U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Safety

FHWA Home / Safety / Pedestrian & Bicycle / Hispanic Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety

Hispanic Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety

< Previous Table of Content Next >

LESSONS LEARNED

Implementation and evaluation of the Pedestrian Safety Engineering and ITS-Based Countermeasures Program was challenging. The major steps in the project included:

Each step of the project offered new challenges to the project partners that are presented here as lessons learned. The lessons learned presented and discussed in this document include two primary types of lessons:

The lessons learned are detailed in the following sections.

GENERAL LESSONS LEARNED

General lessons learned include those relating to the major project steps, as listed above. Nine specific lessons learned are discussed in detail in this section of the report.

Lesson #1-Assemble a Diverse Set of Project Partners to Address the Range of Issues That Might Arise During the Study

As part of their contractual agreements, each of the field teams was to assemble a diverse group, consisting of traditional and non-traditional partners, which would support the project by providing financial support and/or "in-kind" support through staff time and unique support. This task was deemed an important one for the projects' success.

Each of the field teams did initially establish a diverse set of project partners. Traditional partners included representatives from metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), city and county departments of public works, State departments of transportation (DOTs), State departments of public safety, university research centers, and consultants. The teams were also able to include a wide range of non-traditional partners, including representatives from local police departments, local health districts, local school districts, community outreach programs, local advocacy groups, medical trauma centers, and local food and drug stores.

While there were a range of partners included on the project teams, a number of issues arose during the course of the project that necessitated specific personnel. In some cases, the teams were prepared to address the issues, and in some cases, the needed personnel were not always available.

Below are specific lessons regarding project partners:

Lesson #2-Implement Regular Communication and Participation Mechanisms for Project Partners from Project Kick-Off

While there were a range of partners included on the project teams, in some cases there was active participation by particular partners, while in other cases there was lack of participation by the partners throughout the course of the project.

Below are specific lessons regarding contact and communication with project partners:

Lesson #3-Use a Variety of Methods/Sources to Understand Problems and to Determine Causes of Crashes at Prominent Pedestrian Crash Locations

As part of the project, teams were to identify and characterize pedestrian safety problem zones or areas through comprehensive data collection in the local jurisdiction, including traffic and pedestrian volumes, gap selection, vehicular speed, pedestrian behavior and crash type. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) software was used to analyze crash patterns.

The teams found the best way to identify and characterize pedestrian safety problems was to use a variety of methods/sources:

Lesson #4-Begin the Program by Implementing Low-cost Countermeasures for the Greatest Potential of Widespread Use

As with many programs, starting off with "quick wins" builds momentum and support for the program overall. In the case of these pedestrian safety programs, the countermeasures varied greatly in terms of price, procurement difficulty, ability to receive approval, and ease of deployment. The Las Vegas team found it beneficial to implement several low-cost, easy-to-deploy countermeasures early in their program, which allowed them to show results to their partners during the monthly executive advisory meetings. Countermeasures such as high-visibility crosswalk pavement treatments, in-street pedestrian signs, and pedestrian push buttons that confirm press were relatively easy to deploy because the local agencies could perform the labor without having to use a vendor.

For the most potential success:

Lesson #5-Pursue a Variety of Funding Sources for the Pedestrian Safety Program

The local deployment teams were tasked with obtaining matching funds for their pedestrian safety projects. As pedestrian issues are not always the top priority of state and local transportation agencies, often falling behind roadway construction and maintenance projects, obtaining funding for pedestrian safety countermeasures can be challenging. Therefore, it is advantageous to pursue a variety of funding sources for pedestrian safety countermeasures:

Lesson #6-Do Not Underestimate the Complexity of Procurement

The procurement of innovative countermeasures presented several obstacles for the pedestrian safety teams. Lessons regarding procurement include:

Lesson #7-Budget Ample Time for Deployment and Coordinate with the Appropriate Jurisdictions

Developing and implementing a comprehensive pedestrian safety program and plan requires a multi-year time frame. Deployment of a wide variety of countermeasures in numerous locations across an extended period of time presented a challenge to the field teams. The Las Vegas team faced additional challenges, as the deployments spanned three separate jurisdictions, including the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. Several ways to mitigate project delays due to deployment and coordination include:

The San Francisco team also considered some of the trade-offs. Overall, they felt it was better to handle the deployment in-house, but contracting would have had some advantages. There are many traffic engineering and public work projects going on in a city like San Francisco, and it can get very complicated. When a project like this is managed in-house, it is easy to get caught up with other priorities and project needs, and turn-over in staff can cause further complications and delays due to the time needed to replace staff. As they moved into implementation, the San Francisco team needed an engineer to manage the project. While getting a contract in place for an outside contractor offers complications and takes time, once a contract was in place, a consulting firm could have handled the deployment faster that the City was able to.

