2. Countermeasure Implementation
| < Previous | Table of Content | Next > |
This chapter discusses the deployment of the countermeasures. It first presents an overview of the countermeasures and the installation challenges. Also presented is a comparison of the countermeasures in terms of cost and device availability. Description of each individual countermeasure, its purpose, the setting for each San Francisco installation, device availability and approval status, cost information, and key issues are presented in Chapter 3. A more detailed comparison of the individual countermeasures is provided in Appendix B.
2.1. Overview of Installation Challenges
Phase II involved the installation and evaluation of a broad range of pedestrian safety measures, from nearly routine signal timing changes to customized infrared and video detection equipment.
However, there were several common challenges that the San Francisco team faced:
Scheduling of Countermeasures: A complex, phased installation schedule was established for each pedestrian safety measure at specific intersections. This was intended to accommodate the evaluation plan, as designed by the University of California at Berkeley Traffic Safety Center (TSC). This phased installation was implemented to facilitate data collection with limited field crew staffing over a wide geographic area of the city, and to conduct video recording for analysis of pedestrian/driver behavior. It was intended that at some locations two or more countermeasures would be installed, but at separate times to allow for separate evaluation. It was also intended that multiple baseline observations would be made to allow for statistical controls. This phased installation schedule had to be coordinated with San Francisco DPT sign, paint and signal shops, which process dozens of work order requests on a monthly basis. Typically the shops prioritize work orders, but do not schedule work tasks for specific days weeks ahead.
Internal and Inter-Agency Coordination: The signal timing changes for All Red phases, increased Walk phase time, and Pedestrian Head Starts required coordination with the DPT signal shop’s high priority signal upgrade projects and other signal timing changes. Installation of fixed radar speed signs and flashing beacons required prior determination of whether electrical power was available in the field, requiring notification and permission of utility agencies. Installation of median refuge islands involved planning and design coordination with the Department of Public Works for construction of the islands. The Department of Telecommunications and Information Services installed flashing beacons, but needed to work closely with the DPT Signal Shop. The video detection installation required close coordination with Econolite (the manufacturer of the video camera and detection system), the developer of the D4 customized signal controller software, the DPT Signal Shop, and SFgo (citywide integrated traffic management system) engineers. In general, any pedestrian safety measure that touched the street pavement required checking with street repaving and construction project schedules so that installation would not be scheduled before a major repaving or construction project on the street.
-
Public Hearing Process: Some pedestrian safety measures such as red visibility curbs, and construction of median refuge islands required a public hearing. Parking changes related to the red visibility curbs also required City and County Board of Supervisor approval.
Weather: Heavy, continual rains during the winter months caused delays in installation of several of the pedestrian safety measures that involved painting of surface pavement such as red visibility curb zones, advanced limit lines, “LOOK” stencils and painted islands for installation of “Yield to Pedestrians” signs.
2.2. Comparison of Countermeasures: Ease of Implementation
Four countermeasures proved especially challenging to deploy:
-
Portable Radar Speed Trailers
Radar Speed Display Signs
-
Video Detection Of Pedestrians to Extend Crossing Time
-
Flashing Beacons With Infrared Bollards
The portable radar speed trailer required extensive staff support for several reasons. First, comprehensive testing and adjustment were necessary after delivery to ensure that the device worked properly. Second, it required a formal letter of intent between the SFMTA and the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), as the latter stored, maintained, transported, and set up the device. Third, it required continuing coordination between SFMTA and the SFPD, including scheduling deployment to coincide with data collection. Finally, to avoid vandalism and to heighten the novelty impact of the device, it was moved to different sites on a daily basis, requiring extensive labor.
The primary challenge with the radar speed display signs was to locate them on poles where they could both utilize existing electrical power and also be effective and visible. Additionally, the devices required extensive fine-tuning by SFMTA electricians, primarily to adjust the detection zone.
The video detection of pedestrians to extend crossing time was a completely innovative use of the technology, which Econolite believes is the only U.S. application of this type. A customized detection zone scheme and logic for adjusting the signal timing had to be developed, tested, and refined, and the Econolite Autoscope detection software needed to be coordinated with the D4 traffic signal controller software.
The flashing beacons with infrared bollards required the most substantial construction of any countermeasure, and included installation of conduit and wiring the device across a four-lane arterial street. This required investigation of possible conflicts with high-risk utilities. While individual components (the detection bollards and the beacons themselves) were commercially available, the combination was custom-designed. The detection bollards included an in-surface activation device (ISAD), which was not widely in use. The detection bollards’ effectiveness was highly sensitive to their locations.
2.3. Comparison of Countermeasures: Costs
Cost estimates provided in the body of this report include: materials/equipment, installation labor, and engineering/administration labor. This includes shop and engineering/planning labor from conceptual design through fine-tuning and initial operations/maintenance. The radar speed trailer and the outreach program carried significant operating costs for operating personnel but, once installed, other countermeasures did not require personnel for operation except for small modifications and maintenance for many of the devices. In general, the labor costs far exceeded the equipment and materials costs.
The least expensive countermeasures in total per-unit costs were the “LOOK” pavement stencils and the roadside “Yield to Pedestrians” signs. The most expensive countermeasures were the video detection system and the flashing beacon with automated detection. However, the video detection costs are significantly understated since the PedSafe project did not pay for the video detection camera equipment or its initial installation, and substantial technical assistance was provided free of charge by Econolite, the manufacturer of the equipment.
It was not possible to track costs precisely due to the accounting system limitations. Material/equipment costs are precise figures, whereas labor costs are based on careful estimates by key project staff. Labor costs also include overhead and fringe benefits.
In general, the engineering/administrative costs were quite substantial, and often exceeded the material/equipment costs and the installation labor. The engineering/administrative costs for the first-time use of a technology are often much higher than continuing costs.
2.4. Comparison of Countermeasures: Availability and Standard Use
All countermeasures were explicitly or implicitly consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the California MUTCD State Supplement. It was not necessary to obtain special approval to experiment with any of the countermeasures from FHWA or the California Department of Transportation. Several countermeasures considered experimental when initially proposed by the San Francisco team were added to the MUTCD in the 2003 revision. Formal local approval from the Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors and the County Board of Supervisors were required for visibility red curb zones.
The following countermeasures are considered approved or standard devices or treatments and are now widely used in California, although they were regarded as innovative when they were initially proposed:
Impactable “Yield To Pedestrians” Signs
Roadside “Yield To Pedestrians” Signs
Modified Signal Timing
-
“Pedestrian Head Start”
-
Advanced Stop Lines and Red Visibility Curb Zones
-
ADA Curb Ramps
-
Median Refuge Islands
The following countermeasures are in limited use as “off the shelf” products, but not considered experimental:
“LOOK” Pavement Stencils6
-
Flashing Beacons (Push Button-Actuated)
-
Portable Radar Speed Trailers
-
Radar Speed Display Signs
-
Distribution of Retro-Reflective Materials
Video Public Service Announcements
The following countermeasures were “custom-made” and involved innovative technologies, although they did not require approval as formal experiments:
-
Automated (Video) Detection of Pedestrians to Extend Crossing Time
-
Flashing Beacons (Automated Detection with Infrared Bollards)
6The LOOK pavement stencils included a Chinese-English stencil that was custom designed by SFMTA staff, working with the vendor.
| < Previous | Table of Content | Next > |
