CE462MUTCDTreatments.pdf

1

MUTCD
Treatments

MUTCD Chapter 4 Highway Traffic Signals

■ Provide for the ly movement of traffic and increase
the traffic-handling capacity of the intersection if:
■ Proper physical layouts and control measures are used, and
■ The signal operational parameters are reviewed and updated (if

needed) on a regular basis to maximize the ability of the traffic control
signal to satisfy current traffic demands.

■ They reduce the frequency and severity of certain types of crashes,
especially right-angle collisions.

■ They are coordinated to provide for continuous or nearly continuous
movement of traffic at a definite speed along a given route under
favorable conditions.

■ They are used to interrupt heavy traffic at intervals to permit other
traffic, vehicular or pedestrian, to cross.

Local Manuals and Textbooks

The NACTO USDG –
expanding the toolkit

21st Century Design Guides

6

7

8

9

Pedestrian Safety & Speeds

Credit: Florida Department of Transportation

Why is it important to accommodate pedestrians?

Because we’re all pedestrians at some point, every day

12

Risk Factors

▪ Speed Limit for Crossing
▪ Presence of Gaps
▪ Crosswalk Length / Number of lanes
▪ Directions that need to be watched –

one way streets vs two way

13

Pedestrian Violations at Traffic Signals

▪ The longer the wait time the higher the probability of a
violation

▪ People will trade effort and risk to reduce wait time.
▪ Adding to the wait time for elevators increases use of stairs.

▪ Adding to wait time for signals increases violations

▪

14

Treatments Used to Reduce Risk

▪ Geometric Modifications
▪ Beacons
▪ Signals
▪ Grade Separation

16

Geometric Modifications
Curb Extensions

▪ Reduce crossing distance
and pedestrian exposure

▪ Increases ability of
pedestrians to see
oncoming traffic

▪ Can introduce drainage
issues if designed
improperly

▪ Can reduce travel speeds
▪ Increases visibility of

pedestrians waiting to
cross

17

18

19

Crosswalk Flags

20

Crosswalk Flags – Discussion

▪ What concerns may come up?

21

Geometric Modifications
Tighten Curb Radii

▪ Reduce crossing distance and pedestrian exposure
▪ Decreases speeds for right-turning traffic
▪ Decreases vehicular delay
▪ Increases visibility of pedestrians
▪ Challenging at intersections with large design vehicles

22

Geometric Modifications
Protected Intersections

▪ Incorporating cycling infrastructure, good for people walking?

23

Geometric Modifications
Raised Median Islands

▪ Simple solution for roadways with two-way left-turn lanes

24

Geometric Modifications
Raised Median Islands

▪ Offset crosswalks (2-stage crossings)
o Position pedestrians to face oncoming traffic

25

Geometric Modifications
Raised Median Islands

▪ Allows pedestrians to make 2-stage crossings
▪ Improve safety and comfort
▪ Reduced crossing delay
▪ Refuge area for slower pedestrians

■ Angela Burke, a 26-year old woman from New York, was struck and
killed while walking her bicycle across SW Barbur Blvd. on Wednesday
night. Caleb Pruitt, the driver who killed Ms. Burke, was arrested on
allegations of negligent homicide and driving under the influence of
intoxicants.

When Raised Medians
Are Not Enough

Credit: Jonathan Maus, BikePortland.org

Call to Action

Credit: Portland Tribune

Credit: Jonathan Maus, BikePortland.org

30

Geometric Modifications
Raised Median Islands

▪ Disadvantages
o Potential false sense of security for pedestrians

o Street sweeping and snow plow

o Fixed object in roadway for vehicles

o Could require right-of-way to widen roadway for installation

31

Geometric Modifications
Raised Crosswalk Platforms

▪ Reduces vehicular speeds across crosswalk
▪ Primarily works for low speed roadways
▪ Brings vehicles to sidewalk elevation (rather than

pedestrians to street elevation)

▪ Can introduce drainage challenges

32

Signing Enhancements
Additional Warning Signs

▪ Overhead signs add extra emphasis to crossing

33

Signing Enhancements
High-visibility Treatments

▪ Increase awareness of pedestrians

34

Signing Enhancements
High-visibility Treatments

▪ After 1 month… ▪ After 5-months…

35

Combining Treatments

▪ Raised median
▪ Off-set marked

crossing

▪ Advance stop lines
▪ Pedestrian warning

signs (black on yellow)

▪ Regulatory pedestrian
signs (black on white)

36

Pedestrian Beacons

▪ Increase visibility of pedestrian crossings
▪ Typical applications of Warning Beacons include

o Supplemental emphasis to warning signs

o Emphasis for midblock crosswalks

▪ Warning Beacons that are actuated by
pedestrians, bicyclists, or other road users
may be used as appropriate to provide
additional warning to vehicles approaching
a crossing or other location
[2009 MUTCD, Section 4L.03]

Photo: ITE Pedestrian-Bicycle Council

37

Continuous Flashing

▪ May not be the best solution for all crossing locations

Circular beacon

▪ Advance warning sign
indicating pedestrians
may be present

▪ Alternating flashing
between sides

Pittsburgh, PA

Overhead
Beacon

41

Pedestrian Beacon Comparison

▪ Advantages of Pedestrian-Actuated
o Higher compliance rate with beacons that are only active when

needed

o More consistent with the MUTCD
– Warning Beacons should be operated only during those periods or

times when the condition or regulation exists
[2009 MUTCD, Section 4L.03]

▪ Disadvantages
o Requires a pedestrian to actively engage the beacons (pushbutton)

to be effective

o Cost

43

Actuated Pedestrian Beacons

▪ Active Detection
o Pushbuttons

Photo: Dan Burden Photo: ITE Pedestrian-Bicycle Council

▪ Passive Detection
o Pressure pads

o Video

o Microwave

o Infrared

o Radar

Miovision Cameras for
Measuring Pedestrians

44

45

Thermal Imaging Camera

46

Video Camera

47

Actuated Pedestrian Beacons

▪ Advantages – Active Detection
o User familiarity with device (pushbutton)

o Typically more reliable and less expensive

o Ease of maintenance for the owner

▪ Advantages – Passive Detection
o Passive detection (should) detect all users; not all users will elect to

use a pushbutton

o Can be used to extend the activation for slower pedestrians

o Visually-disabled pedestrians may not be able to locate
pushbuttons (that do not include audible devices)

48

Electronic Enhancements
In-Roadway Warning Lights

▪ Enhancement feature at marked crosswalks
▪ 2003 and 2009 MUTCD provide standard

and guidance statements regarding use
o Shall only be used at marked crosswalks

accompanied with warning signs

49

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs)

▪ beacons that use an irregular flash pattern
similar to emergency flashers

▪ installed on either two-lane or multi-lane
roadways

▪ Active warning beacons should be used to
alert drivers to yield where bicyclists have the
right-of-way

▪ Interim approval from USDOT in July 2008
o FHWA RRFB Interim Approval

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/ia11_rrfb_iapmemo.pdf

ACTIVE WARNING BEACON

• User-actuated
amber flashing lights

• Actuated by
detection or push

button

• Hybrid
Bicycle-Pedestrian

use

ACTIVE WARNING
BEACON

BOULDER, CO

52

SE 80th & Foster Road Example

53

Before RRFB
@ SE 80th/Foster

54

55

Rapid Flash Beacon Planset

56

57

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons
(RRFB)

▪ High motorist yield rates
▪ Consistent over 1-year period

Van Houten, R., J. Shurbutt, and S. Turner, Analysis of Effects of Stutter Flash LED Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians
Using Multilane Crosswalks, Transportation Research Board, 2008.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/index.htm

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/index.htm

58

Yielding Experience at RRFBs

▪ St. Petersburg, FL experience indicates 90+% compliance
▪ Portland sites have ranged from 70 to 90%
▪ Recent studies have shown lower yielding (35%)

59

Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons
(RRFB)

▪ An RRFB shall only be installed to function as a warning
beacon.

▪ An RRFB shall only be used to supplement a W11-2
(Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning
sign with a diagonal downward arrow
(W16-7p) plaque, located at or
immediately adjacent to a marked
crosswalk.

60

Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons
(RRFB)

▪ Advantages
o Lower cost option compared to other devices that produce similar

vehicular yield rates

o Research shows a higher yield rate than a regular round beacon

o Research shows highest yielding rate of all devices that do not
feature a red display

▪ Disadvantages
o Pedestrians misinterpreting flashing lights and/or not waiting for

traffic to stop prior to entering crosswalk

61

RRFB in Pieces

Cabinet Controller Solar Power

62

RRFB in Pieces

Push Button Stop Sign (side street)

63

Traditional Pedestrian Signal

▪ Midblock crosswalks shall not be signalized if they are located
within 300 feet from the nearest traffic control signal, unless the
proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive
movement of traffic. [2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.01]

64

Traditional Pedestrian Signal

▪ A midblock crosswalk
location should not be
controlled by a traffic control
signal if the crosswalk is
located within 100 feet from
side streets or driveways that
are controlled by STOP signs
or YIELD signs. [2009
MUTCD, Section 4D.01]

65

Traditional Pedestrian Signal

▪ Required to meet MUTCD signal warrants
o Few locations can satisfy this warrant