Lesson #8-Consider How the Timing of Countermeasure Deployment May Impact the Experimental Design and Evaluation

As part of the project, the field teams were required to conduct an evaluation of the countermeasures they deployed. To do so, the teams selected experimental designs for their evaluation. The Las Vegas team's deployment plan involved implementing a variety of countermeasures at particular sites in a staged approach, and their evaluation plan involved evaluating the impacts of each deployment. The San Francisco and Miami teams' deployment evaluation plans involved using a staggered approach to evaluation. This staggered approach made use of two deployment sites, each serving as a "control" site for the next at different points in the evaluation process.

Lesson #9-Consider the Unique Aspects of Collecting and Reducing Pedestrian Safety Data

When safety evaluations are conducted over time periods too short to rely on crash data, it is necessary to use surrogate measures of safety to determine the impacts of the deployments. In this study, the field teams used a variety of safety surrogates, including: pedestrian behaviors (e.g., violating the pedestrian signal, crossing against traffic, looking before crossing) and driver behaviors (e.g., blocking the crosswalk, yielding, coming to a complete stop). In addition to the safety surrogates, teams collected data related to pedestrian mobility (e.g., pedestrian volumes, traffic volumes, pedestrian delay), customer satisfaction, and demographic information associated with observed pedestrians. Collecting this amount of data, including behavioral data of both pedestrians and drivers, presents some unique challenges. Lessons learned during their data collection activities include:

The field teams had a large amount of data to collect at a variety of different sites. Each team considered live, on-site data collection, as well as the use of video cameras. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages associated with both data collection approaches. Each team used video to some extent to collect data, and they found a number of ways to expedite the reduction of the video data:

COUNTERMEASURE-SPECIFIC LESSONS LEARNED

This section presents lessons learned regarding specific countermeasures. Lessons learned associated with two countermeasures in particular are highlighted below.

Lesson #1-Strategically Place In-street Pedestrian Signs to Reduce the Chance of Them Being Hit by Vehicles and to Maximize Their Effectiveness

In-street pedestrian signs are placed in the center of the roadway prior to or at the crosswalk. Their purpose is to alert drivers that they must yield to pedestrians. The placement of the signs in the roadway, close to drivers, was expected to increase yielding behaviors over the more traditional signs that are placed on the side of the roadway.

All three field teams installed and evaluated in-street pedestrian signs, and all had issues with the signs being hit and destroyed in many locations. There are a number of ways to reduce the occurrence of the signs being destroyed by vehicles:

Lesson #2-Consider the Technical Issues Surrounding the Use of Automated Pedestrian Detection

Pedestrian detection technologies, including microwave and infrared detection devices, provide the means to automatically detect the presence of pedestrians in the targeted curbside area. Technologies may also be used to detect pedestrians moving in the crosswalk. When used at the curbside area, pedestrian detection may either replace or augment the standard push button used to activate the pedestrian call. When pedestrian detection is used to detect pedestrians in the crosswalk, the purpose is to detect the presence of individuals requiring additional time to cross and, accordingly, to extend the clearance interval and to provide more time to cross.

Both the San Francisco and Las Vegas teams implemented pedestrian detection technologies in their studies and offer some lessons regarding the technology:

Additional lessons learned regarding other countermeasures are shown in Table 83.

Table 83. Countermeasure-specific Lessons Learned
Countermeasure Lesson(s) Learned
Public outreach and education Translate public service messages into multiple languages in order to conduct a successful outreach to non-English speaking populations.
Electronic No Turn on Red (NTOR) signs Be prepared to demonstrate to concerned traffic engineers that the electronic NTOR sign will not significantly disrupt traffic progression along a corridor.

Work with the local electrical department and vendors to make sure everything is in place for success.
Automated detection of pedestrians to extend crossing time With the installation of an innovative use of the technology such as automated pedestrian detection comes the need for customization. The San Francisco team had to develop, test, and refine a customized detection zone scheme and logic for adjusting the signal timing. The detection software also needed to be coordinated with the traffic signal controller software.
Activated flashing beacons with infrared bollards The flashing beacons with infrared bollards required the most substantial construction of any countermeasure, and included installation of conduit and wiring the device across a four-lane arterial. This required investigation of possible conflicts with high-risk utilities. While individual components (the detection bollards and the beacons themselves) were commercially available, the combination had to be custom-designed.

 

< Previous Table of Content Next >
Page last modified on February 1, 2013
Safe Roads for a Safer Future - Investment in roadway safety saves lives
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000