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
                        Las Vegas Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase 2 Final Technical 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
                
                CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL SITES
SITE 1: MARYLAND PARKWAY / SIERRA VISTA DRIVE

1.1 Site description

This is an intersection of a six lane minor arterial (Maryland Parkway) with a speed limit 30 mph, and a two land local street (Sierra Vista Drive) with speed limit of 25 mph. At this location, the principle comments relate to the need to connect crosswalks to sidewalk ramps.  Initially, these crosswalks are not connected to the ramps at the crossings and end up at the pork chop island. This location has a mixed land use of residential and shopping. Figure 3 presents the aerial photograph of this site. Site 1 in Appendix B presents implementation plan and the conceptual design of this location.  Figure 3 shows an aerial photograph of the site with pedestrian crashes super imposed on it for site 1.  This figure shows that the pedestrian crashes are distributed along Maryland Parkway.

Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive

**Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive**

1.2 Problems Identified

A field observation is conducted to identify problems associated with pedestrian safety at this site. Field observation and crash analysis recognize several contributing factors associated with pedestrian safety at this site. The major problems identified for this site are: pedestrians not using the crosswalks, inconspicuous crosswalks, pedestrians trapped in the middle of street, high percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes, and inconspicuous pedestrian signals due to wide streets.

1.3 Countermeasures Proposed

A “High visibility crosswalk” treatment was proposed at this location in Stage 1 countermeasure deployment, to help reduce the problem of inconspicuous crosswalks at the location. Stage 1 countermeasure deployment also included relocating the existing pedestrian sign; and install Reflective Pavement Marking (RPM) standard line 100 feet long at the upstream crosswalk. Enlarged Pedestrian Signal Heads are also proposed as Stage 2 countermeasure deployment. The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 6.

**Table 6: Implementation Plan for Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive**
	Treatments
			Stage 1
			Stage 2
			Stage 3Relocate existing pedestrian sign
			**O**
			**O**
			**O**Install RPM standard line 100 feet long at the upstream crosswalk
			**O**
			**O**
			**O**Redesign of East approach to permit only right turns
			**O**
			**O**
			**O**High visibility crosswalk
			**O**
			**O**
			**O**High visibility crosswalk from island to sidewalk
			**O**
			**O**
			**O**Enlarged Pedestrian Signal Heads
			
			**X**
			**O**O – Installed
      X – Cannot be installed due to non-availability

1.4 Countermeasures Installed

As indicated before, various countermeasures at each of the sites are deployed in different stages.  The descriptions of these deployments are explained as follows:

***Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment***

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “high visibility crosswalk treatment, relocating existing pedestrian sign; and install RPM standard line 100 feet long at the upstream crosswalk.” These countermeasures were installed on October 4-7, 2006. The after condition data for Stage 1 countermeasure deployment was collected on October 31, 2006. Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows the countermeasures deployed at this location.

Figure 4. Reflective Pavement Marking (RPM) standard line at Site 1

**Figure 4. Reflective Pavement Marking (RPM) standard line at Site 1**

Figure 5: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment at Site 1

**Figure 5: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment at Site 1**

***Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment***

Stage 2 countermeasure was stopped due to the non-availability of the vendor to fabricate and manufacture “Enlarged Pedestrians Signal Head” countermeasure.

**1.5 Safety MOEs**

The results of the safety MOEs are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 shows the pedestrian MOEs that are percent of the pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross, percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed, frequency of pedestrian signal violation, percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK, and percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway. The motorist MOES are summarized in Table 8. These motorist MOEs are percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians, yielding distance, drivers blocking the crosswalk, and drivers making a complete stop.

***1.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs***

Table 7 summarizes the data collected for pedestrian MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive. It is seen that the “percent of the pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross” and “percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway” remained the same (62% and 92% respectively) even after the installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment countermeasure. There is a decrease (from 85% in Baseline to 65% in Stage 1) in the percent of signal cycles in which call button has been pushed after the installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment. However, frequency of pedestrian signal violation was decreased to almost half (from 13% in Baseline to 7.3% in Stage 1) after the installation of the countermeasure. The “percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK was decreased to zero after the installation when compared to 40% during the baseline conditions.

