Recepción

intersection pedestrian signals that, when activated, display a steady red signal on the major street and a Stop sign on the minor street.

• Flashing Beacons. Flashing amber beacons are being installed with particular attention to pedestrian expecta- tions. Many of the engineers interviewed noted that once some pedestrians press a pushbutton, they expect all vehi- cles to yield and thus they may be less cautious crossing the street. Several agencies are using passive detection by sen- sors instead of manual pushbuttons to detect waiting or crossing pedestrians, but this passive detection requires more resources for installation and maintenance. Also, most cities prefer manual pushbutton activation of flash- ing amber beacons to continuously flashing beacons, which traffic officials think eventually lose effectiveness.

• In-Roadway Warning Lights.Many cities have installed in-roadway warning lights, but several cities were taking a cautious approach. Several agencies were concerned about the visibility of in-roadway warning lights (absent any additional overhead or side-mounted flashing beacons) in direct sunlight or in queued traffic. A few cities also men- tioned concerns about pedestrian expectations with pedes- trian activation or detection problems with passive detection sensors. A few cities also mentioned that they did not want to jump on the “in-roadway lights bandwagon” and that these devices might be an engineering fad that slowly falls out of favor after more extensive installations.

• Median Refuge Islands.Nearly all cities interviewed indi- cated that, where possible to install, a median refuge island was almost always considered, either alone or in conjunc- tion with other treatments. Even the state DOTs, which seemed to favor more traditional approaches, considered median refuge islands an effective treatment to be used wherever possible. One state transportation representative did mention others’ concerns about the crash-worthiness of curbed median refuge islands on high-speed streets.

• Advanced Stop/Yield Lines.Several cities interviewed are using advanced stop or yield lines (i.e., transverse trian- gles), typically placed between 30 and 40 ft (9 and 12 m) in advance of the crosswalk markings. The advanced stop/yield lines were held in similar regard as median refuge islands, in that they were being used as a standard design element with crosswalk markings alone or with other more substantial crossing treatments.

• Crosswalk Markings.Numerous cities indicated that they use the 2002 FHWA guidelines on crosswalk markings (50) to find out where to mark crosswalks as well as where to provide more substantial pedestrian crossing treatments. Numerous cities also mentioned that they use much greater care in selectively marking crosswalks than they have in the past. A few engineers interviewed still interpret these recommendations as supporting a “mark versus do

not mark” decision rather than a “mark versus more sub- stantial treatment” decision.

• In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs.Interest in in-street pedestrian crossing signs has been growing. They are viewed as an appropriate treatment for lower-speed (30 mph [48 km/h] or less) roadways. The signs are used to remind drivers of their legal obligation with respect to pedestrians in crosswalks.

• Flags. Pedestrian crossing flags are also viewed as an appropriate treatment for lower-speed (35 mph [55 km/h] or less) roadways. Salt Lake City, Utah, has 120 locations with flags, and Kirkland, Washington, has several installa- tions. Some of the other communities interviewed ques- tion the flags’ effectiveness and replacement efforts and costs. The flags are to be picked up by a pedestrian and used to indicate the desire to cross the street. The pedes- trian is to place the flag in the holder when done crossing the roadway; however, sometimes flags are not returned. Cities with experience observe that the rate of disappear- ance decreases after the treatment has been in place for a while. Salt Lake City requires that neighborhood associa- tions or businesses “adopt” the crossing and maintain the supply of crossing flags.

Experience with the Pedestrian Warrant for Traffic Signals

Comments on experiences with the pedestrian warrants follow.

• The pedestrian volumes in the MUTCD warrant are too high to meet.The engineers who expressed concern about the MUTCD pedestrian warrant unanimously agreed that the required pedestrian volumes were too high to ade- quately address many pedestrian crossing issues in their jurisdiction. To address their pedestrian issues, many engi- neers either installed crossing treatments that are less restrictive than traffic signals, modified the existing MUTCD pedestrian warrant, or used a supplementary engineering analysis to justify a traffic signal installation.

• Cities’ modifications to the existing MUTCD warrant might have merit.Some of the agencies developed new cri- teria for pedestrian signals to better address pedestrian accommodation issues in their respective jurisdictions. For example, Redmond recently adopted an approach that includes pedestrian volumes that are 80 percent of the val- ues included in the MUTCD. Other cities incorporate reduction factors for different street environments or dif- ferent pedestrian populations (e.g., school children, elderly pedestrians, and those with physical disabilities) and con- sider project demand or project transit ridership in their warrant analyses.

• Useful criteria for other pedestrian crossing treatments exist.In addition to modifying the existing pedestrian war- rant for traffic signals, several cities have developed instal- lation criteria for other pedestrian crossing treatments such as in-roadway warning lights or flashing beacons.

Transit Agency Involvement with

Pedestrian Crossings and Traffic Signals

Transit agencies are active in providing safe crossings. Fol- lowing is a summary of transit agency involvement:

• The level of coordination varies between transit staff and city engineers.The level of coordination between transit agency staff and city engineering staff varies from close col- laboration to casual communication. The level of coordi- nation appears to depend on the existing institutional relationships. In areas with the greatest collaboration, city engineering and transit agency staff worked closely in locating transit stops/stations and installing pedestrian crossing accommodation. In other areas, the relationship was less collaborative and information sharing may have been on a “need-to-know” basis.

• Some transit agencies address pedestrian issues.Some transit agencies are attempting to address pedestrian issues through stop location and design. For example, one transit agency was re-evaluating stop locations along several major arterial streets and consolidating some stops closer to intersections or preferred pedestrian crossings. The same transit agency was also considering shifting some bus service to parallel streets to avoid the harsh pedestrian crossing environments of high-speed, high-volume high- ways (although such shifts to lower-speed streets would affect transit mobility). Several transit agencies (or the respective cities) provide extra lighting at busy evening and nighttime stops. Along some routes with widely spaced sig- nals, though, transit agencies have no options other than placing stops at unsignalized locations.

• Several cities consider transit activity in pedestrian improvements.Several cities are considering transit stops in pedestrian improvements. For example, city staff may obtain transit boardings and alightings at certain locations to have a better sense of total pedestrian activity. Or, when considering certain roadway changes or improvements, city staff may contact the transit agency to discuss any sim- ilar transit improvements. Many of the city staff inter- viewed understand the importance of the pedestrian environment in transit mode choices.

• Transit agencies provide funds.Several transit agencies commented that they have and will continue to contribute funds toward pedestrian treatments. When appropriate, they will also install bus shelters or other pedestrian ameni- ties (e.g., lighting) to encourage the consolidation of pedes- trians into a preferred crossing location.