2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4C

66

Traditional Pedestrian Signal

▪ Advantages
o If warranted, can adequately handle large volumes of pedestrians

o Can be designed as a two-stage signal that only impacts one
direction of vehicular traffic at a time (if a wide median exists)

▪ Disadvantages
o Potential for misuse if not operating efficiently

o May force mainline traffic to stop for pedestrians when adequate
gaps in traffic exist (off-peak conditions)

o Cost

67

Pedestrian Crossing Time
– Old MUTCD Recommendations

▪ Ped clearance interval (Flash Don’t Walk):
o 4 ft/sec walking speed

▪ “Where pedestrians who walk slower than normal or
pedestrians who use wheelchairs routinely use a
crosswalk, a walking speed of less than 4 ft/sec should
be considered.”

▪ Based on 50th percentile walking speed

68

Pedestrian Crossing Time
– New MUTCD Requirements

▪ Recent research based on 15th percentile walking speed
o Indicates 15th percentile significantly lower than 4 ft/sec

▪ Time clearance phase using 3.5 ft/sec walking speed
▪ Calculate total crossing time (Walk + FDW) using 3.0 ft/sec

o Crossing Distance = Crosswalk Length + One Curb Ramp

69

Countdown Signals

▪ Existing option for pedestrian countdown displays now
required for new ped installations

▪ Existing pedestrian signal installations should be
upgraded with countdown clocks within 10 years

▪ Only exception for Flashing Don’t Walk of less than 7
seconds

70

Countdown Signals – Research Results

▪ 25% crash reduction in San Francisco study
▪ Pedestrians understand them:

o More peds start crossing during clearance phase, but…
o Fewer start crossing late in clearance phase
o Fewer peds left in crosswalk during Don’t Walk phase

Countdown Signals

71

APS Push Button Locations

▪ New requirements for the location of pedestrian
pushbuttons and for accessible pedestrian signal
pushbuttons

▪ Legends on the signs shall clearly indicate which
crosswalk signal is activated by which pushbutton.

72

Half Signal

▪ Conflicts with the MUTCD
o If this warrant [Warrant 4 or Warrant 5] is met and a traffic control

signal is justified by an engineering study, then … if it is installed at
an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal
should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be
traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.

73

Half Signal at SE 16th & Hawthorne

74

75

76

Current Status of Half Signals

▪ Portland has 46 half signals in operation
▪ PSU has completed research to compare relative safety of

unsignalized and signalized locations (half, full, HAWK)

▪ Results match our experience which is they offer safety
benefits without compromising vehicular performance

77

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK)

▪ HAWK = High-Intensity Activated CrossWalK
o Approximately 50 in Tucson; 2 in Portland; 1 in Klamath Falls

o Included in 2009 MUTCD as “Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon”

78

79

80

81

Exclusive bike-ped signal

NCHRP 562
FHWA Publication FHWA-HRT-10-042

82

HAWK Signals on YouTube

▪ Concerns about Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
o Not stopping on Flashing Red – Tucson, AZ

– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReNk2T5ay1c

o Not going on Flashing Red – Springfield, OR
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoX-aTe7SAo

o Police Officer Description – Peoria, AZ
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPlHLoXpTs&feature=related

83

Pedestrian-Bicycle Hybrid Beacon sequence

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

84

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK)

▪ 2009 MUTCD includes installation guidelines

2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4F

85

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons > 35mph

86

What comes after Signals?
Grade Separation

▪ Advantages
o Accommodates high volume pedestrian crossings

o Avoids vehicular/pedestrian conflicts

o Pedestrian safety

o Can be designed around topography

▪ Disadvantages
o Cost

o Out-of-direction travel

o Safety/Crime/Security (undercrossings)

o Drainage

o Visibility of crossing to unfamiliar users

o Can be difficult to meet ADA requirements for grade

87

NCHRP 562 – Effectiveness of
Treatments High-visibility Treatments

Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, NCHRP Report 562 , TRB, 2006.

88

NCHRP 562 – Effectiveness of
Treatments Active when Present

Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, NCHRP Report 562 , TRB, 2006.

89

NCHRP 562 – Selecting Treatments

▪ Based on estimated pedestrian delay using HCM
methodology
o More delay = more aggressive treatment

▪ Delay Calculation Methodology:
Inputs Outputs

▪ Worksheet examples in Appendix A (Guidelines for
Pedestrian Crossing Treatments)

Walk speed, Crossing distance Critical gap

Critical gap, Traffic volume Delay per pedestrian

Delay/ped., Pedestrian Volume Total pedestrian delay

90

NCHRP 562
Where are treatments appropriate?

▪ Delay-based method

91

Questions?