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
                        San Francisco PedSafe Phase II: Final Implementation Report and Executive Summary


            
            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
                
                3. DEPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURES
This chapter discusses the full deployment of countermeasures. Data collection and evaluation were conducted at selected intersections.

3.1. IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNS

**Purpose and Description:**Yield To Pedestrians (YTP) signMUTCD R1-6 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (also known as impactable “Yield To Pedestrians” (YTP) signs) are intended for use at uncontrolled (unsignalized) crosswalks to remind drivers of laws regarding pedestrians' right-of-way. They are more noticeable than roadside signs and may also exert a minor traffic-calming effect by effectively narrowing the inside lanes slightly. Dimensions and color: 12” x 44”, fluorescent yellow green diamond sheeting with 10” x 24” white high intensity sheeting insert. Overall height is 47 inches. The signs can be installed with either a portable or fixed base.

The signs were installed at four intersections, typically with two signs per intersection. (More detailed notes on observation intersections are provided in the separate *Data Analysis Report.*)

Table 3.1 - 1
	Impactable Yield To Pedestrians Signs: Characteristics Of Intersections
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Lanes
			Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			Notes16th & Capp
			4
			2
			BART Station, Elementary School, Commercial and Residential
			25
			1 sign on marked crosswalk, 1 on unmarked crosswalk. Staggered 4-leg intersection.Mission & France
			4
			2
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			T intersection.Mission & Admiral
			4
			2
			Institutional, Residential
			25
			Staggered 4-leg intersection.Mission & Santa Rosa
			4
			2
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			T intersection. Installed prior to PedSafe and replaced. Also, installed flashing beacons here.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
This pedestrian safety measure has federal approval status according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 2B.12, In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, R16a). The legend ”State Law” may be shown at the top of the sign if applicable. The legends ”Stop For” or ”Yield To” may be used in conjunction with the appropriate symbol. If a median island is available, the in-street pedestrian crossing sign, if used, should be placed on the island.

**National Use:**

Impactable YTP signs have been tested and used by many cities in the U.S. including: Cedar Rapids, Salt Lake City, Madison, Las Vegas, Miami, at the Michigan State University Campus, and in states such as New Hampshire, New York, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia. The City of Madison, Wisconsin utilized these signs and found that the number of drivers yielding to pedestrians increased by 6 to 15 percent.7 An informal study of the signs’ use by traffic planners for Michigan State University Campus indicated a substantial increase in the number of drivers who stopped at the signed crosswalks.8

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Sign CostMaterials/Suplies/Equipent
			$7,600
			$950Installation Labor
			$2,600
			$325Engineering/Adminstration
			$4,400
			$550Total Cost
			$14,000
			$1,825**Availability:**
This product can be purchased off-the-shelf.

**Vendors:**
Hawkins Traffic Safety Supply, Berkeley California, email: hawkins48@aol.com
Impact Recovery Systems, San Antonio, Texas (manufacturer), http://www.impactrecovery.com/

**How/Who Installed:**
The impactable YTP signs were installed on a painted median island or raised median island where feasible, by bolting them into the street surface pavement. The signs were installed by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) sign shop staff.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Installation should be coordinated with repaving and other street project schedules.

**Installation Challenges:**
Careful consideration of turning movements, lane width and bus routes are important in determining the location for sign installation. Installation on a raised median island is preferable to installation directly on the roadway with only a double yellow split or painted island. Signs were often knocked down and/or damaged by cars, trucks and buses hitting them. The signs must be placed carefully, taking into account car and truck turning movements and lane widths, in order to reduce damage to the signs. San Francisco experienced high damage rates to signs located near left turn paths of intersections.

**Maintenance Needs:**
It is preferable to install the signs on raised medians if possible. Maintenance time and costs will increase if the installation location is susceptible to knockdowns.

3.2. “TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Signs

**Purpose and Description:**Sign: Turning Traffic Must Yield To PedestriansTo remind drivers who are making turns to yield to pedestrians, particularly at signalized intersections where right turn on red (RTOR) is permitted and pedestrian crosswalks are marked, a “Turning Traffic Must Yield To Pedestrians” (R10-15) sign may be used. For application of these signs San Francisco selected intersections with higher levels of conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians and high pedestrian collision rates from left-turning vehicles. Dimensions and color: standard size is 30” x 36” with black legend on white retro-reflective background. Some cities, such as in San Ramon and San Francisco, California have used their own versions of these signs in the past. San Ramon’s sign was more distinctive than the MUTCD and included red and black text. In San Francisco the signs were installed at eight intersections.

**Table 3.2-1
	Roadside Yield To Pedestrians Signs: Characteristics Of Intersections**
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of Through Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			NotesMission Street & Ocean Ave.
			4
			4
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			Angled T intersection.Mission Street & Avalon Ave.
			4
			2
			Neighborhood Commercial and Institutional
			25
			Unsignalized intersection. Others all signalized.Mission & Persia Streets
			4
			2
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			5-leg intersection, with 2 Persia approaches at odd angles.6th & Harrison Streets
			4
			5
			Commercial
			25 on 6th, 30 on Harrison10th & Harrison Streets
			4
			5 (typical along Harrison)
			Commercial
			25 on 10th, 30 on Harrison
			Unusual geometry for Harrison, with eastbound approach right turn only.6th & Mission Streets
			4
			4
			Commercial and Residential
			25
			Area has high level of pedestrian violations, substance abusers, etc.Geary Street & Van Ness Ave.
			4
			6
			Commercial and Residential
			25
			Van Ness is state highway.16th & Guerrero Streets
			3
			4
			Commercial and Residential
			25**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
This pedestrian safety measure has federal approval status according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 2B.45, Traffic Signal Signs (R10-1,)though R10-21).

**National Use:**
Also known as “Roadside Yield to Pedestrians (YTP)” signs, these are used in many cities throughout the United States. A more common application of R10-15 signage is to remind vehicles turning right on red to yield to pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk.

Cost:
	Item
			Total Cost
			Sign CostMaterials/Suplies/Equipent
			$1,000
			$167Installation Labor
			$1,100
			$183Engineering/Adminstration
			$2,900
			$483Total Cost
			$5,000
			$833**Availability:**
This product is available off the shelf.