**Table 7: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Maryland Parkway and
	Sierra Vista Drive**
	Measures of Effectiveness (Safety)
			Baseline
			Stage 1Sample
			NB
			Percent
			Sample
			N1
			PercentPercent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross
			198
			122
			62
			461
			285
			62Percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed
			169
			144
			85
			461
			302
			65Frequency of pedestrian signal violation
			303
			40
			13
			461
			34
			7.3Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK
			8
			3
			38
			461
			0
			0Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway
			217
			2
			0.92
			461
			4
			0.93***1.5.2 Motorist MOEs***

Table 8 summarizes the data collected for motorist MOEs. The collected data for site 1 include percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians, yielding distance, percent of drivers blocking crosswalk, and percent of drivers making a complete stop. It is evident from Table 8, that the motorists are not influenced by the installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment. All the MOEs collected before and after installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment show negative impact.

**Table 8: Results of motorist MOEs at Maryland Parkway and
	Sierra Vista Drive**
	Measures of Effectiveness
			(Safety)
			Baseline
			Stage 1Sample
			NB
			Percent
			Sample
			N1
			PercentPercent of drivers yielding to pedestrians
			30
			19
			63
			158
			60
			38Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk
			< 5 ft
			16
			14
			88
			60
			37
			625-10 ft
			16
			2
			12
			60
			22
			37>10 ft
			16
			0
			0
			60
			1
			1Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk
			89
			1
			1
			158
			96
			61Percent of drivers making a complete stop
			89
			84
			94
			158
			98
			621.6 Mobility MOEs

Table 9 summarizes mobility MOEs for site 1. The major MOEs collected are pedestrian delay and vehicle delays. From Table 9, it is seen that average pedestrian delay decreases from 60 seconds to 45 seconds per pedestrian after the installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment. However, on the contrary, average vehicle delay increases from 7.5 seconds to 21.8 seconds after the stage 1 countermeasure installation.

**Table 9: Delay at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive**
	Measures of Effectiveness (Mobility)
			Baseline
			Stage 1Sample
			Delay
			Sample
			DelayAverage pedestrian delay (sec/ped)
			303
			60.09
			461
			45.26Average vehicle delay (sec/veh)
			1954
			7.48
			1868
			21.811.7 Statistical Results

Results from previous tables show that there are notable changes in MOEs associated with installation of countermeasures. Although these results could be used to interpret the effectiveness of these countermeasures, it is important to perform statistical tests to validate the results.  The results from the statistical test are explained as follows.

***1.7.1 Safety MOEs***

The statistical results of the safety MOEs for Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive are shown in Table 10. As discussed earlier in the analysis, even though there was a decrease in the “percent signal cycles in which call button was pushed,” statistically it is not considered significant. Similar is the case with “percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross” before and after the installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment. Even though there is a decrease in the “percent of the drivers yielding to pedestrians,” the decrease is not statistically significant. However on the flipside, it can be stated that the change in the “percent of the pedestrian signal violations” and “percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK” in the before and after scenario, is statistically significant in after conditions when compared to the before conditions.

**Table 10: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive**
	Measures of Effectiveness
			(Safety)
			Baseline vs. StagePB – P1
			P-value
			H0**MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore = Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore**Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross
			-0.002
			>0.05
			Do not RejectPercent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed
			0.19
			>0.05
			Do not RejectPercent of drivers yielding to pedestrians
			0.25
			>0.05
			Do not RejectDistance driver stops/yields before crosswalk
			<5 ft
			0.25
			<0.05
			Reject5-10 ft
			-0.24
			<0.05
			Reject>10 ft
			-0.016
			>0.05
			Do not RejectPercent of drivers making a complete stop
			0.32
			>0.05
			Do not Reject**MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore = Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter < Pbefore**Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway
			0.0005
			>0.05
			Do not RejectFrequency of pedestrian signal violation
			0.058
			<0.05
			RejectPercent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK
			0.375
			<0.05
			RejectPercent of drivers blocking crosswalk
			-0.59
			>0.05
			Do not Reject1.8 Summary

The data collected before and after the installation of the High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment at this location indicates that there is a statistically significant improvement observed in the “percent of the pedestrian signal violations” and “percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK” MOEs. However, the countermeasure deployment didn’t impact the motorist behavior to a notable extent. As per the initial problems identified, it can be stated that the countermeasure addressed the problems of pedestrians not using the crosswalks and inconspicuous crosswalks. The other problems identified at this location such as “high percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes,” and “inconspicuous pedestrian signals due to wide streets” would have been addressed by installation of Enlarge Pedestrians Signal Heads. Vendor non-availability hampered the process of installation of this countermeasure.
      
  Book traversal links for CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL SITES
      ‹ CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS AND MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
                    Up
                    CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ›
                
                Book:Las Vegas Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase 2 Final Technical Report
              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
                CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
                CHAPTER 2 COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTIONS
                CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS AND MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
                CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL SITES
                CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
                CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX: LITERATURE REVIEW
                REFERENCES 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