U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
< Previous | Table of Content | Next > |
A mixed land use pattern is observed around the intersection of Harmon Avenue/Paradise Road. This site is within the jurisdiction of Clark County. The land use includes residential, commercial, and recreational (hotels and casinos). Harmon Avenue spans east-west and is classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The intersection of Harmon Avenue and Paradise Road had a total of 12 crashes during the period January 1996 to December 2000. About 58 percent of the crashes occurred at non-intersection location. Fifty eight percent of the crashes occurred during daytime. The ADT along this segment of Harmon Avenue for the year 2006 is 17,100. Figure 13 presents the aerial photograph of the site. Implementation plans and conceptual designs of this site are illustrated in Site 5A, Site 5B, and Site 5C in Appendix B.
Figure 13: Aerial Photograph of Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash
The problems identified at this site include pedestrians not waiting for signals or acceptable gaps before crossing the street, drivers failing to yield, and conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Being a mid-block location and since most pedestrian related safety issues are results of motorist driving behavior, the countermeasures are selected primarily to focus on motorists.
The proposed countermeasures are “Median refuge,” “High visibility crosswalk,” “Advance yield markings,” and “In-roadway knockdown signs.” The proposed countermeasures are expected to alert motorists of the presence of pedestrians at the site, and to provide pedestrians a refuge in the middle of the street. The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 21.
Treatments | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Median Refuge | O | O | O |
High visibility crosswalk | O | O | O |
Advance yield markings + warning sign for motorists | O | O | |
In-roadway knockdown sign | O | ||
Install RPM standard line 100 feet long at the upstream crosswalk | O |
O – Installed
The location of Harmon Avenue from Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash is a mid-block location. The countermeasures are installed in three stages at this location. The countermeasures deployments in various stages are as follows:
Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment
Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Median refuge” and “High visibility crosswalk treatment.” These countermeasures are installed on February 21, 2007. After condition data for stage 1 countermeasure deployment are collected on March 8 and 9, 2007. Figure 14 shows the countermeasures deployed in stage 1 at this location.
Figure 14: High Visibility Crosswalk and Median Refuge installed at Site 5
Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment
Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Advanced Yield Markings.” These countermeasures are installed on March 9 to 11, 2007. The after condition data for stage 2 countermeasure deployment were collected on March 30, 2007. Figure 15 shows the countermeasures deployed in stage 2.
Figure 15: Yield Here to Pedestrians Sign installed at Site 5
Stage 3 Countermeasure Deployment
Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “In-Roadway Knockdown Signs.” This countermeasure is installed on March 31, 2007. The after condition data for stage 3 countermeasure deployment are collected on April 13, 2007. Figure 16 shows the countermeasure deployed in stage 3 at this location.
Figure 16: In-roadway Knockdown Signs installed at Site 5
Tables 22 through 24 represent the various pedestrian and motorist MOEs for safety and mobility. The results of the statistical tests for the safety MOEs comparing the baseline conditions with each stage, and between the stages are shown in Tables 25 and Table 26, respectively. Tables 27 and Table 28 show the analyses of statistical results for the mobility MOEs for pedestrians and motorists. These results and the effectiveness of the various countermeasures implemented are discussed next.
5.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs
From Table 22, for baseline, the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross and before crossing second half of the roadway are 0.77 and 0.86 respectively. About 0.18 proportion of the pedestrians are diverted and 0.03 proportion of pedestrians are trapped in the roadway for the baseline period. The installation of countermeasures in stage 1 increases the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross and before crossing second half of the street to 1.00. The proportion of diverted pedestrians increases to 0.20 after stage 1. The proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway increases to 0.09. The proportion of pedestrians looking for vehicles before beginning to cross and before crossing second half of the street remains at 1.00 percent at stages 2 and 3. There are no pedestrians trapped in the roadway after the installation of countermeasures in stages 2 and 3.