**Vendors:**
Multiple vendors, such as:
Safety Sign, a Division of Brimar Industries, Garfield, New Jersey, http://www.safetysign.com/

**How/Who Installed:**
The roadside YTP signs are tied onto signal or streetlight poles at a height sufficient for good visibility by turning vehicles. They should be installed at a 45-degree angle to face turning traffic throughout more of the turn. The signs were installed by the SFMTA sign shop staff.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Field visits need to be conducted to determine whether there is room on the signal or utility pole for installation of the sign, and whether the sign can be angled 45 degrees without blocking the signal heads. Permission must be secured from the appropriate agency responsible for streetlights prior to installing signs on the streetlight poles.

**Installation Challenges:**
Some signs were not installed on the correct signal/streetlight poles or were not angled 45 degrees to turning traffic. Also several of the signs appeared to have been struck by turning trucks as they were loosened from their fasteners.

**Maintenance Needs:**
The signs must be installed securely and at the correct angle so that they will not block traffic signal heads or be knocked down by turning trucks. Maintenance time and costs will increase if the installation location is susceptible to knockdowns.

3.3. “LOOK” Pavement Stencils

**Purpose and Description:**LOOK Pavement StencilsPavement stencils are an inexpensive alternative to the electronic “animated eyes” signals countermeasure that was eliminated from the PedSafe study due to the lack of an available vendor to provide a combined animated eyes/countdown signal. The “LOOK” stencils remind pedestrians to look for cross and turning traffic before leaving the curb and entering the roadway. The stenciled images consist of opposing left- and right-pointing arrows with the word “LOOK” centered between them. These stencils are applied to the roadbed facing the sidewalk along the gutter line.

The word “LOOK,” in twelve-inch letters with left- and right-pointing arrows, is dye-cut into solid black and solid white pavement marking material. The two "O"s have small eyeballs on the inside of the letters to help advertise the intended message. The letters and arrows are interchanged with the background material to provide black-on-white and white-on-black messages, resulting in no wasted material. San Francisco also used bilingual, custom-made “LOOK” signs with both English words and Chinese characters.

These were initially installed at seven intersections. After the data collection was completed, they were added at five other intersections, by agreement with FHWA. These installations were too late for evaluation.

**Table 3.3-1
	“LOOK” Pavement Stencils: Characteristics Of Intersections**
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of Through Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			Notes4th & Harrison Streets
			4
			5
			Commercial
			25/30
			Signalized. 5-leg intersection with freeway on-ramp.17th & Mission Streets
			2
			4
			Commercial
			25
			Signalized.Broadway & Columbus Ave.
			4
			4
			Commercial, Major Tourist Center
			25
			Signalized. Damaged by restaurant dumping dirty water in gutter. Chinese/English customized stencils.6th Ave. & Geary Blvd.
			2
			6
			Commercial
			25
			Signalized. Also, median islands added here.6th & Mission Streets
			4
			4
			Commercial, High Density Residential
			25
			Signalized. Initially damaged by unrelated construction.7th & Mission Streets
			4?
			4
			Commercial, Government
			25
			Signalized. Initially damaged by unrelated construction.17th/Market/Castro Streets
			2
			4 on Market/4 on Castro
			Commercial & Muni Metro Station
			25/30/25
			Signalized.16th/Market/Noe Streets
			2
			4 on Market/2 on Noe
			Commercial
			25/30/25
			Signalized.Broadway/Stockton Streets
			4
			2
			Commercial & High Density Residential
			25
			Signalized. Chinese/English customized stencils.16th & Capp Sts.
			3
			2
			BART station, School, Commercial, High Density Residential
			25
			Minor street stop. Also, impactable Yield sign and flashing beacon site.Mission St. & Ocean Ave.
			4
			3
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			Signalized. Odd angled T intersection, immediately adjacent to another T intersection.11th Ave. & Geary Blvd.
			2
			6
			Neighborhood Commercial and Residential.
			25
			Minor street stop, planned for signal.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
The California and Federal MUTCD address pavement markings in Section 3B.19, Pavement Word and Symbol Markings. “*Word and symbol markings on the pavement are used for the purpose of guiding, warning, or regulating traffic. Symbol messages are preferable to word messages.*” The guidelines do not specifically mention “LOOK” pavement markings, but allow for choice in the selection of messages. The “LOOK” pavement markings have been deemed to conform to MUTCD standards for word messages by the Markings Technical Committee at the Texas Transportation Institute (part of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices).

**National Use:**
“LOOK” pavement stencils are used in several European countries and have been tested in the United States in Salt Lake City, Miami, and Las Vegas.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Unit CostMaterials/Suplies/Equipent
			$7,400
			$110Installation Labor
			$8,400
			$125Engineering/Adminstration
			$4,400
			$65Total Cost
			$20,200
			$300**Availability:**This product is available off the shelf.

**Vendors:**
Flint Trading Inc., Thomasville, North Carolina, http://www.flinttrading.com/ (manufacturer)
Pervo Paint Company, San Diego, California, http://www.pervo.com/
Time Striping Inc. Van Buren, Arkansas, http://www.timestriping.com/

**How/Who Installed:**
The “LOOK” stencils are made of thermoplastic and installed by heat from a torch onto the surface of the pavement at crosswalk entryways and were installed by SFMTA paint shop staff.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Coordination with street repaving and construction project schedules is necessary.

**Installation Challenges:**
The “LOOK” stencils must be applied to a clean, dry street pavement surface and care must be taken to avoid over-application of the heat torch, as this may prevent the thermoplastic from setting properly, resulting in the stenciled message appearing blurry. There was a delay in production and an increase in cost for the bilingual English/Chinese language version stencils, and due to their increased size and the unusual geometry of the intersection, the bilingual stencils were placed in crosswalk entryways in a manner where they almost overlapped.

**Maintenance Needs:**
At one intersection where the stencil was applied, restaurant owners dumped greasy water into a city catch basin, which flowed over the stencils causing them to become dirty and fade. According to the vendor, the stencils can be cleaned with a soapy solution if they become dirty. Street cleaning can be requested at locations where this is a common occurrence.

3.4. Modify Signal Timing

**Purpose and Description:**
San Francisco modified the signal timing at five intersections with higher rates of pedestrian collisions. The signal timing was modified to add 0.5-1 second All Red phases, or extending pedestrian crossing time. All Red phases are a useful tool for pedestrian safety at intersections with high traffic and pedestrian volumes. By adding an All Red phase, the intersection is cleared of vehicle cross traffic and pedestrian crossings before the opposing traffic is released. This measure should improve clearance but it is not 100% effective.

Table 3.4-1
	Modify Signal Timing: Characteristics Of Intersections
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of Through Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			Notes9th & Harrison Streets
			5
			4
			Commercial
			25/30
			Added 1 sec. all-red phases.16th & Valencia Streets
			2
			4
			High Density Residential and Commercial
			25
			New timings introduced along with side street countdown signals. Added all-red phase.Geary Street & Van Ness Ave.
			4
			6
			Commercial and High Density Residential
			25
			Van Ness is a state highway. Longer cycle and longer crossing time. “Yield to Pedestrians” signs also installed.6th & Harrison Streets
			4
			5
			Commercial
			25/30
			Added pedestrian head start crossing 6th Street.Geary Blvd. & Laguna Street
			6
			2
			Commercial and High Density Residential
			35/25
			More crossing time and extended all-red phase.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
The addition of All Red phases and extending pedestrian crossing time was implemented following approved guidelines in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Section 4D.10 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals, and Section 4E.10, Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases, and according to the Department of Parking and Traffic’s (DPT) Guidelines to Common Signal Timing Settings and Conventions, first adopted March 28, 2003 and updated January 28, 2005 by the DPT Signal Review Committee.

**National Use:**
Modified signal timing is used in major cities throughout the United States.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Cost per IntersectionMaterials/Suplies/EquipentInstallation Labor
			$5,500
			$1,400Engineering/Adminstration
			$4,800
			$1,200Total Cost
			$10,300
			$2,600Note: Cost per intersection for signal timing changes was $1,200 based on cost estimate from the Phase II Implementation Plan and Preliminary Engineering Report 2/28/05

**Availability:**Not applicable.

**Vendors:** Not applicable.

**How/Who Installed:**
The signal timing changes were developed by traffic engineers and implemented by SFMTA signal shop electricians.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Signal modification changes should be coordinated with any signal upgrades or installation schedules.

**Installation Challenges:**
Signal modification must be evaluated by traffic engineers to ascertain its feasibility and to verify that the changes are compatible with the specific signal controller type in use at the location.

**Maintenance Needs:**
It is necessary to conduct field checks to confirm that signal timing changes have been made correctly, and to update signal timing cards based on traffic/pedestrian volume changes.

3.5. Pedestrian Head Start

**Purpose and Description:**
Pedestrian Head Starts were added at five locations to provide an initial four seconds of crossing time to establish pedestrians’ right-of-way before vehicles started turning. The “head start” is particularly useful at intersections with multiple turn lanes, heavy turning volumes, and longer crossing distances. While a red turn arrow would be a useful addition, this was not budgeted in San Francisco.

**Table 3.5-1
	Pedestrian Head Start: Characteristics Of Intersections**
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of Through Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			Notes6th & Howard Streets
			4
			4
			Commercial, Hotel
			25/308th & Howard Streets
			4
			4
			Commercial and High Density Residential
			25/3010th & Harrison Streets
			4
			5 (typical along Harrison)
			Commercial
			25 on 10th, 30 on Harrison
			Unusual geometry for Harrison, with eastbound approach right turn only.6th & Mission Streets
			4
			4
			Commercial and Residential
			25
			Area has high level of pedestrian violations, substance abusers, etc.Mission & Ocean Streets
			4
			3
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			Signalized. Odd angled T intersection, immediately adjacent to another T intersection.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
The addition of Pedestrian Head Start was implemented following approved guidelines in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) from Section 4E.10, Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases, and according to the Department of Parking and Traffic’s (DPT) Guidelines to Common Signal Timing Settings and Conventions, first adopted March 28, 2003 and updated January 28, 2005 by the DPT Signal Review Committee.

**National Use:**
Pedestrian Head Start is used in major cities throughout the United States

Cost:
	Item
			Total Cost
			Cost per IntersectionMaterials/Suplies/Equipent
			$0
			$0Installation Labor
			$5,400
			$1,400Engineering/Adminstration
			$4,800
			$1,200Total Cost
			$10,200
			$2,600Note: Cost per intersection for signal timing changes was $1,200 based on cost estimate from the Phase II Implementation Plan and Preliminary Engineering Report 2/28/05

**Availability:**Not applicable.

**Vendors:**Not applicable.

**How/Who Installed:**
Signal timing changes were evaluated by DPT traffic engineers and implemented by San Francisco DPT signal shop staff.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Level-of-service impacts checked when potential for adverse impacts. (The City of San Francisco standard holds reduction of LOS from D to E to be a significant adverse impact.)

**Installation Challenges:**
Coordination with existing planned signal timing changes and signal upgrades at proposed PedSafe intersections was necessary.

**Maintenance Needs:**
It is necessary to conduct field checks of intersections to make sure signal timing changes have been made correctly, and to update signal timing cards.

3.6. Advanced Stop and RED Visibility Curb Zone Lines

**Purpose and Description:**
Vehicles often encroach into crosswalks while waiting either to make a right turn on red, or for the signal to change, hindering the ability of pedestrians to have a clear path to cross the street in the crosswalk. Advanced stop lines remind drivers to stop in advance of pedestrians crossing in a crosswalk and to discourage crosswalk encroachment by drivers. Advanced stop lines can be useful at uncontrolled crosswalks to reduce “multiple threat” collisions where a following vehicle passes a first vehicle stopped for the pedestrian.

Advanced limit lines were installed at 14 intersections. They were installed 6 feet from the crosswalk at signalized intersections and 10 feet from the crosswalk on uncontrolled main (arterial) street approaches.

Large trucks and autos parked at intersection corners often block the visibility of pedestrians standing on corners waiting to cross the street. Red visibility curb zones are installed at intersection corners to improve the visibility of vehicles for crossing pedestrians, and the visibility of pedestrians for drivers. These red curb zones are usually 20 feet long but may be longer or shorter depending on an analysis of visibility at intersection corners.

Red visibility curb zones were installed at nine of the 14 intersections.

**Table 3.6-1
	Advanced Stop and Red Visibility Curb Zone Lines: Characteristics Of Intersections**
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of Through Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			NotesMission Street & Geneva Ave.
			4
			4
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			Limit lines on all approaches.Mission/Avalon/ Teresa Streets
			4
			2
			Institutional and Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			Limit lines on Mission. Red zone (20 feet) on Mission. Removed 1 parking meter.Mission Street & France Ave.
			4
			2
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			Limit lines on Mission. Red zone (28 feet) on Mission. Removed 1 parking meter.Mission Street & Santa Rosa Ave.
			4
			2
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			Limit lines on Mission approaches. Red zone (20 feet) on Mission. Removed 1 metered white zone space.Geary Blvd. & 7th Ave.
			6
			2
			Commercial, Medical
			25
			Signalized. Limit lines on Geary approaches.Geary Blvd. & 11th Ave.
			6
			2
			Commercial
			25
			Minor street stop. Limit lines on Geary approaches. 10-foot red zone on Geary. Removed yellow loading space.Market/Castro/17th Streets
			4
			4/2
			Commercial, Muni Metro Station
			30/25/25
			Signalized. Limit lines on 5 of 6 approaches.Market/Noe/16th Streets
			4
			2/2
			Commercial
			30/25/25
			Signalized. Limit lines on northbound/southbound Noe and westbound Market approaches. Red zones on 16th Street (11 and 20 feet). Removed 2 meter spaces.4th & Harrison Streets
			4
			5
			Commercial
			25/30
			Signalized. 5-leg intersection with freeway on-ramp. Limit lines on all approaches. 18-foot red zone on Harrison. Removed 1 meter space.9th & Harrison Streets
			5
			4
			Commercial
			25/30
			Signalized. Limit lines on all approaches. Added 22-foot red zone on Harrison. Also added 1 sec. all-red phases.6th & Minna Streets
			4
			2
			Commercial and High Density Residential
			25
			Minor street (alley) stop controlled. Replaced limit lines on 6th. Location with high level of pedestrian violations, substance abuse, etc.17th & Mission Streets
			2
			4
			Commercial
			25
			Signalized. Limit lines on all approaches.16th & Capp Streets
			3
			2
			BART Station, Commercial, School
			25
			Minor street stop-controlled. Limit lines on 16th Street only. 20 ft. red zone on 16th. Removed 1 meter space. Also received impactable Yield sign and flashing beacon.Columbus Ave. & Union Street
			4
			2
			Commercial. Major tourist center.
			25
			Signalized. Advanced limit lines on all approaches, and added 15 ft. visibility red zone on Union Street. Removed 1 metered yellow loading zone.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
Limit lines four feet in advance of crosswalks may be used at any location with limited crosswalk visibility, for driver compliance, or non-standard geometrics. (Caltrans Supplement to MUTCD). The use of stop lines is approved by MUTCD in Section 3B.16, Stop and Yield Lines. The MUTCD defines a stop line as a solid white pavement marking line extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which a stop is intended or compulsory.

The use of red visibility curbs is approved by MUTCD in Section 3B.18, Parking Space Markings “*Parking space markings tend to prevent encroachment into fire hydrant zones, bus stops, loading zones, approaches to intersections, curb ramps, and clearance spaces for islands and other zones where parking is restricted.*” The MUTCD diagram shows that the distance of these no parking red visibility zones at intersection approaches are generally 20 feet long. In fact, the California MUTCD optional guidance is that all intersections, parking should be prohibited for one stall length before or after marked crosswalks, and at signalized intersections, it is preferred to prohibit parking for two stall lengths on the near side approach to the crosswalk. (The national MUTCD shows the same recommendation in a diagram, but does not include the explicit text.)

San Francisco’ draft guidelines recommend installing advanced stop lines using the following range of recommended distances: controlled intersection approaches: 4 to 6 feet; uncontrolled intersection approaches up to 35 MPH: 6 to 10 feet; uncontrolled intersection approaches over 35 MPH: 6 to 20 feet; midblock crosswalks, controlled or uncontrolled up to 35 MPH: 10 to 15 feet; and midblock crosswalk with speed limits over 35 MPH: 10 to 25 feet.

**National Use:** Advanced stop lines and red visibility curbs are used routinely.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Cost per IntersectionMaterials/Suplies/Equipent
			$600
			$120Installation Labor
			$19,500
			$3,900Engineering/Adminstration
			$7,300
			$3,900Total Cost
			$27,400
			$5,480**Availability:**
The products for implementation of this measure are available off the shelf.

**Vendors:**Multiple vendors

**How/Who Installed:**
Advanced stop lines are installed using thermoplastic road marking material applied with heat, onto the surface of the pavement at crosswalk entryways. Red curb paint was applied at intersection corners after line of sight visibility analysis was completed. Installation was performed by San Francisco DPT paint shop staff.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Coordinating stop line striping with street repaving and construction is necessary.

**Installation Challenges:**
Field visits must be conducted to determine the placement distance of the lines from the crosswalk needed to maintain line of sight visibility between vehicles and pedestrians at intersections. If an entire metered or regulated parking space had to be removed, that required legislation, which often delayed installation. A total of nine parking spaces were removed to create red visibility curb zones at the study intersections. The approval of parking space removal required review by the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation and approval at a County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing.

The advanced limit lines can also reduce queuing distance. The striping of the advanced stop lines must be coordinated with the painting of the red curb zones.

