September 15, 2008 Las Vegas Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase 2 Final Technical Report Final Implementation Report and Executive Summary

< Previous Table of Content Next >

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL SITES

SITE 17: FREMONT STREET: 11TH STREET AND 8TH STREET

Figure 41: Aerial Photograph of Fremont Street: 11th Street to 8th Street (Control Site)

Figure 41: Aerial Photograph of Fremont Street: 11th Street to 8th Street (Control Site)

SITE 18: FREMONT STREET: 6TH STREET AND 8TH STREET

18.1 Site description

Land use adjacent to the corridor includes hotels, casinos and other commercial activities. The location is within the jurisdiction of the City of Las Vegas. Fremont Street is classified as a minor arterial and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. As per 2006 traffic count statistics, the ADT at Fremont Street is 13,800 along this corridor. Figure 42 presents the aerial photograph of the site. Implementation plan and conceptual designs of this site are presented in Site 18 in Appendix B.

Figure 42: Aerial Photograph of Fremont Street: 8th Street to 6th Street

Figure 42: Aerial Photograph of Fremont Street: 8th Street to 6th Street

18.2 Problems Identified

Some of the problems identified at Fremont Street from 8th Street to 6th Street are pedestrians not using the crosswalks, a high percentage of elderly pedestrians involved in crashes, and pedestrians failing to yield. Speeding is a key observed problem at this corridor.

18.3 Countermeasures Proposed

A “Portable speed trailer” is proposed for this location. The installation of portable speed trailers is expected to make motorists aware of the posted speed limit and their current speed. The speed trailers are intended to help motorists to reduce their speed. The other countermeasures at this site include “In-roadway knockdown signs” and “Pedestrian call button that confirm press.” The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 67.

Table 67: Implementation Plan for Fremont Street: 8th Street to 6th Street
Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Portable speed trailers O X X
In-roadway knockdown signs   O O
Pedestrian call buttons that light up     O

O – Installed
X – Countermeasure removed

18.4 Countermeasures Installed

Various countermeasures are deployed in three stages and data are collected on weekdays at Fremont Street between 6th Street and 8th Street.

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “Portable speed trailer.” This countermeasure is installed between January 1 and 28, 2006. The after condition data for stage 1 countermeasure deployment is collected on February 16, 2006. Figure 43 shows the countermeasures deployed in stage 1 at this location.

Figure 43: Portable Speed Trailer on Fremont Street

Figure 43: Portable Speed Trailer on Fremont Street

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “In-roadway knockdown signs.” This countermeasure is installed on April 25, 2006. The after condition data for stage 2 countermeasure deployment are collected on May 16, 2006. Figure 44 shows the countermeasures deployed in stage 2 at this location.

Figure 44: In-Roadway Knockdown Signs

Figure 44: In-Roadway Knockdown Signs

Stage 3 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Pedestrian button that confirm press.” This countermeasure is installed between September 25 and 29, 2006. The after condition data for stage 3 countermeasure deployment is collected on December 19, 2006. Figure 45 shows the countermeasures deployed in Stage 3 at this location.

Figure 45: Pedestrian Push Button that Confirm   Press

Figure 45: Pedestrian Push Button that Confirm Press

The results of the pedestrian and motorist MOEs are summarized in Tables 68, and 69 respectively. The average pedestrian delay at this site for each stage is shown in Table 70. The statistical significance of the results obtained for all the stages is shown in Tables 71 and 72.

18.5 Safety MOEs

18.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs

Table 68 shows that all of the observed pedestrians look for vehicles before beginning to cross the roadway during all the stages including baseline period. No pedestrians are observed as trapped in the roadway in the baseline period. The proportion of the pedestrians violated the signal in the baseline condition is about 0.17. The proportion of pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase during the baseline period is almost negligible. The deployment of portable speed trailer increases the proportion of pedestrians trapped very slightly. The proportion of pedestrians violating the signal reduced to 0.15 percent in stage 1 compared to the baseline. The installation of in-roadway knockdown signs in stage 2 increases the proportion of pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase to 0.79. However, stage 1 data are not available for this MOE to compare the incremental effect from stage 1 to stage 2. Proportion of signal cycles in which the call button has been pushed is 0.18 in stage 2. The installation of pedestrian push button that confirm press increases the proportion of signal cycles in which call button has been pushed to 0.39 percent. The proportion of pedestrian signal violation decreases to 0.09 in stage 3 compared to other stages. Proportion of pedestrians are trapped in the roadway in stage 3 is negligibly small.

