGIE

CATA

SAUQ

UA

HELL

ERTO

WN

GLEN

DON

ALBU

RTIS

COPL

AY

ROSE

TO

TATA

MY

STOC

KERT

OWN

COOP

ERSB

URG

EAST

BANG

OR

WALN

UTPO

RT

PORT

LAND

FOUN

TAIN

HILL

FREE

MANS

BURG

CHAP

MAN

NORT

H CA

TASA

UQUA

WEST

EAST

ON

LYNN

MOOR

E

LEHI

GH

BUSH

KILL

UPPE

R MT

. BET

HEL

PLAIN

FIELD

WEISE

NBER

G

WILL

IAMS

HEID

ELBE

RG

FORK

S

ALLE

N

LOW

HILL

UPPE

RSA

UCON

NORT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

LOW

ERSA

UCON

UPPE

RMA

CUNG

IE

PALM

ER

LOW

ERMA

CUNG

IE

WASH

INGT

ON(LC

)

LOW

ER

MT. B

ETHE

L

BETH

LEHE

MTW

P.

EAST

ALLE

N

LOW

ERMI

LFOR

D

WHITE

HALL

WASH

INGT

ON

(NC)

UPPE

RMI

LFOR

D

SOUT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

SALIS

BURY

LOWE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(NC)

UPPE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(LC

)

SALIS

BURY

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

£¤22

£¤22

£¤22

£¤222

OP29

OP33

OP29

OP33

OP329

OP100

OP987

OP309

OP145

OP143

OP329

OP873

OP309

OP145

OP512

OP611

OP329

OP191

OP191

OP946

OP946

OP512

OP248

OP378

OP412

OP145

OP100

OP309

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP987

OP987

OP378

OP412

OP100

OP873

OP863

OP946

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP191

OP512

BICY

CLE/

MOTO

R VE

HICL

E CR

ASHE

S

Sourc

e: Pe

nnDO

T, Ye

ars 20

00 - 2

005 (

exclu

ding 2

002)

LEHI

GH VA

LLEY

PLAN

NING

COM

MISS

ION

961 M

arcon

Boule

vard,

Suite

310

Allen

town,

PA 1

8109

-9397

(610)

264-4

544

LVPC

±1"

= 5.4

miles

02

46 Mi

les

Coun

ty Bo

unda

ry

Road

sMu

nicipa

l Bou

ndary

MAP 4

Fatal

Othe

r Injur

yMa

jor in

jury

! ! !

CRASH STATISTICS

Pedestrian-bike/motorist crashes were stratified in a number of different ways to understand causalfactors and potential solutions. The crashes are analyzed over a 5-year period from 2000 - 2005.The following section describes the findings.

NUMBER OF CRASHES

There were 46 fatal crashes over the 5 years, but no notable yearly trends (see figure 1). However,the number of fatalities is more than similar sized Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) inthe Commonwealth. The Harrisburg and the Lackawanna/Luzerne MPOs had total fatalities overfive-years (1999 to 2004) of 30 and 31 respectively. There were an increasing number of injurycrashes over the 5 years (see figure 2). The number of injury crashes increased by 78 or 43% from2000 to 2005. The total number of injury crashes in the Lehigh Valley was 1006. The total injurieswere greater than the Harrisburg and Lackawanna/Luzerne MPOs, which had totals of 678 and 811respectively.

Figure 1

Figure 2

CRASH SEVERITY

There were a total of 46 pedestrian/motorist crashes that resulted in fatalities in the region over 5-years, which accounted for 4.4% of the total crashes (see figure 3). The top fatality locations werein Allentown with 13 followed by Upper Macungie Township with 6 and City of Bethlehem with 4.The percentage of fatal crashes to all types of pedestrian crashes was slightly greater than thepercentages in the Harrisburg and Lackawanna/Luzerne MPOs, which were 4.2% and 3.7%respectively. There were 1,006 crashes that resulted in major, moderate, minor or unknownpedestrian injuries. Of that amount, 485 or over 45% were minor injury types. The top injurylocations were in the cities. Allentown had 529 incidents, followed by Bethlehem with 167, andEaston with 46. More injuries than fatalities tend to occur in urban areas where motorists driveslower and are used to seeing pedestrians. Slower speeds typically result in minor injury crashes.

Figure 3

WHEN CRASHES OCCUR

Month of Year

There are little differences in the number of pedestrian crashes by month of year. For any 4consecutive months the most frequent crashes occurred between September through December,and the highest month was October. About 46% percent of the fatal crashes and 39% of theinjuries occurred during this 4-month period. This is consistent with national trends where thesemonths have fewer daylight hours and have more inclement weather conditions.

Day of Week

Pedestrian crashes vary by day of the week. One-half of pedestrian fatalities occurred on Friday,Saturday or Sunday (10%, 20% and 20% respectively). Injury Crashes were over represented onFriday and Saturday. About 34% of the crashes occurred on these days combined. Saturday is thehighest crash day. A greater occurrence of crashes on weekends may be related to more late nightdrinking and walking on weekends.

Time of Day

Fatalities were most prevalent in the evening hours during the time between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. thanat any other time period (see figure 4). There were 10 fatalities or 22% of the total fatal crashes.Typically, fatalities peak later in the day when darkness and alcohol are factors. The peak timeperiod for injury crashes was between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. as shown in figure 5. This is the timeperiod where traffic levels are at there highest. There were 290 crashes during this period, or 29%of total injury crashes.

Figure 4

Figure 5

LIGHT LEVEL

The Lehigh Valley compares the same to national trends in that a disproportionately highpercentage of pedestrian fatalities occurred at night (see figure 6). Over half or 60% of the fatalitiesoccurred during the non-daylight hours. This trend may be associated with rural pedestrianscrashes involving high speed vehicles and pedestrians walking along a dark road. The role ofalcohol among adults may also be involved in nighttime crashes. As shown in figure 7, more injurycrashes occurred during the daylight hours. There were 674 injury crashes or 67% that occurredduring these conditions. The trend of more injuries than fatalities during daylight hours can beattributed to both the driver and pedestrian being able to better see each other and avoid moreserious collisions.

Figure 6

Figure 7

PEDESTRIAN AGE

As shown in figure 8, more fatalities occurred to adults greater than 75 years old compared to anyfive-year age category; however the open-ended age span includes data for more years than theother categories. Typically, older pedestrians cannot move as quickly to avoid oncoming carscompared to younger aged adults. Also, older adults are more vulnerable to major injury or deathcompared to younger pedestrians, and children may be able to survive collisions on lower speedroads. More injuries occurred to children ages 5-19 in 5-year age cohorts compared to any otherage cohort. As shown in figure 9, they accounted for 447 or 44% of all injury crashes; children inthe 10 to 14 cohort had the greatest representation. Children left unattended are more likely to dartout in the street than other ages. School age children are vulnerable to children/motorist conflicts ator near school facilities that may lead to crashes.

Figure 8

Figure 9

More fatalities occurred to adults in the age category 20-64 between 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. than to anyother category. This is likely due to adults being out in the late evening compared to the otherages. The number of injuries more than doubles for pedestrians ages 19 or less from 7 a.m. to 8a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. compared to any other age category. Of course, these are the peakhours for children arriving and leaving school facilities.

Figure 10

Figure 11

WEATHER CONDITIONS

Weather conditions seem to be a minor factor in both fatal and major injury crashes. As shown infigure 12, there were 40 fatal crashes that occurred during no adverse conditions or 87% of totalcrashes. Of the injury crashes, there were 862 or 86% that occurred during no adverse conditions(see figure 13).

Figure 12

Figure 13

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONSLocal leaders in pedestrian-bike safety, such as members of CAT-Coalition for AppropriateTransportation and the Citizen Traffic Advisory Committee in Bethlehem, recommend education asthe biggest factor in reducing pedestrian-bike motorist conflicts in the Lehigh Valley region. Thisinvolves educating pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists on driver/pedestrian and bicyclist laws.This also includes educating planners, engineers, enforcement officers and other public officialsabout pedestrian-bike safety.Some general recommendations are listed below to improve safety through infrastructureimprovements. Planners and engineers should be knowledgeable about pedestrian-bikeinfrastructure deficiencies, and recommend improvements based on observing motorist's behaviortowards pedestrians and bicyclists at specific locations. Many of the recommendations have beenborrowed from the consultants' report Lehigh Valley Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Report andRecommendations for Reducing Crashes.

1. Install pedestrian indicator signals - Pedestrian signal indicator signs should be installed atfuture signal locations as applicable. Where possible pedestrian signals should be retrofitted atexisting intersections that have high pedestrian activity.

2. Lower speed limit on certain corridors - Review the appropriateness of posted speed limitswhere pedestrian access is an issue. Hellertown Borough in Northampton County recentlycoordinated with PENNDOT to have the speed limit reduced on the Main Street corridor goingthrough the Borough. Safety benefits of reduced speeds extends to bicyclists as well.

3. Install and maintain pedestrian crosswalk pavement striping - More crosswalks should beinstalled where appropriate to make it safe for pedestrians to cross streets. Also, municipalitiesneed to maintain crosswalk white pavement striping to alert drivers where pedestrians arecrossing to avoid pedestrian/motorist crashes.

4. Use high-visibility crosswalks - Use 12-inch as the standard strip width, rather than 6-inchwidth and use high visibility ladder-style crosswalks at unsignalized locations.

5. Install sidewalks - Sidewalks should be installed for all new subdivisions. Bike access shouldbe considered for subdivisions where the subdivision is in between or at the end point of anexisting bike network. Sidewalks should be retrofitted on existing roads as applicable.Retrofitting sidewalks is a municipality responsibility. Busy suburban thoroughfares shouldreceive highest priority for sidewalks and busy rural highways should receive highest priority forimproving shoulders for bike use.