**Maintenance Needs:**
As advanced stop lines and red curb zones become faded they must be repainted.

3.7. Flashing Beacons

Flashing BeaconTwo types of flashing beacons were studied at two intersections. At 16th & Capp, the beacon was push button activated and at Mission & Valencia (or Santa Rosa) it was activated by infrared automatic detection. Results showed a substantial increase in vehicle yielding at both intersections. The countermeasure also produced a reduction in vehicle/pedestrian conflict and a reduction in pedestrians being diverted and/or trapped.

Push Button Activated Flashing Beacon (16th and Capp)

Sign: Push Button Activated Flashing Beacon**Purpose and Description:**
A solar-powered flashing beacon activated by push button was installed at 16th and Capp Streets to draw attention to the crosswalk and “Ped Xing” warning signs. This pedestrian safety measure is implemented at uncontrolled crossings, generally where there is a pedestrian attractor nearby, in this case a public school and a BART rapid transit station within a half block. No trenching or wiring was required other than wiring from the push button pole to the flashing beacon. The warning plate (R62E: “Push Button For Pedestrian Warning Lights: Cross with Caution”), including Braille text, was intended to remind pedestrians, including the visually-impaired, that the flashing beacon does not provide them the same level of protection as a standard traffic signal.

**Table 3.7-1
	Push Button Activated Flashing Beacon: Characteristics Of Intersection**
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of Through Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			Notes16th & Capp
			4
			2
			BART Station, Elementary School, Commercial and Residential
			25
			1 sign on marked crosswalk, 1 on unmarked crosswalk. Staggered 4-leg intersection.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
Push button activated flashing beacons are approved for use by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as cited in Section 4k.103, Flashing Beacons at School Crosswalks.

**National Use:**
Push button activated beacons have been installed by governmental agencies throughout North America, and are becoming widely adopted by state departments of transportation (DOTs), counties, and cities.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Unit CostMaterials/Suplies/Equipent
			$7,500
			$7,500Installation Labor
			$6,000
			$6,000Engineering/Adminstration
			$7,300
			$7,300Total Cost
			$20,800
			$20,800**Availability:**
The products are available off the shelf.

**Vendors:**
Multiple vendors, including:
JSF Technologies, Saanichton, British Columbia, http://www.solarcrosswalk.com/products.htm
Carmanah Technologies Corp. Santa Cruz, California, http://www.carmanah.com/
Traffic Safety Corp., Sacramento, California, http://www.xwalk.com/
Western Pacific Signal LLC, San Leandro, California, http://www.wpsignal.com/

**How/Who Installed:**
The flashing beacons were purchased through JSF Technologies and installed by Department of Telecommunication and Information (DTIS). The project involved the installation of two 1A type poles with top-mounted flashing beacons. Because flashing beacons are solar powered no additional power supply was required. Two pedestrian push button devices were installed. The San Francisco DPT traffic signal shop conducted troubleshooting.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
It is necessary to coordinate installation of flashing beacons signal poles with street repaving and utility construction schedules. A letter was sent out to all underground utility agencies informing them of the proposed project and requesting a response if the project location conflicted with any nearby utilities. Because traffic signal equipment is pre-approved by California environmental laws (CEQA) and its federal counterpart (NEPA), no further clearance was needed.

**Installation Challenges:**
Field visits were needed to determine the location of existing streetlight poles, signs, parking spaces, and street furniture to facilitate installation of MUTCD-consistent “pedestrian crossing ahead” signs and “pedestrian crossing” with arrow signs. Also, the installation of a push button pole with “Push Button For Pedestrian Warning Lights” sign was required in a location with no available existing pole. Shortly after installation this sign had to be replaced due to vandalism. Additional time may be needed for a public hearing process for notifying the public about the project.

**Maintenance Needs:**
Pedestrian crossing signs and push button signs may require replacement due to vandalism or cleaning due to graffiti. The solar powered flashing beacon rechargeable battery may need to be replaced every 3-5 years under normal operating conditions.

Infrared Activated Flashing Beacon (Mission and Santa Rosa)

**Purpose and Description:**infrared flashing beaconinfrared flashing beaconThe Mission Street and Santa Rosa Avenue location is a T-intersection previously used to test in-pavement crosswalk lights prior to the PedSafe project. The crosswalk lights were removed due to malfunctioning caused by water collecting in the light fixtures. This study location was selected because of the need for a warning device to increase driver yielding to pedestrians. Costs were reduced by installing conduit for the flashing beacon within the existing saw cut across Mission Street.

Although the detector performance and effectiveness of the countermeasure were quite positive, the Traffic Engineering Division intends to replace this installation with conventional traffic/pedestrian signal. This is considered a stronger method of pedestrian safety, as well as addressing the needs for turning vehicles to have greater protection.

Infrared detectors were used to activate a flashing beacon. For the east crosswalk approach, two above ground bollards were installed. At the west crosswalk approach, one bollard was replaced with an in-surface activation device (ISAD), due to concern that a full-height bollard would be subject to knockdown by turning vehicles.

The Light Guard Services Inc. Activation bollards, In Surface Activation Device (ISAD), controller, and flashing beacon were purchased through JAM Services and installed by the Department of Telecommunication and Information Services (DTIS). Two-inch conduits were installed across Mission Street to house necessary wires connecting the bollards, ISAD and flashing beacons to the controller. DPT’s signal shop assisted DTIS to install the controller, and to activate and trouble shoot the system.

**Table 3.7-2
	Infrared Activated Flashing Beacons: Characteristics Of Intersection**
	Intersection
			Street 1: No. of Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Lanes
			Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			NotesMission &
			Santa Rosa
			4
			2
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			T intersection. Installed prior to PedSafe and replaced. Also, installed flashing beacons here.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
The use of automated bollard/ISAD activated flashing beacons is approved by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as cited in Section 4k.01, General Design and Operation of Flashing Beacons. Typical application includes installing flashing beacons at intersections where a more visible warning is needed, as was the case at the intersection of Mission and Santa Rosa.

**National Use:**
The cities of Miami and Las Vegas use flashing beacons primarily at school crossings, and the city of Orlando uses a bollard infrared pedestrian detection system between a major hotel and the Performing Arts Center and Orlando Arena. The city of San Jose recently conducted a study to compare in-pavement crosswalk lights with bollard-activated flashing beacon systems. The earlier pedestrian study of in-pavement crosswalk lights was conducted at night, while the PedSafe study of overhead flashing beacons took place during the day. The results indicated that the in-pavement crosswalk lights were more effective in encouraging drivers to yield to pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk. However, maintenance problems were generated by both the crosswalk lights and bollard activated system including: moisture penetration of the crosswalk light housing, vandalism, and a malfunction of the bollard detection system. The crosswalk lights require more maintenance than the flashing beacons, primarily due to pavement resurfacing and replacement of crosswalk lights.9

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Unit CostMaterials/Suplies/Equipent
			$19,300
			$19,300Installation Labor
			$14,100
			$14,100Engineering/Adminstration
			$29,200
			$29,200Total Cost
			$62,600
			$62,600**Availability:**
There was no off the shelf device available. The detection bollards and ISAD were purchased from LightGuard but the DPT signal shop worked with JAM Services to install the customized wiring system from the bollards/ISAD to the controller for activation of the flashing beacons. LightGuard manufactured the bollards, ISAD and the controller.

**Vendors:**
Multiple vendors:
Traffic Safety Corp., Sacramento, California, http://www.xwalk.com/
Centennial Distributors Inc., San Francisco, California, http://www.centennialdistributors.net/
Dialight Corp., Roxboro, North Carolina, http://www.dialight.com/index2.html
LightGuard, Santa Rosa, California, http://www.lightguardsystems.com/
JAM Services Inc., Livermore, California, http://www.jamservicesinc.com/
Western Pacific Signal LLC., San Leandro, California, http://www.wpsignal.com/

**How/Who Installed:**
DTIS installed the flashing beacon and controller. A sawcut across Mission Street was used to connect, via wires, the bollard and ISAD on the west side of the street to the controller on the east side of the street. The San Francisco DPT signal shop worked with JAM Services to install the customized wiring system from the bollards/ISAD to the controller for activation of the flashing beacons.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
A letter was sent out to all underground utility agencies informing them of the proposed project and requesting a response if the project location conflicted with any nearby utilities. Because traffic signal equipment is pre-approved by California environmental laws (CEQA) and its federal counterpart (NEPA), no further clearance was needed.

**Installation Challenges:**
Because this system was a pilot project testing automated detection of pedestrians using a combination of two bollards and one bollard with ISAD, the project was custom designed and installed. Because of this, extensive time was spent with the vendors and signal shop staff troubleshooting wiring connection problems, as well as waiting for arrival of a specialized control box and LED beacon equipment. For implementation in states other than California, additional time may be required for a public hearing notifying the public about the project.

After installation we received reports of a malfunctioning flashing beacon. After inspection by our signal shop, it was determined that the malfunction was caused by a combination of a bad wire connection and vandalism (graffiti sprayed across the infrared detection signal). The signal shop was able to repair the wire connection and clean the infrared detection area to correct the problem.

**Maintenance Needs:**
Operation of flashing beacons requires monitoring to verify that they are operating correctly.

3.8. Portable Speed Trailer

Radar Speed Trailer**Purpose and Description:**
Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs, also known as “radar speed trailers,” are used to deter speeding. Radar speed trailer signs display the speed of oncoming traffic and flash LEDs when a vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit. A speed limit sign is included on the trailer. Above a user-selected maximum, the sign “blanks out” to avoid enticing drivers into exhibitions of speed. Speed data is recorded using a customized, portable computer located in the trailer and downloaded onto a desktop computer using SmartStat software.

Portable Radar Speed TrailerThe portable radar speed trailer was deployed at approximately 50 locations spread across seven zones throughout the city of San Francisco with high rates of pedestrian collisions. Radar speed trailers are often deployed along major arterials, or near college and school campuses.

In addition to the MTA speed trailer, the San Francisco Police Department maintains their own fleet of speed trailers and deploys them based on citizen requests. The portable speed trailer was found to be more successful in reducing vehicle speeds than the fixed sign, perhaps due to the novelty of seeing the trailer in a new location, and its association with police enforcement.

**Table 3.8-1
	Portable Speed Trailer: Characteristics Of Intersections**
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Lanes
			Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted
			Speed Limit
			Notes16th & Capp
			4
			2
			BART Station, Elementary School, Commercial and Residential
			25
			Staggered 4-leg intersection.Mission & France
			4
			2
			Neighborhood Commercial
			25
			T intersectionMission & Admiral
			4
			2
			Institutional, Residential
			25
			Staggered 4-leg intersection11th Ave. & Geary Blvd.
			2
			6
			Neighborhood Commercial and Residential.
			25
			Minor street stop, planned for signal.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
Changeable speed limit signs are approved in MUTCD Section 2B.13, Speed Limit Sign (R2-1): *“A changeable message sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign.”* According to MUTCD guidelines *“If a changeable message sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend YOUR SPEED XX km/h (MPH) or such similar legend should be shown. The color of the changeable message legend should be a yellow legend on a black background or the reverse of these colors.”*

For signs typically used on roadways with 45 MPH & greater speed limits the MUTCD specifies sign dimensions of 36 by 48 inch (18 inch high digits).

For neighborhoods and school zones, the MUTCD specifies that the absolute minimum sign size allowed is 24 x 30 inches (12 " high digits), and it provides for larger dimensions in increments of six inches *"where speed, volume, or other factors result in conditions where increased emphasis, improved recognition, or increased legibility would be desirable"* [2003 MUTCD 2B.03].

**National Use:**
Portable radar speed trailers are commonly used in major cities and towns across the United States along corridors where speeding has been. They are also often used near college and school campuses.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Unit CostMaterials/Supplies/Equipent
			$12,500
			$12,500Installation Labor
			$7,300
			$7,300Engineering/Adminstration
			$20,400
			$20,400Total Cost
			$40,200
			$40,200**Availability:**
Project available off the shelf.