18.5.2  Motorist MOEs

From Table 69, the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians is 0.67 during baseline period. About 0.06 proportions of the observed drivers blocks the crosswalk during the same period. Proportion of the drivers stop/yield to pedestrians away from the stop bar is about 0.20. The installation of the speed trailer in stage 1 eliminates all the drivers from blocking the crosswalk. The proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians decreased to 0.43 in stage 1. In stage 2, almost all of the drivers yield to pedestrians, and only 0. 16 proportions of the drivers block the crosswalk. There are no pedestrians observed to have trapped in the roadway in stage 3.

Table 68: Results of safety MOEs for pedestrians at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Street
Measures of Effectiveness
(Safety)
Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 716 0 0 517 5 1 437 9 2 275 1 0.4
Percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 716 716 100 517 517 100 437 437 100 275 275 100
Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 716 125 17 517 78 15 437 63 14 275 24 9
Percent of pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase 1013 11 1 202 159 79 248 176 71
Percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed 202 36 18 174 67 39

 

Table 69: Results of safety MOEs for motorist at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Street
Measures of Effectiveness
(Safety)
Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 96 64 67 28 12 43 26 25 96 22 18 82
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk at crosswalk 64 41 64 12 0 0 25 13 52 18 9 50
between crosswalk and stop bar 64 10 16 12 11 92 25 7 28 18 5 28
away from stop bar 64 13 20 12 1 8 25 5 20 18 4 22
Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 161 10 6 12 0 0 25 4 16 22 0 0

18.6 Mobility MOEs

18.6.1 Pedestrian Delay

Table 70 shows the results and a comparison of the average pedestrian delay at this location for various stages. The average pedestrian delay at baseline period is 9.8 sec/ped. There is a reduction in average pedestrian delay in stage 1 compared to baseline data. The installation of in-roadway knockdown signs in stage 2 increased the pedestrian delay to 56.3 sec/ped. A reduction in this MOE is observed in stage 3 compared to stage 2, but increased compared to baseline and stage 1 data.

Table 70: Delay at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th 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) 716 9.79 517 7.29 437 56.25 275 11.62

18.7 Statistical Results

18.7.1 Safety MOEs

The results of the statistical analyses are summarized in Table 71. They show that there is no significant change in the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross in stage 1 compared to baseline period. There is no significant decrease in the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway and frequency of pedestrian signal violation in stages 1 and 2 compared to the baseline results (P>0.05). The implementation of “pedestrian push button that confirm press” in stage 3 has a significant impact in increasing the percent of pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase (P<0.001). This in turn resulted in decreasing the frequency of pedestrian signal violation (P<0.001) compared to the baseline data. It is also observed that there is a significant increase in the percent of signal cycles in which the call button has been pushed from stage 2 to stage 3 as shown in Table 73 (P<0.001). The percent of signal cycles in which call button has been pushed increased significantly in stage 3 compared to stage 2. There is a significant decrease in the percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway and pedestrian signal violation in stage 3 compared to stage 2.

From Table 73, it is clear that there is no significant increase in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians in stage 1 compared to baseline (P>0.05). However, there is a significant decrease in the proportion of drivers blocking crosswalk (P=0.001). Installation of in-roadway knockdown signs in stage 2 significantly increases the yielding behavior of drivers to pedestrians (P<0.001). There is not sufficient evidence to suggest the decrease in the percent of drivers stopping/yielding at crosswalk, and between crosswalk and stop bar in stage 2 compared to baseline conditions. However, the decrease in the percent of drivers stopping/yielding between crosswalk and stop bar in stage 2 compared to stage 1 is significant as shown in Table 75 (P<0.001).