5.5.2 Motorist MOEs
In Table 23, the baseline data indicate that of all observed drivers, about 0.22 of drivers yield to pedestrians. Since, it is a mid-block location, there are no baseline data available for the distance the driver stop/yield before crosswalk and proportion of drivers blocking crosswalk. After stage 1, the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians increases to 0.46. Half of the drivers observed yield at a distance less than 10 feet, 0.45 proportion yield between 10 feet to 20 feet, and the remaining 0.05 proportion at distance greater than 20 feet. About 2 percent of the drivers blocked the crosswalk after stage 1. The installation of advance yield markings and yield here to pedestrians increases the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians to 0.53. The proportion of drivers stopping at a distance greater than 10 feet increased to 0.71. Stage 3 data indicate that the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians is 0.22, compared to 0.53 in stage 2. The proportion of driver stops/yields before the crosswalk at a distance of 10 to 20 feet is 0.69 in stage 3. The proportion of drivers blocking the crosswalk remains relatively the same throughout all stages.
5.6.1 Pedestrian Delay
Table 24 shows the average pedestrian and vehicle delay at the various stages. For the baseline conditions, the average pedestrian delay is 19.3 sec/ped. After the installation of the countermeasures in stage 1, the average pedestrian delay decreases to approximately 7.0 sec/ped. The deployment of advance yield markings and “Yield here to pedestrians” signs reduce the delay to 6.1 sec/ped. The implementation of in-roadway knockdown signs decreases the delay to 8.7 sec/ped. This is a decreasing delay from baseline data, but comparing with stages 1 and 2, there is an increase in delay.
5.6.2 Vehicle Delay
The baseline data are not available for this location. The vehicle delay at stage 1 is 2.5 sec/veh, stage 2 is 2.5 sec/veh and stage 3 is 1.3 sec/veh. As the numbers suggest, there is no change in vehicle delay at stage 2 when compared to stage 1. At stage 3, the vehicle delay is reduced compared to stages 1 and 2. The results are presented in Table 24.
Measures of Effectiveness (Safety) |
Baseline | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample = 1951 | Sample = 388 | Sample = 293 | Sample = 297 | |||||
NB | Percent | N1 | Percent | N2 | Percent | N3 | Percent | |
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross | 1510 | 77 | 388 | 100 | 293 | 100 | 297 | 100 |
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street | 1680 | 86 | 388 | 100 | 293 | 100 | 297 | 100 |
Percent of captured pedestrians | 1592 | 82 | 309 | 79 | 247 | 84 | 268 | 90 |
Percent of diverted pedestrians | 359 | 18 | 79 | 20 | 46 | 16 | 29 | 10 |
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway | 62 | 3 | 37 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Measures of Effectiveness (Safety) |
Baseline | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample = 77 | Sample = 284 | Sample = 158 | Sample = 400 | ||||||
NB | Percent | N1 | Percent | N2 | Percent | N3 | Percent | ||
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians | 17 | 22 | 132 | 46 | 84 | 53 | 89 | 22 | |
Sample = 17 | Sample = 132 | Sample = 84 | Sample = 89 | ||||||
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk | < 10 ft | N/A | 66 | 50 | 19 | 23 | 25 | 28 | |
10-20 ft | N/A | 59 | 45 | 60 | 71 | 61 | 69 | ||
>20 ft | N/A | 7 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | ||
Sample = 77 |
Sample = 284 |
Sample = 158 |
Sample = 400 |
||||||
Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk | N/A | 6 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 11 | 3 |
Measures of Effectiveness (Mobility) | Baseline | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | Delay | Sample | Delay | Sample | Delay | Sample | Delay | |
Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) | 1951 | 19.27 | 388 | 6.98 | 293 | 6.05 | 297 | 8.71 |
Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) | – | – | 284 | 2.45 | 158 | 2.48 | 400 | 1.3 |
5.7.1 Safety MOEs
Table 25 and Table 26 show the results of statistical tests for the safety MOEs. Table 25 shows that the increase in the percent of pedestrians looking for vehicles before beginning to cross and before crossing second half of the street is statistically significant (P<0.001). There is no statistical validation for increase in captured and diverted pedestrians for stage 1 (P<0.05). However, the increase in percent of diverted pedestrians in stage 2 and captured pedestrians in stage 3 are significant compared to baseline conditions (P<0.001). The installation of countermeasures in stage 1 does not reduce significantly the percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway compared to baseline (P>0.05). However, stages 2 and 3 show a positive effect in reducing the percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway compared to the baseline (P<0.001). The installation of in-roadway knockdown signs significantly reduces the percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway (P<0.001).
