USA Banner
  U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Here's how you knowOfficial US Government Icon
              **Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
            Secure Site Icon
              **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                  A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
 U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation
 Search DOT
            Search
                    About FHWAFHWA Organization
                Headquarters Offices
                Field Offices
                Strategic Plan
                Business Opportunities
                Staff Directories
                Careers
                Highway History
                Contact UsProgramsAcquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                Safety
                Browse by TopicsResourcesCore Highway Topics
                Federal Aid Essentials
                Automation
                Complete Streets
                Laws and Regulations
                Policy & Guidance Center
                Section 508
                Publications and Statistics
                Professional Development
                National Highway Institute
                Resource Center
                Accessibility Resource Library
                FHWA Research LibraryNewsroomPress Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Photos
                Videos
                Media ContactsMenu FHWA Highway Safety Programs Home
                        Pedestrian Safety Engineering and ITS-Based Countermeasures Program for Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injury Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures Final System Impact Report


            
            In This Section
        Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety
                Background & Resources
                                Crash Data & Facts
                Legislation & Guidelines
                Related Websites
                Safe System
                                Community Led Pedestrian and Bicycle Resources
                Primer on Safe System Approach
                Noteworthy Local Polices That Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks
                Safety Tools
                Safety Countermeasures
                                Overview
                State Best Practices Policy for Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes
                Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guide–Recommendations and Case Study
                Safety Benefits of Raised Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas–Tri-Fold Brochure
                State Best Practices Policy for Medians
                State Best Practices Policy for Shoulders and Walkways (etc.)
                Evaluation of Pedestrian Countermeasures in Three Cities: San Francisco, Las Vegas and Miami
                STEP
                                Overview
                Resources
                Webinars
                Videos
                Campaign
                STEM Lessons
                Focused Approach to Safety
                                Overview
                Resources
                Webinars
                In the News
                Available Trainings
                Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment
                                Guidance
                Data Tools and Resources
                
                1. INTRODUCTION
In the spring of 2001, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Request for Applications (RFA). The intent of the RFA was to select one or more local jurisdictions to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive pedestrian safety countermeasures program for reducing pedestrian fatalities, injuries, and conflicts. By spring of 2002, FHWA awarded three cooperative agreements to the following locations: Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and San Francisco, California.

Through this program, the FHWA sought to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of a combined pedestrian safety engineering and intelligent transportation systems (ITS)-based area-wide countermeasures program for reducing pedestrian fatalities, injuries, conflicts, and other surrogate measures of safety. The countermeasures included traditional safety engineering design-based countermeasures, as well as ITS-based countermeasures. Traditional pedestrian safety engineering countermeasures included: signs and markings, eliminating permissive left-turns, leading pedestrian intervals, medians, roadway lighting, overall safety improvements at intersections, and other efforts to slow travel speeds in pedestrian-traveled areas. Examples of ITS technologies included: pedestrian countdown signals, ITS push buttons that confirm the press, automatic detection of pedestrians, and dynamic signs restricting right-turn-on-red.

The pedestrian countermeasure studies conducted at each of the three locations noted above were conducted in two phases. Phase I involved the following elements:

Provide a detailed analysis of the pedestrian problem.
	Identify areas that have a particularly high number of pedestrian crashes.
	Perform an analysis of potential countermeasures for reducing pedestrian crashes.
	Develop a detailed implementation and evaluation plan.
	Collect and analyze baseline data at the evaluation sites.Phase II involved the implementation and evaluation of the countermeasures identified in Phase I. The project included self-evaluations conducted by each of the field teams, as well as an independent national evaluation and cross-cutting study conducted by an independent contractor. The self-evaluations focused on the impacts of the individual countermeasures, while the national evaluation focused on the zone-wide and area-wide impacts of the countermeasures program. The results of the national zone-/area-wide evaluation were summarized in a technical memorandum to FHWA. This report brings together the findings from the self-evaluations and contains cross-cutting analyses, where possible, of those countermeasures that were deployed by more than one of the three field teams.

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES UNDER INVESTIGATION

As noted above, each of the field teams employed a systematic process to pedestrian problem identification and countermeasure selection. As a result of these safety analyses, each team selected a number of pedestrian safety countermeasures for deployment. Throughout the project, some of the selected countermeasures changed due to issues with vendors, procurement, or approval from location jurisdictions to install the countermeasures. Nevertheless, in the end, a wide range of traditional and ITS-based countermeasures were deployed at a large number of sites in the three locations. This system impact and cross-cutting study report focuses on the findings for 18 countermeasures, which have been grouped into the following 6 categories:

Static signs
	Active signs
	Pavement markings
	Signals and signal timing
	Physical separation
	LightingThe countermeasures are listed in Table 1, where the shaded [italicised] areas illustrate the countermeasures identified as "cross-cutting," meaning they were deployed by more than one of the field teams. The last column indicates the page number within the report where the results for each countermeasure can be found.



