Miami-Dade Phase II Implementation Results

Downloadable Version
PDF [691 KB]
PPT [15.7 MB]

Slide 1

Miami-Dade Phase II Implementation Results

Pedestrian crossing street

Slide 2

University of Florida Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering

UF Team

  • Ralph Ellis, Overall Principal Investigator
  • Ron Van Houten, Technical Principal Investigator

Miami-Dade County Team

  • Mohamed Hussan, Chief of Traffic Engineering
  • David Henderson, Pedestrian Bicycle Coordinator
  • Vishnu Rajkumar, Signal Design Admin
  • Bob Williams, Traffic Signal Engineer

Slide 3

Crashes in Miami-Dade County

  • During the nine years prior to the FHWA project there were 15,472 pedestrian crashes and 670 fatal pedestrian crashes
  • The percent of fatalities was approximately equal for State, County and Local Roads

Slide 4

Crashes in Miami-Dade County

  • Many crashes are tightly clustered in Miami Beach

Figure 1. Miami-Dade High Pedestrian Crash Zones

Slide 5

Crashes are concentrated along specific corridors

  • Most crashes occurred along North/South corridors
  • The beach corridors had more night crashes

South Miami Beach High Pedestrian Crash Corridors

Slide 6

Overall study plan

  • Enter all crashes into a GIS data base
  • Examine crash reports for crash type and match countermeasures to crashes
  • Implement countermeasures and evaluate the results

Side 7

Treatment History

  • Following a baseline period a large scale NHTSA project was implemented that introduced educational and enforcement interventions in high crash zone.
  • The FHWA project focusing on engineering treatments was added later.

Slide 8

Examples of traditional treatments evaluated

  • Reducing minimum green time
  • Recessed stop lines
  • Lead pedestrian phase
  • Turning vehicles yield to ped signs
  • In street signs
  • Eliminate permissive left turn

Slide 9

Traffic signal with Yield to Pedestrian sign Interesection with pedestrian crosswalk Yield to Pedestrians signs

Slide 10

Examples of Intelligent System Countermeasures

  • Countdown pedestrian signals
  • Push buttons that confirm press
  • Rectangular LED rapid flashing beacons (RRFB; ne Stutter Flash)
  • Video pedestrian detection
  • ITS NRTOR signs

Slide 11

pedestrian walk button pedestrian crosswalk pedestrians walk sign No Turn on Red sign Autoscope camera

Slide 12

Cost of Countermeasures

• Planning (Phase 1) $125,000
• Implementation (Phase 2)
– Design of countermeasures $133,933
– Installation/deployment $108,833
– Materials and equipment $302,913
– Data collection & eval $283,172
– Program management $182,690

Slide 13

Results by Treatment

In-Street "Yield to Pedestrian Signs" Increased the percentage of drivers yielding right-of-way but were easily damaged
Eliminate Permissive Left Turn This treatment reduced conflicts between left turning vehicles and pedestrians

Slide 14

Results by Treatment

Call buttons that confirm press More pedestrians pressed button & More waited for WALK to cross
Reduce Minimum Green Time Produced a large increase in pedestrian compliance with the WALK
Video Pedestrian Detection Reliable but many peds did not wait even when the device placed the call
Lead Pedestrian Phase This treatment produced an increased yielding by drivers of left turning vehicles

Slide 15

Results by Treatment

"Turning Vehicle Yield to Peds" symbol sign Mixed results. This sign was not superior to the text only sign
Rectangular LED Rapid Flashing Beacons Large increase in yielding on high-speed multilane roads
Countdown Pedestrian Signals Increased the percentage of pedestrians that pressed the call button
Electronic NRTOR sign Reduced driver violations as compared to the static sign

Slide 16

Sample Data: Rectangular Flashing Beacon

  • Requires a button press
  • Instructs pedestrian how to cross
  • Confirms that it is working
  • Rectangular stutter flash is very salient
    (warrants latent demand)

Slide 17

Sample Data

Line Graph: NW 67th @ Main Street (Local Residents)

Line Graph: S Bayshore @ Darwin (Local Residents)

Slide 18

Sample Data: In Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign

In Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign

Slide 19

Location

  • We compared placing this sign at the crosswalk line
  • 20 feet in advance of the crosswalk line
  • 40 feet in advance of the crosswalk line

Slide 20

One vs. three signs

  • We also compared using one vs. three signs.

One Yield to Pedestrians sign Three Yield to Pedestrians sign

Slide 21

Results

Results Line Graph #1

Results Line Graph #2

Slide 22

Sample Results: Reduce Minimum Green Time (hot button)

  • Reducing minimum green time in isolation mode produced improves compliance at midblock traffic signals

Slide 23

Sample Data

Sample Data Line Graph #1 Sample Data Line Graph #2

Slide 24

Crash data

SITE BASELINE PERIOD
CRASHES PER YEAR		 NHTSA STUDY PERIOD
CRASHES PER YEAR		 FHWA STUDY PERIOD
CRASHES PER YEAR
All sites combine 101 87 51
Alton Road: 5th St. - 17th St 13.8 10 8.5
5 St: Alton Rd. - Ocean Dr. 6.5 4.6 4
Collins Ave: 5th St. - 24th St 18.8 20 13
41 St: Alton Rd - Pine Tree Dr 7 5.3 2
Collins Ave & Harding Av 14.3 13 9.5
NE 6th Ave: NE 141 St. - NE 151 St 7.7 8 3
NE 163 St: NW Ave - Biscayne Blvd 25.8 20.7 8

Slide 25

Miami Beach Data

Line Graph: All Miami Beach Crashes Along Treated Corridors

Slide 26

All Miami-Dade Site Data

Line Graph: All Miami Treated Corridors

Slide 27

Statistical Analysis

  • The statistical analysis used in this study was based on the general time-series intervention regression modeling approach. This approach accommodates both independent and autocorrelated error structures encountered in time-series intervention designs of the type used in behavioral research.

Slide 28

Results of Statistical Tests

  • The overall analysis of the total data combined from all treated corridors estimates a drop in level of approximately 15 crashes (p =.06) between the baseline phase and the NHTSA phase, and a large additional drop in level of approximately 36 crashes (p = .003) from the NHTSA phase to the FHWA phase. These changes from the baseline level of 101.51 correspond to percentage reductions of 15% and 50% for NHTSA and FHWA, respectively.

Slide 29

END

Return to top

Program Contact

Tamara Redmon

202-366-4077

Dick Schaffer

202-366-2176

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.

Examples of State/Local Pedestrian Safety Action Plans

Pedestrian Forum - Fall 2009

LTAP/TTAP Interchange, Tamara Redmon

Evaluation of the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program (PDF 225 KB)

“Not in Roadway” Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (PDF 132 KB)

How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PDF 5.14 MB)

FHWA Guidance Memo Contains Provisions to Improve Pedestrian Safety

Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes

Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies

Evaluation of Pedestrian Countermeasures in Three Cities: San Francisco, Las Vegas and Miami

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists