Las Vegas Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase 2 Final Technical Report

< Previous

Table of Content

Next >

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL SITES

SITE 8: FLAMINGO ROAD / PARADISE ROAD

Figure 21: Aerial Photograph of Flamingo Road and Paradise Road (Control Site)

SITE 9 AND 10: BONANZA ROAD: D STREET AND F STREET

9.1 Site description

The land use pattern along Bonanza Road between D Street and F Street site is classified as commercial. The location is within the jurisdiction of the City of Las Vegas and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). Bonanza Road, D Street, and F Street are classified as minor arterials. The posted speed limit along Bonanza Road is 35 mph. D Street and F Street have a posted speed limits of 25 mph. Bonanza Road/D Street is a three-legged (T intersection), and Bonanza Road/F Street is a four-legged signalized intersections. D Street has only the southbound approach at the intersection. Bonanza Road/D Street had 6 crashes between January 1996 and December 2000. All the crashes had occurred at non-intersection location. Bonanza Road/F Street had a total of 12 crashes in the same period with about 60 percent of the crashes occurring at non-intersections. As per the 2006 traffic count statistics, the estimated ADT along Bonanza Road at this site is 20,100. Figures 22 and 23 present the aerial photographs of the Site 9 and Site 10 respectively. Implementation plans and conceptual designs of this site are illustrated in Site 9 and Site 10 in Appendix B.

Figure 22: Aerial Photograph of Bonanza Road and D Street

Figure 23: Aerial Photograph of Bonanza Road and F Street

9.2 Problems Identified

Some of the problems observed at Bonanza Road D Street and F Street are pedestrians not using the crosswalks, inconspicuous crosswalks, pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street while crossing, motorists failing to yield, pedestrians failing to yield, and pedestrians not waiting for signals or acceptable gaps.

9.3 Countermeasures Proposed

The installation of “In-roadway knockdown signs” would inform motorists about pedestrian activities in the vicinity, and it would also remind them of the State law that motorists must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Deployment of “High visibility crosswalk” and “In-roadway knockdown signs” is expected to increase motorists’ yielding behavior to pedestrians, and more crosswalk users. The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 34.

Table 34: Implementation Plan for Bonanza Rd: D St to F St

Treatments	Stage 1	Stage 2	Stage 3
In-roadway knockdown sign	O	O	O
High visibility crosswalk		O	O
Pedestrian channelization			O
Warning sign for motorists

O – Installed

9.4 Countermeasures Installed

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “In Roadway Knockdown Signs.” This countermeasure is installed between August 22 and 26, 2005. The after condition data for stage 1 countermeasure deployment are collected between September 12 and 16, 2005. Figure 24 shows the countermeasures deployed in Stage 1 at this location.

Figure 24: In-roadway Knockdown Signs installed at Site 9/10

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment” and “Warning Signs for Motorists.” These countermeasures are installed on August 4-7, 2006. The after condition data for Stage 2 countermeasure deployment are collected on August 21 to 24, 2006. Figure 25 shows the high visibility crosswalk treatment installed at Site 9/10. Warning signs for motorists installed at the site are shown in Figure 26. 

Figure 25: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment installed at Site 9/10

Figure 26: Warning Signs for Motorists installed at Site 9/10

Stage 3 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasure deployed during this stage was “Pedestrian Channelization.” This countermeasure is installed on October 29 to November 2, 2007. The after condition data for Stage 3 countermeasure deployment are collected on December 20 and 21, 2007. Figure 27 shows the countermeasure deployed in Stage 3 at this location.

Figure 27: Pedestrian Channelization installed at Site 9/10

9.5 Safety MOEs

9.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs

The baseline data indicate that 100 percent of the observed pedestrians look for vehicles before beginning to cross the roadway and before crossing the second half of the street. The installation of in-roadway knockdown signs in Stage 1, high visibility crosswalk in Stage 2 and pedestrian Channelization in Stage 3 also maintain the “pedestrians look for vehicles behavior before beginning to cross the roadway and before crossing the second half of the street” MOE at 100 percent as shown in Table 35. An increase in the percent of captured pedestrians is observed after the installation of the in-roadway knockdown signs in the Stage 1. Thus the proportion of diverted pedestrians reduced. Different effects are seen in Stage 2 and Stage 3, with decrease in the percent of captured pedestrians and increase in the percent of diverted pedestrians as shown in Table 35. A slight increase is observed in the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway during stage 1. However, after the installation of the high visibility crosswalk, the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway is reduced to zero and is maintained at a similar percentage even after the installation of pedestrian Channelization in Stage 3.

Table 35: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street

Measures of Effectiveness (Safety)	Baseline		Stage 1		Stage 2		Stage 3
	Sample = 197		Sample = 333		Sample = 18		Sample = 100
	NB	Percent	N1	Percent	N2	Percent	N3	Percent
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross	197	100	333	100	18	100	100	100
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street	197	100	333	100	18	100	100	100
Percent of captured pedestrians	146	74	289	87	11	61	78	78
Percent of diverted pedestrians	51	26	44	13	7	39	22	22
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway	9	5	32	9	0	0	9	9

9.5.2 Motorist MOEs

The data collected under the MOEs related to motorists are shown in Table 36. The proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians shows a continuous reduction of 0.74 in the baseline to 0.47 in Stage 1 to 0.00 in Stage 2 and has maintained at a lower proportion of 0.01 in stage 3. The data indicate that the installation of countermeasure in Stage 1 resulted in a greater proportion of drivers yielding at a distance greater than 10 ft. Also, the percent of drivers blocking the crosswalk shows a reduction in Stage 1 compared to baseline period. Data from stages 2 and 3 countermeasure installation do not show notable effect on the motorist behavior.

