U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Safety

FHWA Home / Safety / Pedestrian & Bicycle / Las Vegas Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase 2 Final Technical Report

Las Vegas Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase 2 Final Technical Report

< Previous Table of Content Next >

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL SITES

SITE 2: MARYLAND PARKWAY / DUMONT STREET

2.1 Site description

The intersection of Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street comes under the jurisdiction of Clark County. Land use around this site is primarily commercial with shopping complexes and a shopping mall (Boulevard mall). Maryland Parkway is classified as a major arterial in the north-south direction. It has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Dumont Street is a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The average daily traffic (ADT) on Maryland Parkway near the intersection of Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street is 43,000 in the year 2006. The traffic on the eastbound direction of the Dumont Street leads to the Boulevard mall. Figure 6 presents the aerial photograph of the site. Implementation plan and conceptual designs of this site are presented in Site 2A, Site 2B and Site 2C in Appendix B.

Figure 6: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street

Figure 6: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street

2.2 Problems Identified

The problems identified at Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street from field observation and from crash data include pedestrians not waiting for acceptable gaps before crossing the streets, drivers failing to yield, pedestrians trapped in the middle of the roadway, and conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Since the safety issues are result of both pedestrian and driver behaviors, the selected countermeasures are aimed at altering those.

2.3 Countermeasures Proposed

The proposed countermeasures to address these problems are “Danish offset,” “Median refuge,” “High visibility crosswalk,” “Advance yield markings,” and “Pedestrian activated flashing yellow.” The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Implementation Plan for Maryland Parkway / Dumont Street
Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Install RPM standard line 100 feet long at the upstream crosswalk O O O
Redesign of East approach to permit only right turns O O O
Danish Offset O O O
Median Refuge on East approach O O O
High visibility crosswalk O O O
Advance yield markings + warning sign for motorists   O O
Pedestrian actuated flashing beacons     O

O – Installed

2.4 Countermeasures Installed

As table 11 indicates, the countermeasures are installed in three different stages. Their description is as follows.

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Danish offset, Median refuge, and High visibility crosswalk treatment.” These countermeasures are installed on October 12, 2006. The after condition data for stage 1 countermeasure deployment are collected between October 26 and November 2, 2006. Figure 7 shows the countermeasures deployed in stage 1 at this location.

Figure 7: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment, Median Refuge and Danish Offset

Figure 7: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment, Median Refuge and Danish Offset

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “Advanced Yield Markings.” This countermeasure is installed on November 06, 2006. The after condition data for stage 2 countermeasure deployment is collected between November 30 and December 1, 2006. Figure 8 shows the countermeasures deployed in stage 2.

Figure 8: Advance Yield Markings and "Yield Here to Pedestrians" Sign

Figure 8: Advance Yield Markings and “Yield Here to Pedestrians” Sign

Stage 3 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Pedestrian Activated Flashing Yellow.” This countermeasure was installed on March 7, 2007. The after condition data for Stage 3 countermeasure deployment was collected on March 22 – April 6, 2007. Figure 9 shows the countermeasure deployed in Stage 3 at this location.

Figure 9: Pedestrian Activated Flashing Yellow

Figure 9: Pedestrian Activated Flashing Yellow

The MOEs presented in Tables 12 and 13 represents the safety MOEs for pedestrians and motorists respectively. Table 14 presents the mobility MOEs for both pedestrians and motorists. The statistical test results obtained after the comparison are shown in Tables 15 and 16.

2.5 Safety MOEs

2.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs

Table 12 summarizes the data collected for pedestrian MOEs at the Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street site. It is observed that all the observed pedestrians look for vehicles before beginning to cross and before crossing the second half of street. Pedestrians who divert their path to utilize the facility are not found during baseline period. Data shows that a small proportion of the observed (0.12) pedestrians are trapped in the roadway. Data obtained for stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 are shown in Table 12.

The implementation of stage 1 and stage 2 countermeasures show decrease in the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross and before crossing the second half of street when compared to baseline. However, in stage 3, there is a notable improvement in pedestrian behavior compared to stages 1 and 2. The proportion of diverted pedestrian has shown a continuous increase at all stages. On the other hand, the proportion of trapped pedestrians at each stage, as well as proportion of diverted pedestrians shows a decreasing trend.

2.5.2 Motorist MOEs

Table 13 summarizes the data collected for motorist MOEs at site 2. The data indicates that the percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians increases in stages 1 and 2, but decreases in stage 3. As anticipated, the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians at a distance less than 10 ft decreases, whereas the proportions of drivers yielding at a higher distance increases at all three stages. Note that since the crossing is absent during baseline data collection period, baseline data for drivers yielding distance is not collected. Proportion of drivers blocking the crosswalk also shows decreasing values in various stages.

Table 12: Results for pedestrian MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street
Measures of Effectiveness(Safety) Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Sample = 631 Sample = 266 Sample = 198 Sample = 452
NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent N3 Percent
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 631 100 255 96 185 93 452 100
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 631 100 251 94 180 91 452 100
Percent of captured pedestrians 631 100 241 91 177 89 381 84
Percent of diverted pedestrians 0 0 25 9 21 11 71 16
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 73 12 17 6 7 4 9 2

 

Table 13: Results for motorist MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street
Measures of Effectiveness
(Safety)
Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Sample = 432 Sample = 370 Sample = 246 Sample = 1633
NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent N3 Percent
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 138 32 170 46 188 76 227 14
  Sample = 138 Sample = 170 Sample = 188 Sample = 227
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk < 10 ft 109 64 85 45 34 15
10-20 ft 36 21 87 46 154 68
>20 ft 25 15 16 9 39 17
  Sample = 432 Sample = 370 Sample = 246 Sample = 1633
Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 12 3 8 3 6 0.4

2.6 Mobility MOEs

2.6.1 Pedestrian Delay

The average pedestrian and vehicle delay measured at this location for different stages is shown in Table 14. The average pedestrian delay at baseline conditions is 3.8 sec/ped. The installation of the countermeasures shows different effects on the average pedestrian delay. The deployment of advance yield markings and “yield here to pedestrians” signs in stage 2 and pedestrian activated flashing yellow in stage 3 shows a higher average pedestrian delay than that experienced during baseline period.

