Las Vegas Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase 2 Final Technical Report

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report summarizes the results of fifteen countermeasures installed at fourteen sites across the Las Vegas metropolitan to evaluate their effectiveness in enhancing pedestrian safety.  Some the countermeasures were aimed at changing motorists’ behavior whereas the others were aimed at improving pedestrians’ crossing behavior. The summary of the effectiveness of various countermeasures are described as follows.

Initially seventeen countermeasures are selected to evaluate in this study. However, due to the unavailability of vendors to manufacture custom make countermeasures, it is later reduced to fifteen. The summary of the effectiveness of these countermeasures are as follows:

1. “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians” signs: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street.
2. Advance yield markings for Motorists: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior.
3. In roadway knockdown signs: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street.
4. ITS “No-Turn on Red” signs: Significant improvement in pedestrians’ compliance.
5. Pedestrian call button that light up: Significant improvement in pedestrians’ compliance, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street.
6. Warning signs for motorists: No significant improvement in either motorist or pedestrian MOEs.
7. High visibility crosswalk treatment: Significant increase in yielding distance by motorists, significant improvement in pedestrians’ yielding behavior.
8. Median refuge: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, significant increase in motorists’ yielding distance, significant improvement in pedestrians’ yielding behavior.
9. Smart lighting: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street, significant increase in percent of “diverted” pedestrians.
10. ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street, significant increase in percent of “diverted” pedestrians.
11. Portable speed trailer: Significant increase in motorists’ yielding distance.
12. Pedestrian activated flashing yellow: Significant increase in motorists’ yielding distance, significant reduction in percent of drivers blocking crosswalk, significant improvement in pedestrian yielding behavior.
13. Pedestrian countdown signals with animated eyes: Significant improvement in pedestrians’ looking for turning vehicles.
14. Danish offset: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, significant increase in motorists’ yielding distance, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street, significant increase in percent of “diverted” pedestrians.
15. Pedestrian channelization: No significant improvement in either motorists’ or pedestrians’ MOEs

These results indicate that while most of the countermeasures helped to enhance the safety, some others were not that effective in improving safety. In this study, several countermeasures were implemented together during same stage. Even though they showed significant safety improvements, since they were implemented as a group, the effects of individual countermeasures could not be evaluated. However, several of these countermeasures in the combination are relatively inexpensive. Therefore, if these were to be deployed at any other locations, it would be economically feasible.