San Francisco PedSafe Phase II

Final Implementation Report and Executive Summary

Downloadable Version
PDF [1.37 MB]

Table of Content

Next >

Pedestrian Safety Engineering and Intelligent Transportation System-Based Countermeasures Program for Reduced Pedestrian Fatalities, Injuries, Conflicts and Other Surrogate Measures

Prepared for
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

Cooperative Agreement
DTFH61-02-X-00017

Prepared by
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Pedestrian Program
City and County of San Francisco
1 South Van Ness Ave. (7th Floor)
San Francisco, CA 94103
Tel: (415) 701-4442
Fax: (415) 701-4343

and

University of California Traffic Safety Center
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Tel: (510) 642-0655
Fax: (510) 643-9922

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)  grant under Cooperative Agreement DTFH61-02-X-00017, which is gratefully acknowledged. Additional funding was provided by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the UC Berkeley, Traffic Safety Center.

FHWA Project Guidance was provided by:
Dr. Morris Oliver, Office of Safety
Tamara Redmon, Office of Safety
Dr. Gabriel Rousseau, Office of Safety
Jocelyn Bauer and Kelley Pecheux, SAIC
Leverson Boodlal, KLS Engineering

The project was managed jointly by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and the University of California, Berkeley Traffic Safety Center (TSC), with the following project oversight and management staff:

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Executive Director/CEO
Jack Lucero Fleck, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
Bridget Smith, P.E., Livable Streets Section Manager
Frank Markowitz, Project Manager
Sam Fielding, Transportation Planner

UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center (TSC)
Dr. David Ragland, Director
Jenna Hua, Research Associate
Nicolas Gutierrez, Research Associate
Kara MacLeod, Research Associate
Barrett Shaver, Research Associate
Thomas M. Rice, Research Epidemiologist
John B. Bigham, Graduate Student Researcher

Student Assistants:
Kin Chung
Jayson Huertas
Melody Lao
Nora Oulad

Acknowledgement is also made of the contributions of Dave Candey, Technical Support Manager for Econolite, and Tod Eidson of Fourth Dimension Traffic for assistance with the video detection technology.

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION
   • 1.1. Purpose and Scope
     • 1.1.1. Purpose
     • 1.1.2. Key Work Products
   • 1.2. San Francisco’s Setting
   • 1.3. Project Overview and Schedule
   • 1.4. Countermeasure Overview
   • 1.5. Deployment
     • 1.5.1. Deployment Steps
     • 1.5.2. Comparison of Countermeasures: Cost
     • 1.5.3. Comparison of Countermeasures: Availability and Standard Use
     • 1.5.4. Comparison of Countermeasures: Installation Complexity
   • 1.6. Devices Not Deployed
     • 1.6.1. Smart Lighting and Other Roadway Lighting Improvements
     • 1.6.2. Upgrade of In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights
     • 1.6.3. Pedestrian Scramble (Exclusive Pedestrian Phase)
     • 1.6.4. Animated Eyes Signals
   • 1.7. Data Collection and Analysis Methods for PedSafe Countermeasures
   • 1.8. Summary of Results for PedSafe Countermeasures
   • 1.9. Summary of Results for Non-PedSafe Countermeasures
     • 1.9.1. Pedestrian Scramble (Exclusive Pedestrian Phase)
     • 1.9.2. Pedestrian Countdown Signals
     • 1.9.3. In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights
     • 1.9.4. Accessible (Audible) Pedestrian Signals
   • 1.10. Education and Outreach
   • 1.11. Phase II Conclusions
     • 1.11.1. Lessons Learned: Countermeasures
     • 1.11.2. Lessons Learned: Outreach
     • 1.11.3. Lessons Learned: Implementation
     • 1.11.4. Lessons Learned: Data Collection and Analysis
     • 1.11.5. Comparison with Other Cities
     • 1.11.6. Next Steps and Further Research
2. COUNUTERMEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
   • 2.1. Overview of Installation Challenges
   • 2.2. Comparison of Countermeasures: Ease of Implementation
   • 2.3. Comparison of Countermeasures: Costs
   • 2.4. Comparison of Countermeasures: Availability and Standard Use
3. DEPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURES
   • 3.1. In-Street Pedestrian Signs
   • 3.2. “TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Signs
   • 3.3. “LOOK” Pavement Stencils
   • 3.4. Modify Signal Timing
   • 3.5. Pedestrian Head Start
   • 3.6. Advanced Stop and REd Visibility Curb Zone Lines
   • 3.7. Flashing Beacons
   • 3.8. Portable Speed Trailer
   • 3.9. Americans With Disabilities (ADA) Curb Ramps
   • 3.10. Median Refuge Islands
   • 3.11. Automated Video Detection of Pedestrians to Adjust Signal Timing
   • 3.12. Radar Speed Display
   • 3.13. Retro-Reflective Materials
   • 3.14. Education
   • 3.15. Devices Not Deployed
     • 3.15.1. Smart Lighting and Other Lighting Improvements
     • 3.15.2. Upgrade of In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights
     • 3.15.3. Pedestrian Scramble (Exclusive Pedestrian Phase)
     • 3.15.4. Animated Eyes Signals
4. DATA ANALSYS OF COUNTERMEASURES
   • 4.1. Data Analysis Report (By Reference)
   • 4.2. Pedestrian Detector Performance
     • 4.2.1. Pedestrian Detector Overview
     • 4.2.2. Video Detection: Data Collection Methods
     • 4.2.3. Video Detection: Manual Data Collection Results
     • 4.2.4. Video Detection: Automated Data Collection Results
   • 4.3. Analysis of Non-pedsafe countermeasures
     • 4.3.1. Pedestrian Scramble
     • 4.3.2. Pedestrian Countdown Signals
     • 4.3.3. In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights
     • 4.3.4. Accessible (Audible) Pedestrian Signals

5. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION

6. PHASE II CONCLUSIONS
   • 6.1. Lessons Learned
     • 6.1.1. Lessons Learned: Countermeasures
     • 6.1.2. Lessons Learned: Outreach
     • 6.1.3. Lessons Learned: Implementation
     • 6.1.4. Lessons Learned: Data Collection and Analysis
   • 6.2. Comparison With Other Cities
   • 6.3. Next Steps and Further Research

APPENDIX A: OUTREACH ASSEMBLY SUMMARY AND EVALUATION

INDEX OF FIGURES

• Figure 1.2‑1 San Francisco Pedestrian Injury Collisions: 1996-2005
• Figure 1.2‑2 San Francisco Pedestrian Injury Locations and PedSafe Zones
• Figure 4.2‑1 9th & Howard Intersection with Video Camera at Top of Streetlight Pole
• Figure 4.2‑2 Northeast Crosswalk with Video Detection Zones at 9th & Howard
• Figure 4.2‑3 Econolite Autoscope Pedestrian Detection Software
• Figure 4.2‑4 Pattern of Cycle Lengths

INDEX OF TABLES

• Table 1.8‑1 San Francisco FHWA PedSafe Project: Data Highlights
• Table 3.1‑1 Impactable Yield To Pedestrians Signs: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 3.2‑1 Roadside Yield To Pedestrians Signs: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 3.3‑1 “LOOK” Pavement Stencils: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 3.4‑1 Modify Signal Timing: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 3.5‑1 Pedestrian Head Start: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 3.6‑1 Advanced Stop and Red Visibility Curb Zone Lines: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 3.7‑1 Push Button Activated Flashing Beacon: Characteristics Of Intersection
• Table 3.7‑2 Infrared Activated Flashing Beacons: Characteristics Of Intersection
• Table 3.8‑1 Portable Speed Trailer: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 3.9‑1 ADA Curb Ramps: Characteristics Of Intersection
• Table 3.10‑1 Median Refuge Islands: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 3.11‑1 Automated Video Detection of Pedestrians to Adjust Signal Timing: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 3.12‑1 Radar Speed Display: Characteristics Of Intersections
• Table 4.3‑1 Impact of Pedestrian Scrambles on Pedestrian Safety and Convenience
• Table 4.3‑2 Impact of Pedestrian Scrambles on Through Vehicle Speeds on Stockton Street
• Table 4.3‑3 Pedestrian Countdown Signals Pilot Project: Impacts on Behavior and Attitudes

Table of Content

Next >