6. Enact access management measures - Pedestrians or bicyclists exiting or enter driveways isa common crash type. Eliminating or consolidating driveways, re-designing site access andreducing left turns will provide safer pedestrian conditions. The LVPC completed a report inDecember 2000 titled "Access Management on Arterial Roads: Best management Practices forthe Lehigh Valley" to address these kinds of issues. The LVPC is currently working with sevenLehigh Valley municipalities to identify access management opportunities along targetedcorridors and revise appropriate ordinances. Municipalities should consider accessmanagement strategies along arterial roads to maximize the efficiency of the transportationnetwork and to improve safety.

7. Implement protected-only left turn phasing at busy intersections - Protected-only left turnlanes reduces the aggressive behavior of drivers toward pedestrians in the crosswalk. Thismeans that drivers can only make a left on a green arrow, as compared to protected permittedwhich means that drivers can make a left turn at a solid green light. The problems on makinglefts on solid green lights is that the driver may be focusing on making the turn to avoidopposing cars, rather than on pedestrians crossing the crosswalk. This will likely add delay atsome intersections. Protected only turns are not necessary at intersections with no history ofcrashes.

8. Add Lead Pedestrian Interval (LPI) at select intersections - The LPI is a signal timingtechnique that gives pedestrians a head start across the crosswalk until the motorists areallowed to enter. The walk indicator comes 3-5 seconds before motorists begin making theirturn. The LPI signal should be used where heavy pedestrian traffic occurs. Due to theaggressive nature of driving by drivers in the Lehigh Valley as documented by the consultantsat Livable Streets, Inc., this timing technique perhaps should not be implemented until aneducational campaign is undertaken about this signal timing technique.

9. Install curb extensions - On streets with on-street parking, curb extensions reduce thedistance of travel across the street and improve visibility of both the pedestrian and the driver.They also prohibit right-turning drivers to use the parking lane to pass cars stopped at anintersection, and then turn right without looking for pedestrians.

10. Reduce corner radii - Reduce corner radii where applicable at intersections to decrease thespeed of driver right turning movements. This technique may not be practical where largetrucks making turns is a common occurrence.

11. Install shared use marking for bicyclists - Local leadersin pedestrian-bike safety generally do not support theconsultants' recommendation for bike lanes, but insteadprefer shared use markings. Bike lanes are shown inphotographs of the consultants' report at 7th Street inAllentown and Broad Street in Nazareth Borough. They arelocated in what is called the "open door zone" of theroadway. This area is where drivers of parked cars open thedriver side door to the street and possibly cause injury to thebicyclist on impact with the door. Shared use markings, onthe other hand, are thermoplastic markings about four feetwide and are placed on the roadway four or five feet awayfrom parked cars, or about 13 feet from the curb. Theshared use markings show bicyclists the correct direction oftravel and remind motorists that bikes use the roadway, notthe sidewalk or bike lanes.

Some additional recommendations are listed to improve pedestrian-bike safety that are non-infrastructure in nature. They include:12. Educational programs - An educational campaign should be undertaken by the municipalities

and/or PENNDOT to raise awareness of motorists to their duties towards bicyclists andpedestrians. The Pennsylvania bike and driver/pedestrian laws can be found in Appendices Iand II respectively. A successful educational campaign should be followed up with anenforcement campaign. The aggressive driver program, Smooth Operator, and the DUIprogram are both police enforcement campaigns. Smooth Operator is a program to educatemotorists on the dangers of aggressive driving, such as tailgating and running red lights.

13. Citizen Traffic Advisory Committees - The LVPC should continue to participate in citizentraffic advisory committee meetings in the cities of Bethlehem and Allentown to understandpedestrian-bike safety issues in these areas. Local officials in these cities are more familiarwith areas that have conflicts between pedestrians and motorists. These meetings are typicallyattended by police officers, planners and other local officials that are involved in pedestrian-bikesafety issues. The LVPC can better recommend to the Lehigh Valley Transportation Studypedestrian-bike safety project improvements by attending these meetings.

Shared Use Marking

14. LVPC Plans and Policies - LVPC plans contain numerous policies that pertain to pedestrian

and bicyclist safety. The reports Comprehensive Plan Lehigh and Northampton Counties, PA:The Lehigh Valley …2030 and the Lehigh Valley Surface Transportation Plan 2007 - 2030currently contain policies such as:

• Promote transportation infrastructure improvements such as shoulder improvements,sidewalks and crosswalks to resolve bicycle and pedestrian safety issues. Theappropriateness of bicycle facilities should be considered as part of all road projects;

• Promote the construction of missing links in the bicycle and pedestrian networks; and• Support future development patterns conducive to non-motorized travel.

The LVPC should continue to emphasize pedestrian and bicyclist safety needs in its policydevelopment, review of transportation projects and review of subdivisions and landdevelopments. For example, sidewalks should be retrofitted on busy suburban thoroughfareswhere no sidewalks exist. Also, widening shoulders should be given special considerationalong heavily traveled rural highways.

15. PENNDOT District 5-0 - Coordinate with PENNDOT District 5-0 on its Highway Safety

Improvement Plan to incorporate pedestrian-bike improvements into highway planning projects.Also, incorporate PENNDOT's report Bicycle and Pedestrian Checklist Training to assist inplanning and program pedestrian safety and mobility projects. Continue to work withpedestrian and bicycle safety staff at PENNDOT to prioritize safety projects.

16. Crash Statistics - Current 5-year crash statistical summaries should be compared to past 5-year summaries to look at variations in crash characteristics (frequency, severity, time of day,day of week, etc.) Any significant changes should be further analyzed to understand thecontributing factors. The analysis results should be used along with site reviews, etc. to bothrecommend new improvement safety projects and to provide feedback on how past safetyimprovements have affected pedestrian safety. Also, local enforcement agencies areencouraged to collect accurate information on all pedestrian and bicycle crashes.

17. Transportation Enhancements - Priority should be given to Transportation Enhancementproject proposals that promote pedestrian-bike safety. The $80,000 Bicycle EducationEnhancement contract between PENNDOT District 5-0 and CAT-Coalition for AppropriateTransportation should be monitored for its impact on safe and legal bicycle transportation.

APPENDIX I

PENNSYLVANIA BIKE LAWS

Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes contains the laws which govern theoperation of vehicles on Pennsylvania roads. In Pennsylvania, a bicycle is considered a vehicle and, as such, is governed by a general set ofrules (common to all vehicles) and a specific set of rules (designed for bicycles). The followingannotated list provides all of the important sections of the Vehicle Code which a Pennsylvaniabicyclist should know. Keep in mind that the laws themselves often describe only what a bicyclist isrequired to do, not how to do it. This manual addresses how to bicycle safely and efficiently byfollowing the rules of the road.

Chapter 33 - OPERATION OF VEHICLESSection 3336. Method of giving hand and arm signals.All signals given by hand and arm shall be given from the left side of the vehicle in the followingmanner except as indicated for pedalcycles and motorcycles and the signals shall indicate asfollows:(1) For a left turn, the hand and arm shall be extended horizontally.(2) For a right turn, the left hand and arm shall be extended upward, except that the operators ofmotorcycles and pedalcycles may also be permitted to signal a right turn by extending the righthand and arm horizontally.(3) To stop or decrease speed, the left hand and arm shall be extended downward.

Chapter 35 - SPECIAL VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANSSubchapter A - Operation of Pedalcycles (Bicycles)Section 3501. Applicability of traffic laws to pedalcycles.(a) General rule. -- Every person riding a pedalcycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of therights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, exceptas to special provisions in this subchapter and except as to those provisions of this title which bytheir nature can have no application.(b) Application of subchapter. -- The provisions of this subchapter apply whenever a pedalcycleis operated upon any highway or upon any path set aside for the exclusive use of pedalcyclessubject to the exceptions stated in subsection (a).

Comment: Bicycles are considered vehicles under Pennsylvania Laws and must obey allthe rules of the road which apply to vehicles. These are the "responsibilities" mentionedabove. The "rights" refer to the roadway space required to operate the bicycle in a safe,lawful manner.

Section 3502. Penalty for violation of subchapter.Any person violating any provision of this subchapter is guilty of a summary offense and shall, uponconviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of $10.

Section 3503. Responsibility of parent or guardian.The parent of any child and the guardian of any ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit thechild or ward to violate any of the provisions of this title relating to the operation of pedalcycles.

Section 3504. Riding on pedalcycles.(a) Use of seat by operator. -- A person propelling a pedalcycle shall not ride other than upon orastride a permanent and regular seat attached to the pedalcycle.(b) Number of riders. -- No pedalcycle shall be used to carry more persons at one time than thenumber for which the pedalcycle is designed and equipped, except that an adult rider may transporta child in a pedalcycle or in a child carrier which is securely attached to the pedalcycle or in a trailerwhich is towed by a pedalcycle.

Section 3505.(a) General rule. -- Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), every person operating apedalcycle upon a highway shall obey the applicable rules of the road as contained in this title.

Comment: This statement reiterates the necessity for cyclists to conform to theexpectations of other road users in order to ensure the safety of all.

(b) Operation on shoulder. -- A pedalcycle may be operated on the shoulder of a highway andshall be operated in the same direction as required of vehicles operated on the roadway.

Comment: A bicycle may be operated on either a shoulder or on the roadway (the travellanes). The locations will be based upon traffic volume, the physical condition of the travellanes or the shoulder, traffic speed, the bicyclist's intended direction, and other safetyfactors.