Table 71: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for pedestrians at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th 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 of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross   No change     No change     No Change  
Percent of pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase -0.77 <0.001 Reject -0.69 <0.001 Reject
MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway -0.009 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.02 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.003 >0.05 Do not Reject
Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 0.02 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.03 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.08 <0.001 Reject

 

Table 72: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for pedestrian between stages at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th 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 of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross   No Change     No Change  
Percent of pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase 0.07 >0.05 Do not Reject
Percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed -0.20 <0.001 Reject
MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway -0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.01 <0.05 Reject
Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 0.006 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.05 <0.05 Reject

 

Table 73: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for motorists at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th 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 of drivers yielding to pedestrians 0.23 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.29 <0.001 Reject -0.15 >0.05 Do not Reject
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk Away from stop bar 0.11 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.003 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject
MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk at crosswalk 0.64 <0.001 Reject 0.12 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.14 >0.05 Do not Reject
Between crosswalk and stop bar -0.76 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.12 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.12 >0.05 Do not Reject
Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 0.06 0.001 Reject -0.09 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.06 0.001 Reject

 

Table 74: Statistical significance of safety MOEs for motorist between stages at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th 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 of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.53 <0.001 Reject 0.14 >0.05 Do not Reject
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk away from stop bar -0.11 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.02 >0.05 Do not Reject
MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk at crosswalk -0.52 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.02 >0.05 Do not Reject
Between crosswalk and stop bar 0.63 <0.001 Reject 0.002 >0.05 Do not Reject
Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk -0.16 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.16 <0.05 Reject

18.7.2  Mobility MOEs

Results from Table 75 indicates that there is a significant decrease in the average pedestrian delay in stage 1 compared to baseline data (P<0.001). There is no significant reduction in pedestrian delay in any other stages compared with baseline as well as comparison between stages (Tables 75 and 76).

18.8 Summary

Installation of the countermeasures mentioned at this location has significant effect in improving some of the pedestrian safety MOEs.  The installation of the portable speed trailer, in-roadway knockdown signs and pedestrian push button that confirm press has significant impacts in increasing drivers’ yielding behavior to pedestrians and reducing the drivers blocking the crosswalk in one or the other stages at this location.

Table 75: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Street
Measures of Effectiveness
(Mobility)
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
Average Pedestrian Delay (sec/ped) 2.5 <0.001 Reject -46.5 >0.05 Do not Reject -1.83 >0.05 Do not Reject

 

Table 76: Statistical test results of mobility MOE between stages at Fremont Street:
6th Street to 8th Street
Measures of Effectiveness
(Mobility)
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
Average Pedestrian Delay (sec/ped) -49.0 >0.05 Do not Reject 44.60 >0.05 Do not Reject

 

< Previous Table of Content Next >

 

Program Contact

Tamara Redmon

202-366-4077

Gabriel Rousseau

202-366-8044

What's New

The FHWA Safety Office is continually developing new materials to assist states, localities and citizens in improving pedestrian and bicycle safety. The materials listed on this page were completed recently.

New Pedestrian Forum – Fall 2014

New Understanding Pedestrian Crashes in Louisville, KY 2006-2010

New Bicycle Safer Journey (Revised 2014)

New Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guide

new A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

new Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety Research Report

REVISED Pedsafe 2013: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System

New Pedestrian Safer Journey 2013 (Revised)  

Proven Countermeasures for Pedestrian Safety

Spotlight on Pedestrian Safety

Promoting the Implementation of Proven Pedestrian Countermeasures

State Best Practice Policy for Medians

State Best Practice Policy for Shoulders and Walkways

Pedestrian Countermeasure Policy Best Practice Report

The State of Florida is developing a statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. They have set up a project website that includes information about the project, workshop presentations and resources relating to pedestrian safety.

Evaluating Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures

Safety Benefits of Raised Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas: Brochure, Booklet

Safety Benefits of Walkways, Sidewalks, and Paved Shoulders: Brochure, Booklet

Pedestrian Safety Strategic Plan