Table 36: Results of motorist MOEs at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street

Measures of Effectiveness (Safety)		Baseline		Stage 1		Stage 2		Stage 3
		Sample = 89		Sample = 106		Sample = 25		Sample = 170
		NB	Percent	N1	Percent	N2	Percent	N3	Percent
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians		66	74	50	47	0	0	1	0.6
		Sample = 66		Sample = 50		Sample = 0		Sample = 1
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk	< 10 ft	46	70	20	40	–		–
	10-20 ft	10	15	15	30	–		1	100
	>20 ft	10	15	15	30	–		–
		Sample = 77		Sample = 284		Sample = 0		Sample = 0
Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk		5	7	3	6	–		–

9.6 Mobility MOEs

9.6.1 Pedestrian Delay

The average pedestrian delay measured at this location is shown in Table 37. An increase in pedestrian delay is observed during stage 1; however, it is reduced in stage 2 and further reduced in stage 3 after the installation of the pedestrian channelization.

Table 37: Delay at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street

Measures of Effectiveness (Mobility)	Baseline		Stage 1		Stage 2		Stage 3
	Sampl	Delay	Sample	Delay	Sample	Delay	Sample	Delay
Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped)	197	8.06	333	12.56	18	6.29	113	0.87

9.7 Statistical Results

9.7.1 Safety MOEs

Since the proportions of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross and before crossing 2nd half of the street are 1.00, statistically, the null hypothesis cannot be accepted proving no significant changes in the results. The statistical test indicate a significant increase in the percent of captured pedestrians during stage 1 when compared to the baseline data (P<0.001). The increase is not statistically significant when stage 2 results are compared with baseline as well as stage 1 data (P>0.05). The percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway significantly reduced in stage 2 compared to baseline as well as with stage 1 data (P=0.001). The results are shown in Tables 38 and 39.

The results show no significant increase in percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians and no significant decrease in percent of drivers blocking crosswalk (P<0.05). The increase in the proportion of drivers stopping/yielding at a distance greater than 10 ft is statistically significant (P<0.05).

Table 38: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Bonanza Road: D Street to F 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 pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross		No Change			No Change			No Change
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street		No Change			No Change			No Change
Percent of captured pedestrians		-0.12	<0.001	Reject	0.13	>0.05	Do not Reject	-0.03	>0.05	Do not Reject
Percent of diverted pedestrians		0.12	>0.05	Do not Reject	-0.13	>0.05	Do not Reject	0.03	>0.05	Do not Reject
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians		0.26	>0.05	Do not Reject	0.74	>0.05	Do not Reject	0.73	>0.05	Do not Reject
Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk	<10 ft	0.29	>0.05	Do not Reject	–			–
	10-20 ft	-0.26	<0.05	Reject	–			–
	>20 ft	-0.006	<0.05	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				–
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway		-0.05	>0.05	Do not Reject	0.04	0.001	Reject	-0.04	>0.05	Do not Reject

Table 39: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Bonanza Road:D Street to F Street

Measures of Effectiveness  (Safety)	Stage 1 vs. Stage 2			Stage 2 vs. Stage 3
	PB – P1	P-value	H0	PB – P2	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	No change			No change
Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street	No change			No change
Percent of captured pedestrians	0.25	>0.05	Do not Reject	-0.16	>0.05	Do not Reject
Percent of diverted pedestrians	-0.25	<0.05	Reject	0.16	>0.05	Do not Reject
Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians	0.47	>0.05	Do not Reject	-0.005	>0.05	Do not Reject
MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore
Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway	0.09	<0.001	Reject	-0.13	>0.05	Do not Reject

9.7.2 Mobility MOEs

There is no significant reduction in the average pedestrian delay in stages 1 and 2 compared to the baseline as shown in Table 40 (P>0.05). But a significant decrease is observed in stage 2 when compared to stage 1 as seen in Table 41 (P<0.05).

 

Table 40: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street

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)	-4.50	>0.05	Do not Reject	1.77	>0.05	Do not Reject	7.19	<0.001	Reject

Table 41: Statistical test results of mobility MOE stages 1 and 2 at
Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street

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
MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore
Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped)	6.27	<0.05	Reject	5.22	<0.05	Reject

9.8 Summary

The installation of in-roadway knockdown signs and a high visibility crosswalk is effective for reducing the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway and increasing the proportion of pedestrians using the crosswalk to cross the street. The increase in the proportion of drivers yielding at a greater distance enhances safety to pedestrians crossing the roadway. The decrease in the average pedestrian delay in stage 2 indicates that the high visibility crosswalk provides improved mobility

 

 

< Previous

Table of Content

Next >