(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shallbe operated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so.

[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at thetime and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane thenavailable for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of theroadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the samedirection or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road ordriveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a laneother than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.]

Comment: Taken together, 3505 (c) and 3301 (b) state that slower vehicles should keep tothe right, which is the normal expectation of all road users, while permitting bicyclists tomake movements consistent with their intended route.

(d) One-way roadways. -- Any person operating a pedalcycle upon a roadway, which carries trafficin one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curbor edge of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or oneproceeding in the same direction.

Comment: Bicycles may ride in the left lane of a one-way street which contains two ormore lanes. However, this does not apply to pedalcyclists on freeways. See Section3511(d), below.

(e) Limitation on riding abreast. -- Persons riding pedalcycles upon a roadway shall not ride morethan two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use ofpedalcycles.

Section 3506.No person operating a pedalcycle shall carry any package, bundle or article which prevents thedriver from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebars.

Section 3507. Lamps or other equipment on pedalcycles.(a) Lamps and reflectors. -- Every pedalcycle when in use between sunset and sunrise shall beequipped on the front with a lamp which emits a beam of white light intended to illuminate thepedalcycle operator's path and visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front, a red reflectorfacing to the rear which shall be visible at least 500 feet to the rear, and an amber reflector on eachside. Operators of pedalcycles may supplement the required front lamp with a white flashing lamp,light-emitting diode or similar device to enhance their visibility to other traffic and with a lampemitting a red flashing lamp, light emitting diode or similar device visible from a distance of 500 feetto the rear. A lamp or lamps worn by the operator of a pedalcycle shall comply with therequirements of this subsection if the lamp or lamps can be seen at the distances specified.

Comment: Many car-bike crashes occur at night and involve a poorly illuminated bicyclist.Bicyclists should understand that headlamps serve two purposes: a) primarily, they adviseother road users of their presence (vitally important to prevent unsuspecting motorists fromcutting across the paths of cyclists they cannot even detect), b) secondarily, illuminate thebicyclist's path.

(b) Audible signal devices. - A pedalcycle may be equipped with a device capable of giving asignal audible for a distance of at least 100 feet except that a pedalcycle shall not be equipped withnor shall any person use upon a pedalcycle any siren.(c) Brakes. - Every pedalcycle shall be equipped with a braking system which will stop thepedalcycle in 15 feet from an initial speed of 15 miles per hour on a dry, level and clean pavement.

Section 3508. Pedalcycles on sidewalks and pedalcycle paths.(a) Right-of-way to pedestrians.-- A person riding a pedalcycle upon a sidewalk or pedalcyclepath used by pedestrians shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audiblesignal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.(b) Business districts.-- A person shall not ride a pedalcycle upon a sidewalk in a business districtunless permitted by official traffic-control devices, nor when a usable pedalcycle-only lane has beenprovided adjacent to the sidewalk.

Section 3509. Parking.(a) Sidewalks.(1) A person may park a pedalcycle on a sidewalk unless prohibited or restricted by an officialtraffic-control device.(2) A pedalcycle parked on a sidewalk shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement ofpedestrian or other traffic.(b) Roadways.(1) A pedalcycle may be parked on the roadway at any angle to the curb or edge of the roadway atany location where parking is allowed.(2) A pedalcycle may be parked on the roadway abreast of another pedalcycle or pedalcycles nearthe side of the roadway at any location where parking is allowed.(3) A person shall not park a pedalcycle on a roadway in such a manner as to obstruct themovement of a legally parked motor vehicle.(4) In all other respects, pedalcycles parked anywhere on a highway shall conform with theprovisions of Subchapter E of Chapter 33 (relating to stopping, standing and parking).

Section 3510. Pedalcycle helmets for certain persons.(a) General rule.-- A person under 12 years of age shall not operate a pedalcycle or ride as apassenger on a pedalcycle unless the person is wearing a pedalcycle helmet meeting thestandards of the AmericanStandards Institute, the American Society for Testing and Materials, theSnell Memorial Foundation's Standards for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling or any othernationally recognized standard for pedalcycle helmet approval. This subsection shall also apply to aperson who rides:(1) upon a pedalcycle while in a restraining seat attached to a pedalcycle; or(2) in a trailer towed by a pedalcycle.

Comment: The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation strongly recommends that allbicyclists wear approved helmets whenever they ride.

Section 3511. Pedalcycles prohibited on freeways.(a) General rule.-- No person shall ride a pedalcycle on a freeway.(b) Exceptions.(1) On State-designed freeways, pedalcycles may be authorized under the following limitations:

(i) The pedalcycler is 16 years of age or older and is accompanied by a pedalcycler 18years of age or older.

(ii) A written request for review of the freeway route based on the potential unavailability ofa reasonable alternate route is made to the department.

(iii) The department determines that no reasonable alternate route exists.

(iv) The department publishes a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin authorizing pedalcycleaccess to the freeway. The notice shall constitute approval for the persons authorizedunder subparagraph (i) to ride a pedalcycle on the State-designated freeway.

(c) Action by local authorities.-- Action taken by local authorities regarding permission to usepedalcycles on freeways under their jurisdiction shall be:

(1) by ordinance of the local governing body; or(2) by a commission or public official authorized to act on specified matters.

(d) Operation on shoulder.- - If the department authorizes pedalcycle access to a freeway, thepedalcycle shall be operated upon the shoulder of that freeway whenever practicable.

Comment: Bicycles may be permitted on freeways in Pennsylvania with permission of theDepartment. The applicant must submit a written request (form) to the Department forreview. In addition, Section 3511(d) requires the bicycle to be ridden on the shoulder of thefreeway.

APPENDIX II

PENNSYLVANIA DRIVER/PEDESTRIAN LAWS

Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes contains the laws which govern the operation ofvehicles on Pennsylvania roads.

Chapter 35: SPECIAL VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANSSubchapter C: Rights and Duties of Pedestrians

Section 3541. Obedience of pedestrians to traffic-control devices and regulations(a) Traffic control devices.—A pedestrian shall obey the instructions of a police officer or otherappropriately attired person authorized to direct, control or regulate traffic.(b) Traffic and pedestrian-control signals.—Local authorities by ordinance may require pedestrians to obeytraffic and pedestrian-control signals as provided in sections 3112 (relating to traffic-control signals) and3113 (relating to pedestrian-control signals).

Section 3542. Right-of-way of pedestrians in crosswalks.(a) General rule.—When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicleshall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within anyunmarked crosswalk at an intersection.(b) Exercise of care by pedestrian.—No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety andwalk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute a hazard.(c) Limitation on vehicles passing.—Whenever any vehicle is stopped at any crosswalk at an intersection orat any marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicleapproaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.(d) Application of section.—Subsection (a) does not apply under the conditions stated in section 3543(b)(relating to pedestrians crossing at other than crosswalks).

Section 3543. Pedestrians crossing at other than crosswalks.(a) General rule.—Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a crosswalk at anintersection or any marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.(b) At pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing.—Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where apedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to allvehicles upon the roadway.(c) Between controlled intersections in urban district.—Between adjacent intersections in urban districts atwhich traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a markedcrosswalk.(d) Crossing intersection diagonally.—No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unlessauthorized by official traffic-control devices or at the discretion of a police officer or other appropriatelyattired person authorized to direct, control or regulate traffic. When authorized to cross diagonally,pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the signal pertaining to the crossing movements.

Section 3544. Pedestrians walking along or on highway.(a) Mandatory use of available sidewalk.—Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it isunlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.(b) Absence of sidewalk.—Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon ahighway shall walk only on a shoulder as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.(c) Absence of sidewalk and shoulder.—Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, anypedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of theroadway and, if on a two-way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway.(d) Right-of-way to vehicles.—Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, any pedestrian upon aroadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

Section 3545. Pedestrians soliciting rides or business.No person shall:(1) Stand on a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride.(2) Stand on a roadway for the purpose of soliciting employment, business or contributions from the occupantof any vehicle.(3) Stand on or in proximity to a highway for the purpose of soliciting the watching or guarding of anyvehicle while parked or about to be parked on a street or highway.

Section 3546. Driving through or around safety zone.(a) Through zones.—No vehicle shall at any time be driven through or within a safety zone.(b) Around zones.—Traffic may move on either side of a safety zone unless prohibited from driving to theleft of the zone by the installation of an official traffic-control device as provided in this title.

Section 3547. Right-of-way of pedestrians on sidewalks.The driver of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, private road or driveway shall yield theright-of-way to any pedestrian approaching on any sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance,road or driveway.

Section 3548. Pedestrians to yield to authorized emergency vehicles.(a) General rule.—Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle making use of audibleand visual signals meeting the requirements of this title, or of a police vehicle properly and lawfully makinguse of an audible signal only, every pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to the authorized emergencyvehicle.(b) Exercise of care by driver.—This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehiclefrom the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway nor from the duty toexercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian.

Section 3549. Blind pedestrians.(a) General rule.—The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to any totally or partially blindpedestrian carrying a clearly visible white cane or accompanied by a guide dog and shall take suchprecautions as may be necessary to avoid injuring or endangering the pedestrian and, if necessary, shall stopthe vehicle in order to prevent injury or danger to the pedestrian.(b) Effect of absence of cane or dog.—This section shall not be construed to deprive a totally or partiallyblind pedestrian not carrying a cane or not being guided by a dog of the rights and privileges conferred by lawupon pedestrians crossing streets or highways, nor shall the failure of a totally or partially blind pedestrian tocarry a cane or to be guided by a guide dog upon the streets, highways or sidewalks of this Commonwealth beheld to constitute contributory negligence in and of itself.

Section 3550. Pedestrians under influence of alcohol or controlled substance.A pedestrian who is under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance to a degree which renders thepedestrian a hazard shall not walk or be upon a highway except on a sidewalk.

Section 3551. Compliance with bridge and railroad warning signals.(a) Bridges.—No pedestrian shall enter or remain upon any bridge or approach to any bridge beyond thebridge signal, gate or barrier after a bridge operation signal indication has been given.(b) Railroad crossings.—No pedestrian shall pass through, around, over or under any crossing gate or barrierat a railroad grade crossing or bridge while the gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.(c) Penalty.—A violation of this section constitutes a summary offense punishable by a fine of not less than$50 nor more than $150.

Section 3552. Penalty for violation of subchapter.Any pedestrian violating any provision of this subchapter is guilty of a summary offense and shall, uponconviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of $5.

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

Lehigh Valley Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety

Report and

Recommendations for Reducing Crashes

Prepared for the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission

By

Michael Moule - Livable Streets Inc.

Michael Ronkin – Designing Streets for Pedestrians

www.michaelronkin.com

Marcel Schmaedick, Clairvoyant Graphicshttp://www.clairvoyantgraphics.com/

October 2006

541-914-1401michaelronkin@comcast.net

1

Table of Contents

I. Background 2

II. Overview of Pedestrian / Bicyclist Crashes in the Lehigh Valley 3

III. General Recommendations 6

IV. Site-specific Recommendations 9

1. Allentown: Tilghman Street at Cedar Crest Blvd. 9

2. Allentown: Tilghman Street at 7th Street 12

3. Allentown: 7th Street Corridor 14

4. Allentown: Tilghman Street Corridor 16

5. Easton: Northampton Street at Larry Holmes Drive 17

6. Easton: Northampton Street Corridor - 7th Street to 22nd Street 20

7. Nazareth: Broad Street Corridor 22

8. Bethlehem: Broadway at Route 378 (5 Points Intersection) 25

Appendices:

1. Bicycle crash map

2. Pedestrian crash map

2

I. BackgroundThe Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, inresponse to pedestrian and bicyclist crashesoccurring on a variety of roads, streets andhighways throughout the area, hired LivableStreets to perform 3 tasks:1. Review, in the field, several sites where

crashes had occurred, and makerecommendations for possible solutions tolocal staff. Field views took place onSeptember 10 and 12, 2006.

2. Conduct a seminar for local officials in theLehigh Valley area on ways to addresspedestrian and bicyclist safety. This occurredon September 11, 2006.

3. Write a report with descriptions andrecommended solutions for the sites visited inthe field, along with general recommendationsfor improving safety throughout the LVPCarea.

This report constitutes task #3.

Note: none of the recommendations have beenengineered; they are based on the authors’professional judgment, in turn based onexperience with similar problems and potentialsolutions used throughout the country.

3

II. Overview of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes in the Lehigh Valley

1. Existing conditions

A. Transportation and land use

Lehigh Valley contains a mix of land uses andtransportation corridors that are fairly typical forthe US: 3 medium sized cities (Allentown,Bethlehem and Easton), boroughs such asNazareth, and Emmaus, smaller boroughs andvillages, rural farmlands, and suburbia. Thetransportation corridors include Interstatefreeways, major state highways, rural roads,suburban commercial strip development, urbanmain streets, high volume arterials, localresidential streets, and some trails.

Figure 1: Lehigh Street, a suburban commercialstreet

Figure 2: Narrow older street in Nazareth

B. Crash analysis

The maps LVPC generated, illustrating thelocation of ped/bike crashes for 5 years from2000-2005, (excluding 2002), show patterns

typically found in the rest of the country: while itappears at first that most ped crashes occur in theolder, denser and more developed towns wherepedestrian activity is high, most of these crashesresulted in minor injuries to the pedestrian. Fataland severe injury crashes tend to occur more onrural highways and in suburban areas, where thereis less pedestrian activity. This is due to severalfactors: 1) pedestrian facilities such as sidewalksand crossings are rarely provided; 2) drivers don’texpect pedestrians in these environments,lessening their ability to react to the presence of apedestrian on the road or in a crosswalk; and 3)high travel speeds usually result in a severe injuryor fatality.

Sidewalks and frequent crossing opportunities arecommon in dense urban environments; motoristsdrive slower and are more used to seeingpedestrians. Slower speeds result in minor injurycrashes should they occur.

Patterns are harder to determine for bicyclistcrashes. Bicyclists ride on all roads, and crashesare more randomly dispersed. On urban streets,they tend to occur at driveways and intersections,where motorists turn on and off roadways. Hit-from-behind crashes are more common on ruralroads without shoulders.

C. Crash data

The pedestrian/motorist and bicyclist/motoristcrash data for the years 2000-2005 (excluding2002) are helpful in determining the overall, area-wide crash problems, providing information onlocation, time of day, weather conditions etc. Thedata confirm that crash types and locations arerepresentative of national trends. However,individual crash reports are not very helpful indetermining how and why crashes occurred atspot locations: the information lacks accuracy anddescriptions of actions and errors committed bydrivers and/or pedestrian or bicyclists.

Most of the recommendations for spot locationsare based on observing existing conditions andwatching pedestrians and drivers interact. Therewere too few bicyclists observed to draw

4

meaningful conclusions, beyond thoseconclusions that can be determined by simplyobserving the site characteristics.

D. Driver behavior

To the authors, who have worked extensivelythroughout the country on pedestrian safetyproblems, drivers in Lehigh Valley wereparticularly aggressive towards pedestrians. Theyroutinely ignored pedestrians in crosswalks,cutting them off too closely.

This behavior fits with other observed aggressivedriving behaviors: running red lights and stopsigns, passing unsafely on the right, pulling intotraffic with insufficient gaps, and speeding. Themost likely explanation is lack of enforcement, asthe vehicle code in Pennsylvania is very similar tothat of the rest of the country. This link containsthe PA laws relating to pedestrians:

www.dot.state.pa.us/Pedestrian/web/laws.htm.

Figure 3: Typical driver/pedestrian conflict

E. Pedestrian infrastructure deficiencies

Lack of sidewalks: Most of the streets in the olderareas and in some newer subdivisions havepleasant separated sidewalks on both sides ofmost streets; but many areas built in the 1950s to1980s lack sidewalks. This is particularly criticalon commercial suburban arterials such as LehighSt, where the businesses create destinationspeople walk to. Transit routes often run alongthese roads, adding to the need.

Figure 4: Sidewalk ends at lot line (Lehigh Street)

Lack of improved crossings: While it is relativelyeasy to cross the streets in the established areasdue to their narrow width and slow traffic speeds,crossing suburban arterials is challenging, as thelong distances between signals create few gaps intraffic. A simple painted crosswalk, such as theone at the PennDOT building on Lehigh Street, isinsufficient to provide pedestrians with a way tosafely cross these busy roads.

Figure 5: A painted crosswalk here is not enough

Unfettered access: Businesses located onsuburban arterials typically have multipledriveways, or worse, continuous access acrosstheir highway frontage. This makes it verychallenging to retrofit sidewalks, as everydriveway must be dealt with. Pedestrians arethreatened by motorists turning into and out ofthese driveways.

Suburban development patterns: Separatingresidential areas from each other and fromeveryday destinations (shopping, work, play,school) makes it difficult to consider walking orbicycling as reasonable options as the traveldistances are too long, and occur along busyhighways. Disconnected/cul-de-sac streets also

5

make walking difficult, as there are few directroutes to close-by destinations. Streets in olderareas are well connected, and destinations (shops,services and transit stops) are often withinwalking distance.

Traffic signals: Two major problems observed atmost signals were lack of pedestrian signal headsand permissive left-turns (left-turning drivers facea steady green ball, requiring them to yield tooncoming traffic and pedestrians in the crosswalkto their left). Without pedestrian signals, it’s hardfor pedestrians to know when it’s their time tocross, especially when the vehicular signal headsare placed high up and away. Permissive left turnsresult in left-turning motorists seeking a gap inoncoming traffic, accelerating when a gap occurs,

going through the crosswalk at high speed,ignoring and endangering pedestrians, to whomthey must yield by law.

Figure 6: Lack of pedestrian head

6

III. General Recommendations

These recommendations apply to streets andintersections throughout the area; therecommendations for spot locations contain moredetail on how these recommendations should bedesigned. Further analysis and design is neededfor each recommendation to ensure their successin improving conditions for pedestrians andbicyclists.

1. Retrofit sidewalks and bike lanes

This is an enormous challenge, but one that mustbe undertaken. A systematic approach should beused to ensure scarce resources are spent wisely.Busy suburban thoroughfares should receivehighest priority for sidewalks. Busy ruralhighways should receive highest priority forpaved shoulders. Busy urban thoroughfares shouldreceive highest priority for bike lanes. Residentialstreets can get by without sidewalks for the timebeing. Low-volume rural roads work well forcyclists without shoulders, as do residential streetswithout bike lanes.

Retrofitting sidewalks is usually a municipalresponsibility. Various funding mechanisms exist,from property tax assessments and bonding totapping into existing transportation fundingsources.

2. Enact access management measures

Getting hit by drivers exiting or enteringdriveways is a common pedestrian and bicyclistcrash type. Eliminating and consolidatingdriveways, re-designing site access and limitingleft-turns will help reduce these types of crashes.It is politically difficult to enact, especially asretrofits of existing land uses. But by adoptingstrict codes now, future land use applications, aswell as significant changes in land use, willbenefit from improved access and saferconditions.