**Vendors:**
Multiple vendors:
Kustom Signals Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, http://www.kustomsignals.com/
Traffic Display Monitoring Systems, Dallas, Texas, http://1-radar-speed-trailer-display.com/
Ingram Technologies, Price, Utah, http://www.ingram-tech.com/contact.htm
RU2 Systems Inc. Apache Jct., Arizona, http://www.ru2systems.com/thankyou.htm
MPH Industries Owensboro, Kentucky, http://www.mphindustries.com/products_home/products.html

**How/Who Installed:**
The portable radar speed trailer was deployed at 51 intersections, generally at the nearside corner of an intersection. The San Francisco Police Department Traffic Company was responsible for operation, maintenance, storage, and transportation of the trailer to deployment locations. MTA staff downloaded the speed data for analysis by TSC researchers.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
No significant issues.

**Installation Challenges:**
To implement this countermeasure an agreement was negotiated between SFPD Traffic Company and SFMTA to have the SFPD store, deploy, and maintain the Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign for MTA. Extensive coordination was required to provide SFPD with the installation dates and locations and to train SFPD and MTA staff to collect the radar speed data using the specialized NEC computer and SmartStat software.

During the implementation phase the NEC computer had to be returned to the vendor, Kustom Signals, Inc., for repairs. At another stage during trailer deployment the display board was damaged due to vandalism and was again returned to the vendor for repair.

It is recommended that the Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign be deployed early in the morning to ensure the availability of a corner location free of parked cars.

**Maintenance Needs:**
The Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign battery requires periodic recharging by SFPD staff. The trailer must be stored nightly and is not deployed overnight to protect it from the likely threat of vandalism.

3.9. Americans With Disabilities (ADA) Curb Ramps

**Purpose and Description:**ADA curb rampsADA curb ramps are curb cut outs that facilitate easier crossing, in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Deficient curb ramps were replaced and detectable warning strips installed at one intersection for the PedSafe study. These measures included shortening a gas station driveway that intruded into a major crosswalk, replacing it with a curb ramp built to comply with new ADA standards, including the use of truncated or tactile dome mats (colored plastic mats with raised domes on their surface which serve as cues signaling the boundary between the street and sidewalk for the visually impaired). Curb ramp improvements benefit all pedestrians by making street crossing more accessible to elderly pedestrians, children, and pedestrians with strollers, not only pedestrians with physical impairments. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center is a good resource for design guidelines and standards for pedestrian improvements, particularly for designing improvements in compliance with The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (http://www.walkinginfo.org/engineering/pedestrians.cfm)

**Table 3.9-1
	ADA Curb Ramps: Characteristics Of Intersection**
	Intersection
			Street 1:
			No. of Through Lanes
			Street 2:
			No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			Notes17th/Market/Castro Streets
			2
			4 on Market/4 on Castro
			Commercial & Muni Metro Station
			25/30/25
			Signalized.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
The Department of Public Works, which is responsible for installing curb ramps, follows state, Caltrans, and ADA design and construction standards when upgrading or installing new curb ramps.

**National Use:**
Most cities in the United States have a program to upgrade deficient curb ramps to new ADA standards, including the use of truncated or tactile dome mats, which signal the boundary between the street and sidewalk for the visually impaired.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Unit CostMaterials/Supplies/Equipent
			$1,900
			$1,900Installation Labor
			$16,600
			$16,600Engineering/Adminstration
			$8,500
			$8,500Total Cost
			$27,000
			$27,000**Availability:**
San Francisco’s Department of Public Works (DPW) was responsible for the design and construction of the ramps. Tactile dome mats are available off the shelf.

**Vendors:**
Off the shelf tactile dome mats are available from multiple vendors.

**How/Who Installed:**
Design and construction of curb ramps was completed by San Francisco’s DPW, including the installation of tactile dome mats.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Construction must be coordinated with city repaving and utility construction project schedules. In addition, traffic control plans are required and coordination with city bus service if temporary bus stops or shifts in bus zones are necessary. If construction will occur on a designated state highway route, state highway agencies must be contacted for permits and approvals.

**Installation Challenges:**
A survey of utilities and sidewalk furniture locations and proposed curb ramp upgrade corners must be conducted to determine whether utilities need to be moved or the ramp design modified.

At one corner, the improvement shortened a gas station driveway that intruded into the crosswalk, and added a to-standard curb ramp. The gas station owner argued over related changes in curb markings.

**Maintenance Needs:**
Tactile domes require periodic replacement and cement curbs require repair from wear and tear.

3.10. Median Refuge Islands

**Purpose and Description:**Median refuge islandsMedian refuge islands provide a safe retreat for pedestrians crossing wide, multilane streets with long crossing distances. The islands encourage pedestrians to wait before completing crossing, rather than rushing across traffic. The islands also act as a traffic calming device by forcing left-turning vehicles to reduce their speeds to make shorter radius turns. Median refuge islands were installed at two signalized intersections, prioritized by curb-to-curb crossing width, multiple lanes, high pedestrian volumes, and history of pedestrian collisions caused by turning vehicles.

**Table 3.10-1
	Median Refuge Islands: Characteristics Of Intersections**
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of
			Through Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			NotesGeary Blvd. & 6th Ave.
			6
			2
			Commercial, Medical
			25
			“LOOK” pavement stencils also installed.Geary Blvd. & Stanyan Street
			6
			4
			Commercial, Residential
			25**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
The design and construction of median refuge islands followd local, state, and federal guidelines and standards, including recommended minimum size requirements (AASHTO guidance: 50 square feet) and the use of white reflective paint and T-markers at ends of median islands, if necessary, to reduce the likelihood and extent of collision damage to the islands.

**National Use:**
Median refuge islands are used in major cities nationwide.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Cost per islandMaterials/Supplies/Equipent
			$4,600
			$1,533Installation Labor
			$18,200
			$6,067Engineering/Adminstration
			$2,900
			$967Total Cost
			$25,700
			$8,567**Availability:**Not applicable.

**Vendors:**Not applicable.

**How/Who Installed:**
The median refuge islands were designed and constructed by San Francisco DPW.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Construction must be coordinated with city repaving and utility construction project schedules.

