U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
< Previous | Table of Content | Next > |
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
2.5.1 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.
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 |
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 |
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.
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 |
2.7.1 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).
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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> |