Analyzing driver behavior, there is a significant increase in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians in stages 1 and 2 compared to the baseline (P<0.001). Not enough statistical evidence exists to support the increase in percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians in stage 2 compared to stage 1. Table 26 shows that there is no significant decrease in the percent of drivers who block the crosswalk compared between any stages (P>0.05).
5.7.2 Mobility MOEs
Significant decreases in the average pedestrian delay are observed in stages 1, 2 and 3, compared with the baseline period as shown in Table 27 (P<0.001). There is no sufficient evidence to prove that there is a significant decrease in the pedestrian delay between the stages (Table 28). The average decrease in vehicle delay in stage 2 compared to stage 1 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 | -0.22 | <0.001 | Reject | -0.22 | <0.001 | Reject | -0.22 | <0.001 | Reject |
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street | -0.13 | <0.001 | Reject | -0.13 | <0.001 | Reject | -0.13 | <0.001 | Reject |
Percent of captured pedestrians | 0.019 | >0.05 | Do not reject | -0.027 | >0.05 | Do not reject | -0.08 | <0.001 | Reject |
Percent of diverted pedestrians | -0.019 | >0.05 | Do not reject | -0.08 | 0.001 | Reject | 0.08 | >0.05 | Do not reject |
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians | -0.24 | <0.001 | Reject | -0.31 | <0.001 | Reject | -0.001 | >0.05 | Do not reject |
MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore | |||||||||
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway | -0.06 | >0.05 | Do not reject | 0.03 | <0.001 | Reject | 0.03 | <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 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
Percent of captured pedestrians | -0.04 | 0.057 | Do not Reject | -0.05 | <0.05 | Reject | |
Percent of diverted pedestrians | 0.04 | >0.05 | Do not Reject | 0.05 | <0.05 | Reject | |
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians | -0.06 | >0.05 | Do not Reject | 0.30 | >0.05 | Do not Reject | |
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk | <10 ft | 0.27 | >0.05 | Do not Reject | -0.05 | >0.05 | Do not Reject |
10-20 ft | -0.26 | <0.001 | Reject | 0.02 | >0.05 | Do not Reject | |
>20 ft | -0.006 | >0.05 | Do not Reject | 0.02 | >0.05 | Do not Reject | |
MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore | |||||||
Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk | -0.01 | >0.05 | Do not Reject | 0.004 | >0.05 | Do not Reject | |
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway | 0.09 | <0.001 | Reject | 0.00 |
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) | 12.29 | <0.001 | Reject | 13.22 | <0.001 | Reject | 10.56 | <0.001 | 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) | 0.93 | >0.05 | Do not reject | -2.66 | >0.05 | Do not reject |
Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) | -0.03 | >0.05 | Do not reject | 1.18 | <0.001 | Reject |
The installation of Median refuge, high visibility crosswalk, advance yield markings, “Yield here to pedestrians” signs, and in-roadway knockdown signs have significant impact in increasing the percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross, before crossing second half of the street, and diverted pedestrians. This indicates that the countermeasures create awareness in pedestrians to look for potential threats before they step on to the road. Reducing the number of pedestrians trapped in the roadway makes the roadway much safer, and for increased usage of the crosswalk instead of jaywalking.
Decreasing the pedestrian delay is a key component of enhancing pedestrian safety. By doing so, the pedestrian do not get frustrated waiting for an acceptable gap to cross the street. The increase in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians, and yielding at a distance greater than 10 feet improves the safety (comfort zone) for pedestrians.
< Previous | Table of Content | Next > |