**Table 1. Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures Selected for Deployment**
	Countermeasures
			Miami
			LV
			SF
			Page #Static Signs*TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs*
			X
			X
			X
			5*In-street pedestrian signs*
			X
			X
			X
			13Pedestrian zone signs
			X
			
			
			18Active SignsNO TURN ON RED (NTOR) signs
			X
			
			
			19*Portable radar speed trailers*
			X
			X
			X
			23Pavement MarkingsHigh visibility crosswalk treatment
			
			X
			
			27Advance stop lines
			
			
			X
			32LOOK pavement stencils
			
			
			X
			34Signals and Signal Timing*Pedestrian countdown signals*
			X
			X
			
			37*Call buttons that confirm the press*
			X
			X
			
			41*Automated pedestrian detection*
			X
			
			X
			46*Activated flashing beacons*
			
			X
			X
			48Rectangular rapid flashing beacon1
			X
			
			
			57*Leading pedestrian interval (Pedestrian head start)*
			X
			
			X
			61Prohibition of permissive left turns
			X
			
			
			66Physical Separation*Median refuge island*
			
			X
			X
			69Danish offset (with high visibility crosswalk, advance yield markings and YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs)
			
			X
			
			72Lighting*Dynamic lighting*
			X
			X
			
			781This countermeasure was installed in Las Vegas, but results were not available at the time of this report.EVALUATION OF COUNTERMEASURES

The impacts of the countermeasures were assessed through self evaluations by the individual field teams. Full documentation of the self evaluations can be found in each team's Phase II Final Report(s) (*1,2,3,4*). The deployment strategies and experimental designs developed by each team took into account the need to assess the site-specific impacts of the countermeasures, albeit somewhat differently. While the San Francisco and Miami field teams deployed many of the countermeasures at multiple sites, these teams selected one or more "study" or evaluation sites for each countermeasure. It was at these sites where they collected data for the evaluation of the countermeasures. At these sites, the countermeasure under study was always the first and only countermeasure deployed so as to allow a before and after comparison of the data. The Miami team also conducted a few studies where they varied the "treatments" at the study sites. For example, while testing the impacts of the electronic NO TURN ON RED (NTOR) sign, they also tested and compared the impacts of the static NTOR and conditional NTOR signs.

By contrast, the Las Vegas team used a staged approach to countermeasure deployment and evaluation at a more limited number of study sties. At each study site, a variety of countermeasures were deployed in a series of stages. As such, each stage allowed for a before and after analysis of the impacts of the countermeasure(s) installed in that stage; however, only in the first stage were the impacts of the countermeasure(s) compared to the true baseline. In each subsequent stage, only the incremental impacts could be measured.

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

The primary purpose of this System Impact Report is to bring together, summarize, and discuss the findings of the evaluations of the individual countermeasures conducted by the three field teams. In cases where a countermeasure was deployed by more than one of the three field teams, as much as possible, the results are presented in a cross-cutting manner. Where a countermeasure was deployed by only one of the three field teams, the results are summarized from the corresponding findings report from that deployment team.

Regarding the cross-cutting analyses, there were a number of challenges encountered that limited the comparability of some of the findings across the field deployment locations. One challenge was that there were variations in the countermeasures or the manner in which they were deployed by the field teams. In some cases, the field teams deployed variations of the same countermeasure. For example, the San Francisco and Las Vegas teams deployed a text sign reading "Turning Traffic Yield to Pedestrians" while the Miami team deployed a mixed text-symbol sign with the same message. In other cases, the countermeasure was the same, but was applied differently in the different cities. For example, the San Francisco team deployed median refuge islands at signalized intersections, while the Las Vegas team deployed median refuge islands at mid-block crosswalk locations.

Another challenge was that there were variations in the MOEs that were used to test the impacts of the countermeasures. In some cases, the same MOE was used, but the data were collected somewhat differently. For example, for the MOE, "frequency of pedestrian violations," the Miami team observed and recorded those pedestrians that crossed outside of the WALK phase, while the Las Vegas team observed and recorded those pedestrians that crossed only during the DON'T WALK phase. For the MOE, "pedestrians trapped in the roadway," the Miami team measured the percentage of cycles in which a pedestrian was trapped, while the Las Vegas team measure the percentage of pedestrians trapped. In other cases the field teams did not collect the same MOEs with which to compare in a cross-cutting analysis.

Based on these issues, the cross-cutting analyses presented in this report are somewhat limited, and these issues should be considered when interpreting the results and conclusions.
      
  Book traversal links for 1. INTRODUCTION
      ‹ Abbreviations
                    Up
                    2. RESULTS ›
                
                Book:Pedestrian Safety Engineering and ITS-Based Countermeasures Program for Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injury Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures Final System Impact Report
              Technical Report Documentation Page
                NOTICE
                Executive Summary
                Abbreviations
                1. INTRODUCTION
                2. RESULTS
                3. LESSONS LEARNED
                4. CONCLUSIONS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

**Federal Highway Administration**

1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, SE

WASHINGTON, DC 20590

202-366-4000Subscribe to email updates
                    About
  

        
              About FHWA
                Careers
                Org Chart
                Staff Directories
                Work with UsPrograms
  

        
              Acquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                SafetyPolicies, Rights, Legal
  

        
              About DOT
                Accessibility
                Budget and Performance
                Civil Rights
                FOIA
                Information Quality
                No FEAR Act
                Office of Inspector General
                Privacy Policy
                USA.gov
                Web Policies and Notices
                Web StandardsNews & Events
  

        
              Newsroom
                Press Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Media Contacts
                Connect with Us