2.6.2 Vehicle Delay

Table 14 shows that the average vehicle delay continuously reduced after the deployment of countermeasures in all three stages. Since no data were collected for the baseline period, similar comparison could not be done.

Table 14: Delays at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street
Measures of Effectiveness (Mobility) Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay
Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 631 3.82 266 21.03 198 7.46 452 13.57
Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) 370 5.78 246 3.81 1633 0.84

2.7 Statistical Results

2.7.1 Safety MOEs

The statistical results of the safety MOEs for the Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street are shown in Tables 15 and 16. Table 15 shows the statistical results when the data for baseline are compared with other stages. These results indicate that no significant increase is seen in the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross, before crossing second half of street, and the proportion of captured pedestrians (P>0.05). A significant increase in the proportion of diverted pedestrian is found (P<0.001) in later stages compared to the baseline data. The decrease in proportion of pedestrians trapped in roadway is found to be statistically significant. Table 16 shows statistical results obtained when stages 1 and 2, and stage 2 and 3 are compared. A comparison of stage 1 and stage 2 shows no significant increase in the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross, before crossing second half of street, and, percent of captured and diverted pedestrians (P>0.05). However, the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross, before crossing second half of street, and the proportion of diverted pedestrians in stages 2 and 3 shows a significant increase (P<0.05).

A significant increase in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians is found when stages 1 and 2 are compared with baseline data (P<0.001), however no significant increase is found in stage 3. The significant increase in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians at a distance greater than 10 ft is found when stages 1, 2, and 3 are compared.

2.7.2 Mobility MOEs

Tables 17 and 18, show the results of the statistical analyses of the mobility MOEs for the Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street site. The statistical analyses show no significant change in the pedestrian delay when baseline data are compared with stages 1, 2 and 3 (P>0.05).  A significant decrease in stage 2 is found when compared to stage 1.

The reduction in average vehicle delay from stage 1 to stage 2 is not significant (P>0.05), but the reduction from stage 2 to stage 3 is statistically significant (P<0.001).

Table 15: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street
Measures of Effectiveness
Safety)
Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 Baseline vs. Stage 3
PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 P-value H0 PB – P3 P-value H0
MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 0.04 >0.05 Do not reject 0.07 >0.05 Do not reject 0.00
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 0.06 >0.05 Do not reject 0.09 >0.05 Do not reject 0.00
Percent of captured pedestrians 0.09 >0.05 Do not reject 0.11 >0.05 Do not reject 0.16 >0.05 Do not reject
Percent of diverted pedestrians -0.09 <0.001 Reject -0.11 <0.001 Reject -0.16 <0.001 Reject
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.14 <0.001 Reject -0.44 <0.001 Reject 0.18 >0.05 Do not reject
MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.05 <0.05 Reject 0.08 <0.001 Reject 0.10 <0.001 Reject

 

Table 16: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street
Measures of Effectiveness
(Safety)
Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. Stage 3
P1 – P2 P-value H0 P2 – P3 P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 0.02 >0.05 Do not reject -0.07 <0.001 Reject
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 0.03 >0.05 Do not reject -0.09 <0.001 Reject
Percent of captured pedestrians 0.01 >0.05 Do not reject 0.05 >0.05 Do not reject
Percent of diverted pedestrians -0.01 >0.05 Do not reject -0.05 <0.05 Reject
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.30 <0.001 Reject 0.63 >0.05 Do not reject
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 10-20 ft -0.25 <0.001 Reject -0.22 <0.001 Reject
>20 ft 0.06 <0.05 Reject -0.09 <0.05 Reject

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk <10 ft 0.19 <0.001 Reject 0.30 <0.001 Reject
Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 0.00 >0.05 Do not reject 0.03 <0.05 Reject
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.03 >0.05 Do not reject 0.02 >0.05 Do not reject

 

Table 17: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street
Measures of Effectiveness (Mobility) Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 Baseline vs. Stage 3
Difference in Mean P-value H0 Difference in Mean P-value H0 Difference in Mean P-value H0
MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore
Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) -17.21 >0.05 Do not reject -3.64 >0.05 Do not reject -9.75 >0.05 Do not  reject

 

Table 18: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs between stages at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street
Measures of Effectiveness
(Mobility)
Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. Stage 3
Difference in Mean P-value H0 Difference in Mean P-value H0
MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore
Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 13.57 <0.001 Reject -6.11 >0.05 Do not reject
Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) 1.97 >0.05 Do not reject 2.97 <0.001 Reject

2.8 Summary

The results indicate that the installation of the countermeasures has a positive effect in reducing the number of pedestrians trapped in the roadway and increasing the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians, thereby increasing the safety of the pedestrians. The countermeasures also results in an increase in the number of pedestrians using the crosswalk (increase in number of diverted pedestrians). The countermeasures have a positive effect in reducing the vehicle delay at the location of Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street.

< Previous Table of Content Next>
Page last modified on February 1, 2013
Safe Roads for a Safer Future - Investment in roadway safety saves lives
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000