The LVPC is currently working with sevenLehigh Valley municipalities to identify accessmanagement opportunities and revise appropriateordinances. Municipalities should consider accessmanagement strategies along arterial roads tomaximize the efficiency of the transportationnetwork and to improve safety.

3. Adopt neo-traditional land use patterns

Mixed land-use and interconnected streetsencourage more walking and bicycling, andimprove safety because of reduced automobiletraffic, slower speeds, narrower streets andsmaller intersections.

4. Install pedestrian indicators at all signals

Pedestrian signals should be considered as amatter of policy for future signals and signalupgrades as applicable, and also as a retrofitprogram. Many crashes occur when pedestriansenter the roadway against the signal indication;this is understandable if the pedestrian simplycouldn’t see the traffic light. Pedestrian signalsshould be placed where they can easily be seen bypedestrians, in line with the crosswalk; pedestrianpush buttons should be placed where they caneasily be reached, close to the ramps.

Pedestrian signals should be set to recall toWALK during concurrent vehicle green intervals.This should be done for all crosswalks at signalswhere the signal timing is fixed and the greeninterval comes up in all directions every cycle; atintersections where the signals are traffic actuated,the vehicle signal for the major street is typicallyset to recall to green - the concurrent pedestriansignals should be set to recall to the walkindication every cycle. When walk signals areprovided in an expedient manner, pedestrians aremore likely to pay attention to the signals andbehave accordingly. The pedestrian indicationalso reminds motorists that pedestrians may beusing the crosswalk.

7

Figure 7: Clearly visible pedestrian head

5. Implement protected-only left turn phasingat busy intersections

This is especially useful at intersections wherethere is a dedicated left-turn lane with high left-turning volumes. This will reduce the aggressivebehaviors toward pedestrians in the crosswalk.This could add delay at some signals; it’s a smallprice to pay for improved safety. This techniquemay not be necessary at intersections that have nocrash history for pedestrians.

6. Add Lead Pedestrian Interval (LPI) at selectintersections

The LPI is a signal timing technique that givespedestrians a head start; the walk indicationcomes on 3-5 seconds before the green signal formotorists. This enables pedestrians to enter thecrosswalk and establish their position beforemotorists begin making their turn. Though LehighValley drivers do exhibit aggressive behaviors,once the pedestrian is in the crosswalk, yieldingdoes improve.

7. Use high-visibility crosswalks

While never an excuse for drivers who don’t yieldto pedestrians, many crosswalks were striped withthe minimum 6” transverse parallel lines.Recommendation: use 12” as the standard fortransverse crosswalks. Use high visibility ladder-style crosswalks for all crosswalks at unsignalizedlocations.

Fig 8: Staggered crosswalk markings avoid wheelpaths

8. Curb extensions

On streets with on-street parking, curb extensionsreduce the crossing distance and improvevisibility of both drivers and pedestrians. Curbextensions can also counteract a commonly-observed behavior: they make it impossible for aright-turning driver to use the parking lane to passcars stopped at an intersection, and then turn rightwithout looking for pedestrians.

Fig 9: Curb extension improves visibility andprevents right-turning driver from passing on right

9. Non-infrastructure programs

The flagrant disregard for the law and pedestrians’safety exhibited by local drivers must beaddressed. Pedestrians can hardly be blamed forfailure to use crosswalks or disobeying signals atintersections, as they seem to intuitivelyunderstand that signals and crosswalks offer noprotection as drivers routinely fail to yield topedestrians. These behaviors indicate a need for

8

an aggressive campaign to raise awareness and toremind drivers of their duties toward pedestrians.

An education campaign can only succeed if it isfollowed by an enforcement campaign; it’s easy toforget a message seen on a billboard. A stiff fineis a constant reminder of the consequences offailing to obey one of most important traffic laws:it is the driver’s responsibility to be mindful ofpedestrians.

Recommendation: Implement a pedestrianawareness and enforcement campaign, usingnational models for pedestrian awarenessprograms. An effective police enforcementprogram is the “pedestrian sting” (a misnomer, asit targets drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians).Pedestrian safety was the focus of a recent policeoperation in Hellertown, where officers citeddrivers who failed to yield to pedestrians. Thoughit created resentment among some drivers, it didbring attention to this serious problem.

The authors recommend strongly against ticketing“jaywalkers” (pedestrians who cross against thelight or who cross midblock) for the reasons citedearlier: there is little incentive to cross at anintersection or with a signal if drivers routinely

ignore pedestrians. If any enforcement is directedat pedestrians, it should be limited to especiallypedestrian hazardous behaviors, such as crossingwhen vehicles are dangerously close.

The PA motor vehicle code that relates topedestrian right of way can be found in this link:

www.dot.state.pa.us/Pedestrian/web/laws.htm

10. Review posted speed limits

Considerations should be made to reduce speedlimits where pedestrian access is an issue (e.g.Hellertown Borough).

11. Maintain existing pavement striping

Municipalities are responsible for maintainingcrosswalk white pavement striping to alert driverswhere pedestrians are crossing. Too often thesecrosswalks are difficult to see.

12. Reduce corner radii

Corner radii should be reduced where applicableto decrease the speed of right turning movements.

9

IV. Site-Specific Recommendations

Several corridors and intersections were analyzed by the authors. For each one, the following areprovided:

1. A brief description of general current conditions;2. Observations on pedestrian and driver behavior and conflicts;3. Specific recommendations for the corridor or intersection.

Many of the recommendations can be applied to other, similar corridors and intersections throughout theLehigh Valley. Further analysis and design is needed for each recommendation to ensure their success inimproving conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.

1. Allentown: Tilghman Street at Cedar Crest Boulevard

Figure 10: Panoramic view of intersection

Current conditions

Each quadrant has land uses that generatepedestrian activity. The southeast andnortheast corners have commercial withsidewalks, though the southeast corner rampsdo not lead to the crosswalks. The northwestcorner includes a church and Trexler Park ison the southwest corner. The northwest andsouthwest corners have no sidewalks; in thenorthwest corner shrubs and otherhardscaping make access to the corner verydifficult and block visibility.

The intersection is wide, multi-lane, with verylarge (60’) radii.

The signalization is complex, with protectedleft turns that can be confusing to pedestrians.

There are no pedestrian signals, making itdifficult for pedestrians to determine whenthey can cross. Red-yellow-green signal headsserve as pedestrian signals, but they provideinaccurate information to pedestrians due tothe use of protected left turn signals.

The crosswalks are almost 100 feet long,inaccessible, and do not line up with the fewramps that are provided, except at thenortheast corner.

The large radii create long crosswalks andplace them far from the intersection proper,reducing the visibility of pedestrians byturning drivers.

10

Figure 11: Car turning left into a crosswalk

Figure 12: Wide radius makes it possible for right-turning cars to pass on right

Observations

The combination of protected left turn signaltiming*, wide radii and poor crosswalkplacement leads to many right- and left-turning drivers to proceed fast throughcrosswalks without looking, even whenpedestrians are present. This was borne out byobservers as they tried to cross theintersection to all quadrants. Several conflictswere observed as drivers making a right-on-red passed cars stopped for the red light on theright, glanced left for a gap, and then turnedright without stopping or yielding topedestrians in the crosswalk. Similarbehaviors were observed by left and rightturning vehicles when pedestrians had aconcurrent phase.

*Normally, pedestrians shouldn’t be inthe crosswalk during the protected leftturn phase. However, due to the red-yellow-green signals where pedestrian

signals should be, pedestrians are likely tostart crossing during the protected leftturn interval.

A few pedestrians were observed crossingaway from the intersection. This is most likelymotivated by a desire to avoid the complexconflicts described above.

Recommendations

Add and connect sidewalks in all quadrants. Provide ADA-compliant ramps in all

quadrants; ensure the ramps are whollycontained in the crosswalks.

Add pedestrian indicators, placed where theyare visible, so pedestrians know which phaseis theirs; ensure push-buttons are accessible,per the Manual on Uniform Traffic ControlDevices (MUTCD). The MUTCD providesguidance for the proper placement of signs,stripes, traffic signals etc.

Reduce the corner radii, while evaluatingtruck-turning needs. It appears that largetrucks (WB-62) (a tractor pulling a 62’ trailer)make right turns at most of the corners. Thesoutheast and northwest corner radii canprobably be reduced by designing for the WB-62 design vehicle to turn into both throughlanes on Tilghman Street. Reducing the cornerradii will benefit pedestrians and drivers:1. The crossing distance will be reduced;2. The crosswalks will be more visible to

drivers;3. The delay may be reduced if the

pedestrian clearance interval sets thetiming;

4. Drivers will have to make right turnsmore slowly and more prudently.

Bring up a 3-second leading pedestrianinterval (LPI) whenever the proposedpedestrian signals are actuated. This willresult in minor additional motorist delay whenthe buttons are pushed; but the modestnumber of pedestrians in this area means thisshould only happen a few times per hour.

Current PennDOT proposals and how toensure pedestrian safety is considered

A study of the Cedar Crest Boulevard corridorunder the Congested Corridor Improvement

11

Program resulted in a proposal to change thesignals to protected/permissive left-turn phasing.This signal timing technique is fairly new, and hascaused some concerns about its safety: after thered phase, left-turning vehicles first face a greenarrow, indicating a protected turn (no conflictswith oncoming traffic or pedestrians); then theyface a steady green ball, indicating they may turnleft, but must yield to oncoming traffic andpedestrians. This could decrease safety forpedestrians since permissive left turn movementsare less safe than protected left turn movements.Protected-only left turn signal phasing is preferredfor pedestrians.

However, if the decision is made to allowprotected/permissive left turn phasing to increasecapacity, the signals should be designed to notallow permissive left turns whenever a pedestrianactuates the walk signal that conflicts with a leftturn phase.

If this proposal is implemented, we recommendthe use of a new type of protected/permissive left-turn signal display, which is soon to be allowed inthe MUTCD: the permissive left turn movement isindicated by a flashing yellow arrow, indicating“turn with caution,” rather than a solid green ball.Experiments in several states have shown that thisreduces crashes. It can be used now per the memofound here:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia_10_flashyellarrow.htm

If the intersection is widened with the addition ofright-slip lanes, they should be separated fromthrough traffic with raised pork-chop islands thatare designed with pedestrian safety in mind (tightangles, proper crosswalk placement).

12

2. Allentown: Tilghman Street at 7th Street

Current conditions

7th Street is one-way southbound, 50 feet widewith 3 travel and 2 parking lanes.

Tilghman Street is two-way, one travel lane ineach direction and a left-turn lane at theintersection; no parking is allowed close to theintersection.

The intersection is signalized, with pedestrianindicators.

Pedestrian activity is high, due to the mix ofland uses within walking distance of theintersection.

Several businesses have multiple drivewaysnear the intersection.

There are no bike racks and a lot of bikeslocked to trees, signposts, meters, etc.

Observations

Many conflicts between pedestrians anddrivers were observed, nearly all of them leftor right-turns. Drivers turning from Tilghmanonto 7th Street seemed particularly aggressivetowards pedestrians crossing in the crosswalkwith the light; drivers routinely cutpedestrians off; many seemed to choosewhich of the three lanes on 7th Street to usebased on gaps in the pedestrian flows.

Another driver behavior observed weredrivers making a right-on-red by passingstopped through cars on the right, and turningwithout regard for pedestrians in thecrosswalk.

The proximity of driveways to the intersectionresults in drivers on Tilghman Street makingleft turns into driveways from the left-turnlane for 7th Street, adding to the conflicts.

Many pedestrians were observed crossingaway from the intersection, particularly on 7th

Street. This is likely partially motivated by adesire to avoid the complex conflictsdescribed above.

Figure 13: Pedestrian crossing Tilghman, watchingfor traffic

Recommendations

Add curb extensions out to the edge of theparking lane on 7th street on all four corners;the curb extensions should continue past thefirst driveway (helps protect cars pulling outfrom driveways). At bus stops, the curbextensions should act as “bus bulbouts.”There are drainage inlets on the northwest andnortheast corners. To reduce costs, curbextensions can be built by using “islands” sothat these inlets do not need to bereconstructed.

Change the westbound left-turn movement toprotected-only.

Add leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) forsouth, west and east leg crosswalks. The mostcritical location for an LPI is the south legcrosswalk.

Figure 14: Tilghman & 7th as is

13

Figure 15: Tilghman & 7th Streets with closeddriveway

Figure 16: Tilghman & 7th Streets with curbextension

14

3. Allentown: 7th Street Corridor

Current conditions

7th Street is one-way southbound, 50 feet widewith 3 travel and 2 parking lanes.

7th Street is designated as Route 145southbound; the northbound leg, 6th Street,has 2 travel lanes and parking on both sides.

Observations

Pedestrian activity is high, due to the mix ofland uses up and down the corridor; whereorigins and destinations are across from eachother, people cross midblock:

Figure 17: Pedestrian crosses away fromintersection conflicts

Pedestrians who do cross at signalizedintersections are often in conflict with turningvehicles.

Recommendations

7th Street is wide enough to stripe bike lanes.This would improve bicyclist access to thecorridor, and narrower travel lanes wouldencourage slower speeds. The proposed crosssection would be:

Figure 18: 7th Street as is

Figure 19: 7th Street with bike lanes

Figure 20: 7th Street with colored bike lanes

A long-term solution for 7th Street is toremove one of the 3 travel lanes. This streetcarries about 20,000 to 24,000 vehicles perday. With these volumes, the road will likelyoperate reasonably well with only 2 lanes. Adetailed engineering study must be conductedto evaluate whether this is feasible. The studyshould include evaluation of signalizedintersections to estimate the resulting level of

15

service and to optimize the signal operationfor the updated travel lane configuration. Aproposed cross section for this configurationis as follows:

Figure 21: Back-in diagonal parking from abicyclist perspective

Curb extensions are recommended at cornersto reduce crossing distance, and to minimizeconflicts with turning vehicles.

Where many pedestrians cross midblock, acrosswalk with curb extensions, advance yieldline, signs and illumination should beconsidered (see Figure 23).

Figure 22: Sample curb extension

Figure 23: Advance yield line increases pedestrian’svisibility

16

4. Allentown: Tilghman Street Corridor

Current conditions

Tilghman Street is two-way, 36’ feet widewith 2 travel lanes and 2 parking lanes.

Blocks are quite long. Tilghman is already reasonably narrow, with

considerable friction due to opposing trafficand on-street parking.

The land uses are mostly residential, with theoccasional commercial center.

Figure 24: Tilghman Street is narrow, slow speed

Observations

Pedestrian activity is moderate to high, due tothe mix of land uses.

Many crossings occur midblock, due in part tothe long blocks and mix of land uses up anddown the corridor.

Recommendations

Tilghman Street already operates at quite lowspeeds; it’s relatively easy to cross forpedestrians. Most pedestrian crashes areminor injuries. No wholesale redo of the streetis recommended. Spot intersections, such asTilghman and 7th Streets, can be consideredfor signal timing and other safety measuresfor pedestrians; others would benefit fromtreatments such as curb extensions.

Figure 25: Typical intersection

Figure 26: Same intersection with curb extensions

17

5. Easton: Northampton Street at Larry Holmes Drive

Current conditions

This intersection is at the west end of the two-lane Free Bridge over the Delaware River intoNew Jersey.

Larry Holmes Drive and Northampton Streetare two-way streets; with some added turnlanes at the intersection.

There are crosswalks at three of the legs of theintersection; there is no crosswalk across thebridge side of Larry Holmes Drive, thoughthere are connecting sidewalks up to it fromboth directions.

There are no pedestrian signal heads, and thevehicle signals are generally too high forpedestrians to see.

There are “Wait for Green” signs for northand eastbound traffic, intended as a mitigatingmeasure for the southbound and westboundleading protected left turn phases.

Observations

Pedestrian activity is high in all directions;traffic volumes are fairly high; many conflictswere observed. Many pedestrians walk alongthe park side, where there is no crosswalk,and they must also negotiate broken curb andsidewalk, as well as traffic cones.

Very few pedestrians look up at the signals tosee when the light is green; they watch fortraffic and cross when they perceive there’s anadequate gap. This often puts them in conflictwith turning vehicles.

At two approaches, the stop bar is set so farback that right-turning vehicles cannot initiatetheir turn safely when stopped at the stop bar.This leads to “creeping” or outright disregardfor the stop bar and the crosswalk. This putspedestrians in danger, as right-turning driverslook only to their left for conflicts.

Many right-turning drivers trying to makeright turns on red creep past a car stopped alsowaiting to turn right; these drivers are notwatching for pedestrians on their right.

Figure 27: Children crossing without crosswalk

Figure 28: Wide radius allows high-speed turns

Recommendations

Remove “Wait for Green” signs; protectedleft turn phases have become commonplaceand these signs are confusing to drivers.

Add pedestrian signal heads in clearly visiblelocations, and bring pedestrian signals upevery cycle since the intersection operatesunder fixed time.

Include leading pedestrian intervals to allowpedestrians to cross with a few seconds headstart, to reduce conflicts with turning vehicles.

Change south and westbound protected leftturn movements to lagging left turn phases,possibly protected only; this will requirefurther study.

Change the corner geometry on the northeastand southeast corners; remove the tapersalong the east curb, and change the corner

18

radii to 25 feet or less. With no trucks over 3tons allowed on the bridge, there is no need toaccommodate larger vehicles.

Change the corner radius on the southwestcorner to no more than 25 feet with no taper.Adding a curb extension into NorthamptonStreet would prohibit right-turning driversfrom passing stopped cars on the right.

Add marked crosswalk on the east leg. Thiswill require construction of an appropriatesidewalk ramp, which may be difficult due tothe concrete barrier at the end of the bridge.The revised corner geometry described abovewill help facilitate the placement of sidewalkramps and crosswalk.

Move crosswalks in after recommendedgeometric changes have been made, and movethe stop bar lines on the north and southapproaches to 5 feet from the crosswalks.

Special note: Larry Holmes Drive fromNorthampton Street to 3rd Street appears to be agood candidate for a road diet. The road could beconverted from 4-lane undivided to a 3-lane roadwith one through lane in each direction with acenter turn lane and bike lanes. There is only onesouthbound through lane at this intersection, butthere are two receiving lanes at the south side ofthe intersection. This extra lane doesn’t improvecapacity at this intersection. The next signalizedintersection is at 3rd Street, where the two lanesare necessary to serve the left and throughmovements at this complex higher-volume

intersection. The 3-lane cross section provides thesame number of approach lanes at thisintersection.

A similar situation exists for northbound traffic.There is only one through lane on Larry HolmesDrive going eastbound (northbound). The need fora second northbound lane is only evident at theintersection with Northampton Street. Byconverting to a 3-lane cross section, short medianislands could be built in the center turn lane tomake it easier for pedestrians to cross the street.The center turn lane serves drivers who want toturn left into driveways or streets in this area,providing them a place to wait while yielding tooncoming traffic, without worrying aboutstopping in a through travel lane. 3-lane roads areusually safer than 4-lane roads for motorists,pedestrians, and bicyclists.

Figure 29: Typical "road diet"

19

Figure 30: Intersection of Northampton Street & Larry Holmes Drive with redefined curbs and better placed crosswalks

20

6. Easton: Northampton Street Corridor - 7th Street to 22nd Street

Current conditions

Northampton Street is a two-way street withon-street parking for most of the corridor. Thestreet is striped with a double yellowcenterline; at signals, the travel lanes arenarrowed to make room for a left turn lane.

In most locations, Northampton Street is 50feet wide; towards the west end of thecorridor Northampton Street is 48 feet wide.

Figure 31: Typical section, Northampton Street

Observations

This corridor operates under capacity,making it easier to install fixes that mightotherwise reduce capacity.

Most of the pedestrian conflicts seem to occurat the signalized intersections.

Fig 32: Pedestrian crosses away from intersection

Recommendations

Note: most of the intersections are similar; theserecommendations are applicable at typical signals,and can be implemented relatively quickly:

Add pedestrian signals at intersections thatdon’t have them (e.g. 15th Street).

Put all pedestrian signals on recall so that nopushbuttons are necessary at the intersection.

An alternative is to put all signals acrossminor streets on recall, and includepushbuttons for crossing Northampton Street.

Include leading pedestrian intervals forcrossing Northampton Street. Since the streetis 50 feet wide, the necessary flashing DONTWALK interval is 14 seconds at 3.5 feet persecond, and an appropriate walk interval is 7seconds. Since it is rare that the side streetwill need 21 seconds of green time, the 3-second LPI should be taken from the sidestreet green time, resulting in a 18-secondgreen time for the side street.

Northampton Street could be restriped withbike lanes to reduce the visual effect of a widestreet; it could be striped as follows:

48’ wide areas:

50’ wide areas:

Alternate suggestion: Add median islands atsome of the unsignalized intersections (seerecommendation for Broad Street in Nazareth).It’s also possible to add a continuous center turnlane throughout this project as an alternative tobike lanes, this would allow for frequent use ofmedians or even a continuous median.

Long-term ideas to create a truly pedestrian-friendly corridor along Northampton Street:

Add curb extensions to reduce the crossingdistance at both signalized and unsignalized

21

intersections. The curb extensions shouldextend 7’ to match the width of parkedvehicles. To reduce costs, curb extensions canbe built by using islands that leave a drainagechannel at the curb, so existing drainage inletsdo not need to be reconstructed. At signalizedintersections along Northampton Street, curbextensions will reduce the crossing distance to36’, resulting in a pedestrian clearanceinterval of 10 seconds instead of 14 seconds.

Figure 33: Typical corner along NorthamptonStreet

Figure 34: Corner reconfigured with curb extension

Fig 35: Example of curb extension with originaldrainage

22

7. Nazareth: Broad Street Corridor

Current conditions

Broad Street is not the original main street inNazareth, but acts as main street for highwaytraffic, with a mix of residential, commercialand institutional (churches) land uses.

Broad Street is a two-way street with on-streetparking; at the signalized intersection withCenter Street, the parking is dropped to makeroom for a left turn lane.

In most locations, Broad Street is 52’ wide; atthe southern end, it is 48’ wide.

Observations

Broad Street lives up to its name; it looks andfeels wide, giving a barren look, though it islined with trees and interesting buildings.

The commercial activity does not seem to bebustling; not many people were observedwalking or entering the businesses.

Recommendations

Most of these recommendations are designed toimprove pedestrian safety; but another desirable

consequence is to slow traffic down, give thestreet more character, and to help create a sense ofplace. Some recommendations can beimplemented relatively quickly, others will taketime.

Short-term:

Broad Street could be restriped with bikelanes to reduce the visual effect of a widestreet. The 52’ section could be striped:

The 48’ section could be striped:

In addition to striping, further enhancements willhelp reduce the visual width of the street:

23

The bike lane could be dyed red or anothercontrasting color, to make the travel lanesappear narrower; this could be carried into theparking lanes as well.

Long-term:

Curb extensions can be added to most corners,physically and visually narrowing the cross-section.

Median crossing islands can be placed to helpthe pedestrian cross the street in two stages.This will help slow traffic, as the travel lanesmust shift to allow width for the island. Forthe 52’ section, the cross section with amedian could be as follows:

If bike lanes are included in the 48’ section,the median islands would require removal of asmall amount of parking at the islands and inthe taper leading up to the island. For the 48’section, the cross section could be as follows:

A similar cross section could be used for 52’ butwith a 16’ median; parking would need to beremoved here as well.

Alternating median islands and curbextensions will create a “chicane” effect,further slowing down traffic.

Figure 36: Broad Street as is

Figure 37: Broad Street with bike lanes

Figure 38: Broad Street with colored bike lanes

Figure 39: Example of a chicane

24

Figure 40: Broad Street as is at intersection

Figure 41: Broad Street with a median island and curb extensions

25

8. Bethlehem: Broadway at Route 378 (5 Points Intersection)

Figure 42: 5-Point intersection; wide expanse of asphalt makes it unclear to users how to proceed

Current conditions

This is a complex, skewed and multi-leggedintersection.

Broadway cuts through more or less in astraight line, in a SW-NE direction.

Route 378 cuts through on a curve; throughtraffic proceeds S-N, then SSW-ENE.

The skew and curved alignment results in alarge expanse of pavement with nodefinition (“sea of asphalt”).

Dakotah Street comes into the middle of theintersection.

A gas station and a McDonalds are locatedat the intersection; both have access pointsvery close to the intersection proper.

The businesses located along WyandotteStreet seem to be suffering from the loss ofon-street parking.

The pedestrian crosswalks are set back farfrom the intersection, often in locations thatare not visible to right-turning drivers. This

is true going southbound and northbound onRoute 378 and particularly critical for thesouthbound Route 378 movement.

The pedestrian WALK interval acrossBroadway on the west side of theintersection runs concurrent with the greeninterval for Route 378. This results in aconflict between pedestrians at thiscrosswalk and Route 378 southbound trafficthat turns onto Broadway. While this istechnically a right turn off of Route 378, theturning angle is about 155°, which allowsvehicles to make the turn without slowingdown. Drivers are unlikely to expectpedestrians crossing with the signal.

Conversely, pedestrians crossing at thislocation see a WALK signal, and have noexpectation of a conflict with the trafficcoming from Route 378 southbound ontoBroadway.

26

Observations

It is not readily apparent to drivers whichmovements are “through” movements andwhich movements are the “turns.” Somesouthbound drivers on Route 378 seemedconfused about whether they should be inthe right turn lane in order to turn ontoBroadway. Most use the right turn lane asintended (to turn onto Broadway or ontoDakotah Street), but some drivers make theturn onto Broadway from the through lane.

The extreme skew allows drivers to turn athigh speeds, making it unlikely that theywill yield to pedestrians; this is exacerbatedby the fact several of the crosswalks wereplaced too far around the corner, placingpedestrians out of sight for right-turningdrivers.

Most pedestrians choose not to use thecrosswalks at the intersection, with thepossible exception of the crosswalk on thenorth side of the intersection. This behavioris likely due to the fact that the crosswalksseem unsafe to pedestrians.

Figure 43: Broadway/Route 378 intersection

Fig 44: Pedestrian crossing away fromintersection

Recommendations

One very important change should be madeimmediately. See “current conditions”: thecrosswalk across Broadway on the west side ofthe intersection presents a significantsignalization conflict between pedestrians andmotorists turning right from southbound Route378-southbound Broadway. The signal timingshould be modified so this walk interval occursduring the same signal phase as eastboundDakotah Street. No other signal timing changesshould be necessary; but since the DakotahStreet approach is actuated, pushbuttons will beneeded to actuate this signal for pedestrians.

The first set of recommendations is based on theexisting traffic patterns (see figure 45):

Prohibit right turns from southboundBroadway onto northbound WyandotteStreet. Extend the curb on the north side ofBroadway at this corner and reduce theradius to 5 feet. This will reduce the amountof undefined pavement. The extended curbmay interfere with a bus stop, but the curbextension is critical to achieve the maximumreduction in asphalt area.

The tightened radius and extended curb willmake it possible to move the crosswalkacross Broadway on the east side of theintersection. On the north side of Broadway,the crosswalk should tie into the newenlarged corner. On the south side, thecrosswalk should connect just southwest ofthe tree at this corner. This location is theoptimum balance between two crosswalkplacement goals:

1. Providing a short crosswalk and2. Ensuring the crosswalk is in the field

of vision of right-turning motorists. This realigned crosswalk will allow the stop

lines to be moved toward the intersection,improving safety and capacity for motorists.

Change the location of the crosswalk acrossBroadway on the west side of theintersection. The south end of this crosswalkshould stay approximately where it is, butthe north end should be moved to thenortheast; this will create a more intuitivepath for pedestrians, and place them wherethe can be seen by right-turning motorists.

27

Add skip stripes (1’ long dashes at 4’-8’spacing) along the left side of thesouthbound right turn lane and along theright side of the southbound through lanethrough the intersection to reinforce the factthat the southbound right turn lane isintended to serve vehicles turning right ontoDakotah Street and onto Broadway. Acustomized lane use control sign should alsobe installed above the travel lane. This signwould show both a normal right turn arrowand a customized slight right turn arrow.

Make the left turn movements fromBroadway onto Route 378 protected-only toreduce the hazard created by left-turningvehicles conflicting with pedestrianscrossing Route 378. The protected onlyphasing could be set up to occur only whena pedestrian pushes a pushbutton. However,adding pedestrian actuation at thisintersection provides less service topedestrians and is not recommended,especially as the area redevelops into higher-density mixed use with more pedestriansusing the intersection.

An alternative for the crosswalk across thenorth leg is to change the WALK signal torun concurrent with the green interval forDakotah Street. However, this changeprovides worse service to pedestrians.

If the one-way couplet is not implemented, thecross-section of Wyandotte Street fromBroadway to 4th Street can still be changed:

Convert the northbound curb lane into aparking lane. This parking will serve theproposed redevelopment in this area.Convert the left-turn lane for left turns intoMcDonalds and 4th Street to a northboundthrough lane. Left-turn movements toMcDonalds and 4th Street will need to beprohibited.

Create curb extensions to offset the parkingon the east side of Route 378. This willallow even greater reduction in the sea ofasphalt at this intersection.

Figure 45: 5-Point intersection with recommended changes

28

Recommendations for one-way pair proposal:

The city of Bethlehem is proposing to turnRoute 378 (Wyandotte Street) to one-waysouthbound from 3rd street (end of the bridge) toBroadway, and reroute northbound traffic onRoute 378 to turn right on to Broadway, across4th Street, then left onto Broadhead Avenue, thenleft at 3rd Street to the ramp that will lead up tothe bridge.

Broadway would become one-way fromWyandotte Street to Broadhead Street, butBroadhead Street and 3rd Street are planned toremain two-way even though they will carry asignificant amount of northbound traffic. Part ofthe impetus for this proposal is to reduce thenumber of lanes on Wyandotte Street and addparking to serve the planned redevelopment inthe area.

The conceptual plan for this change has beenreviewed and here are the recommendedchanges to the existing plan:

Change the walk interval across Broadwayon the west side of the intersection to runconcurrent with the Dakotah Street approachand/or the northbound right-turn movementfrom Route 378 onto Broadway.

Change the location of the crosswalk acrossBroadway on the west side of theintersection in the same manner as describedabove in recommendations for the existingconditions.

Add mini-skip white stripes along the leftside of the southbound right turn lane andalong the right side of the southboundthrough lane through the intersection to

reinforce the fact that the southbound right-turn lane is intended to serve vehiclesturning right onto Dakotah Street and ontoBroadway. A customized lane use controlsign should also be installed above the travellane. This sign would show both a normalright turn arrow and a customized slightright turn arrow (see example for left turnarrows below):

Figure 46: MUTCD sign R3-8a

Add a curb extension on the south side ofBroadway on the east side of theintersection, narrowing the roadway down tojust enough width for two travel lanes (about27 feet total). This will allow for moreparking along the south side of Broadway.

The parking can be extended on the east sideof Wyandotte Street down to the intersectionwith Broadway, with a curb extension onWyandotte Street at the corner. This willrequire a reduction in width of thesouthbound lanes as well as shortening theleft turn lane at this intersection.

The crosswalk across the east leg of theintersection conflicts with the northboundright turning movement. A normalconcurrent walk signal will likely createunsafe conflicts between these movements.The best solution is to display the WALKsignal for this crosswalk only whennorthbound vehicular traffic faces a redsignal (with a “no turn on red” sign).Southbound through, right turn and left turnmovements could be allowed to take placeduring this walk interval.

APPENDIX 1

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

N.J.

COUNTY

COUN

TY

NORT

HAMP

TON

COUN

TY

LEHIG

H

COUN

TY

NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY

LEHIGH

COUNTY

BERKS

COUNTY

MONTGOMERY

BUCKS

COUN

TY

N.J.

MONR

OE

CARB

ON

COUN

TY

SCHU

YLKIL

L

COUNT

Y

ALLE

NTOW

N

BETH

LEHE

M(N

C)

EAST

ON

EMMA

US

BETH

LEHE

M(LC

)

BANG

OR

BATH

NORT

HAMP

TON

NAZA

RETH

WILS

ON

WIND GAP

PEN

ARGY

L

SLAT

INGT

ON

MACU

NGIE

CATA

SAUQ

UA

HELL

ERTO

WN

GLEN

DON

ALBU

RTIS

COPL

AY

ROSE

TO

TATA

MY

STOC

KERT

OWN

COOP

ERSB

URG

EAST

BANG

OR

WALN

UTPO

RT

PORT

LAND

FOUN

TAIN

HILL

FREE

MANS

BURG

CHAP

MAN

NORT

H CA

TASA

UQUA

WEST

EAST

ON

LYNN

MOOR

E

LEHI

GH

BUSH

KILL

UPPE

R MT

. BET

HEL

PLAIN

FIELD

WEISE

NBER

G

WILL

IAMS

HEID

ELBE

RG

FORK

S

ALLE

N

LOW

HILL

UPPE

RSA

UCON

NORT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

LOW

ERSA

UCON

UPPE

RMA

CUNG

IE

PALM

ER

LOW

ERMA

CUNG

IE

WASH

INGT

ON(LC

)

LOW

ER

MT. B

ETHE

L

BETH

LEHE

MTW

P.

EAST

ALLE

N

LOW

ERMI

LFOR

D

WHITE

HALL

WASH

INGT

ON

(NC)

UPPE

RMI

LFOR

D

SOUT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

SALIS

BURY

LOWE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(NC)

UPPE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(LC

)

SALIS

BURY

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

£¤22

£¤22

£¤22

£¤222

OP29

OP33

OP29

OP33

OP329

OP100

OP987

OP309

OP145

OP143

OP329

OP873

OP309

OP145

OP512

OP611

OP329

OP191

OP191

OP946

OP946

OP512

OP248

OP378

OP412

OP145

OP100

OP309

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP987

OP987

OP378

OP412

OP100

OP873

OP863

OP946

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP191

OP512

BICY

CLE/

MOTO

R VE

HICL

E CR

ASHE

S

Sourc

e: Pe

nnDO

T, Ye

ars 20

00 - 2

005 (

exclu

ding 2

002)

LEHI

GH VA

LLEY

PLAN

NING

COM

MISS

ION

961 M

arcon

Boule

vard,

Suite

310

Allen

town,

PA 1

8109

-9397

(610)

264-4

544

LVPC

±1"

= 5.4

miles

02

46 Mi

les

Coun

ty Bo

unda

ry

Road

sMu

nicipa

l Bou

ndary

Fatal

Othe

r Injur

yMa

jor in

jury

! ! !

APPENDIX 2

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

N.J.

COUNTY

COUN

TY

NORT

HAMP

TON

COUN

TY

LEHIG

H

COUN

TY

NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY

LEHIGH

COUNTY

BERKS

COUNTY

MONTGOMERY

BUCKS

COUN

TY

N.J.

MONR

OE

CARB

ON

COUN

TY

SCHU

YLKIL

L

COUNT

Y

ALLE

NTOW

N

BETH

LEHE

M(N

C)

EAST

ON

EMMA

US

BETH

LEHE

M(LC

)

BANG

OR

BATH

NORT

HAMP

TON

NAZA

RETH

WILS

ON

WIND GAP

PEN

ARGY

L

SLAT

INGT

ON

MACU

NGIE

CATA

SAUQ

UA

HELL

ERTO

WN

GLEN

DON

ALBU

RTIS

COPL

AY

ROSE

TO

TATA

MY

STOC

KERT

OWN

COOP

ERSB

URG

EAST

BANG

OR

WALN

UTPO

RT

PORT

LAND

FOUN

TAIN

HILL

FREE

MANS

BURG

CHAP

MAN

NORT

H CA

TASA

UQUA

WEST

EAST

ON

LYNN

MOOR

E

LEHI

GH

BUSH

KILL

UPPE

R MT

. BET

HEL

PLAIN

FIELD

WEISE

NBER

G

WILL

IAMS

HEID

ELBE

RG

FORK

S

ALLE

N

LOW

HILL

UPPE

RSA

UCON

NORT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

LOW

ERSA

UCON

UPPE

RMA

CUNG

IE

PALM

ER

LOW

ERMA

CUNG

IE

WASH

INGT

ON(LC

)

LOW

ER

MT. B

ETHE

L

BETH

LEHE

MTW

P.

EAST

ALLE

N

LOW

ERMI

LFOR

D

WHITE

HALL

WASH

INGT

ON

(NC)

UPPE

RMI

LFOR

D

SOUT

H WH

ITEHA

LL

SALIS

BURY

LOWE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(NC)

UPPE

RNA

ZARE

TH

HANO

VER

(LC

)

SALIS

BURY

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦78

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

§̈ ¦476

£¤22

£¤22

£¤22

£¤222

OP29

OP33

OP29

OP33

OP329

OP100

OP987

OP309

OP145

OP143

OP329

OP873

OP309

OP145

OP512

OP611

OP329

OP191

OP191

OP946

OP946

OP512

OP248

OP378

OP412

OP145

OP100

OP309

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP987

OP987

OP378

OP412

OP100

OP873

OP863

OP946

OP309

OP248

OP611

OP191

OP512

PEDE

STRI

AN/M

OTOR

VEH

ICLE

CR

ASHE

S

Sourc

e: Pe

nnDO

T, Ye

ars 20

00 - 2

005 (

exclu

ding 2

002)

LEHI

GH VA

LLEY

PLAN

NING

COM

MISS

ION

961 M

arcon

Boule

vard,

Suite

310

Allen

town,

PA 1

8109

-9397

(610)

264-4

544

LVPC

±1"

= 5.4

miles

02

46 Mi

les

Coun

ty Bo

unda

ry

Road

sMu

nicipa

l Bou

ndary

Fatal

Othe

r Injur

yMa

jor in

jury

! ! !