**Installation Challenges:**
The installation of median refuge islands required providing adequate lead time for interdepartmental coordination, and careful consideration of bus and truck turning movements to determine refuge island feasibility. Knowledge of vehicle turning movements is necessary in determining whether the location is feasible, in addition to establishing the precise location and design of the island.

**Maintenance Needs:**
Median refuge islands located at intersections with heavy vehicle turning traffic are susceptible to curb damage caused by being hit frequently. To reduce the incidence of such damage, white reflective paint and T markers must be well maintained.

3.11. Automated Video Detection of Pedestrians to Adjust Signal Timing

**Purpose and Description:**

Autoscope Soló TerroAutomated video detection of pedestrians was installed to provide up to 3 additional seconds of crossing time for pedestrians who were predicted not to reach the curb before traffic was released. Detection zones were grouped into south curb, center, and north curb zones. As a pedestrian crosses the street, a video camera mounted on a utility pole detects the pedestrian crossing into each zone. If a pedestrian is detected at a time and location predicting that the pedestrian will not reach the curb before the light turns red, the signal will extend the solid Red Hand (Don’t Walk) and green ball up to 3 seconds. When such an extension is made, a compensating reduction in the Walk phase is made on the next cycle so that the cross street does not lose overall green light time. The video detector was installed at one crosswalk at the intersection of 9th and Howard Streets.

**Table 3.11-1
	Automated Video Detection of Pedestrians to Adjust Signal Timing:
	Characteristics Of Intersections**
	Intersections
			Street 1: No. of Through Lanes
			Street 2: No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			Notes9th & Howard Streets
			5
			4
			Gas Station, Commercial
			25
			Intersection also is red light photo enforcement location.**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
Because the item is not an actual traffic control device, but only a detection system, it is not addressed by MUTCD.

**National Use:**
No other use of video detection for this application in the United States is known. The following U.S. cities have installed and are currently operating (ITS) automated detection of pedestrians: Portland, Oregon (infrared and microwave detectors), Los Angeles (microwave pedestrian detection sensors). Miami and Las Vegas, Arizona are testing automated detection on an experimental basis.10 The system most similar to the San Francisco experiment is the microwave pedestrian detection system in Los Angeles, where curbside microwave detectors activate the pedestrian call while crosswalk detectors extend the clearance interval.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Unit CostMaterials/Supplies/Equipent
			previously
			purchasedInstallation Labor
			$2,700
			$2,700Engineering/Adminstration
			$14,600
			$14,600Total Cost
			$17,300
			$17,300The out-of-pocket costs shown above were far lower than costs would have been for an entirely new system. Not only was the camera “borrowed” from a previous traffic-related installation, but Econolite provided extensive technical assistance without charge.

**Availability:**
Automated video detection equipment is available off the shelf. However, the technology requires extensive programming.

**Vendors:**
There are multiple vendors of the video equipment.
Econolite, Anaheim, California, http://www.econolite.com/products/autoscope/default.asp
MS SEDCO Indianapolis, Indiana, http://www.mssedco.com/traffic.html
Marlin Controls Inc. Danbury, Connecticut, http://www.marlin-controls.com/detectors.html
4th Dimension Traffic of San Francisco provided the signal controller software http://www.4dtraffic.com

**How/Who Installed:**
An existing video detection camera at 9th and Howard Street, installed prior to the study as part of the existing SFGo Traffic Management System for traffic monitoring purposes, was used to detect pedestrians. This video camera is part of San Francisco’s SFGo system, a real-time traffic management system that includes traffic signal coordination at 100 key intersections.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Permission from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) prior to installation on streetlight poles is required.

**Installation Challenges:**
The camera required physically adjustment. Due to the fact that the study intersection was also the site of a red light camera program, issues arose such as the location of the crosswalk lines versus advanced stop bars and where in the intersection the video cameras would be. Ideally, the video detection logic should be adjusted because vehicles encroaching into the crosswalk also activated the extension of pedestrian crossing time.

**Maintenance Needs:**
It is necessary to monitor the video cameras to ensure that they are operating properly and are angled correctly towards the crosswalks.

3.12. Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign

Fixed radar speed display signs (also known as driver feedback signs, changeable message signs, or variable message signs)**Purpose and Description:**
Fixed Changeable Message Speed Limit signs (also known as driver feedback signs, radar speed display signs, or variable message signs) are interactive signs, generally constructed of a series of LEDs that display vehicle speed as motorists approach. Their purpose is to make drivers aware of their current speed and to encourage those who are speeding to slow down to the legal limit. They are used as a traffic calming device in addition to or instead of physical devices such as speed humps.

radar speed display signFour Changeable Message Speed Limit signs were installed, two at each of two locations; west of Castro on Market Street and near the newly-relocated Bessie Carmichael School in the South of Market neighborhood. The precise installation locations were selected because they had been identified as areas where speeding was a problem, and also because the utility poles to which they were mounted offered convenient electrical service for the signs. Changeable Message Speed Limit signs display the speed of oncoming traffic and flash LEDs when a vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit. Above a certain maximum, the sign “blanks out” to avoid enticing drivers into exhibitions of speed. Speed data were downloaded using a Palm Pilot PDA with Bluetooth software. The sblock near the four locations shown in Table 3.12-1.

**Table 3.12-1
	Radar Speed Display: Characteristics Of Intersections**
	Locations
			Facing Traffic Direction
			Street 2: No. of Through Lanes
			Primary Adjacent Land Uses
			Posted Speed Limit
			NotesMarket Street, west of Castro St.
			Southeastbound (outbound)
			4
			Commercial and Residential
			30
			On grade near boundary between residential and high-density mixed uses.Market Street, west of Castro Street, near Douglas Street
			Northwestbound (inbound)
			4
			Residential
			30
			On grade near boundary between residential and high-density mixed uses.Harrison Street, east of 7th Street
			Westbound
			5
			Institutional, Industrial
			30
			On major arterial approach to Bessie Carmichael ElementaryFolsom St. W of 7th St.
			Eastbound
			5
			Institutional, Industrial, Commercial, Residential
			30
			On major arterial approach to Bessie Carmichael Elementary**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
Use of fixed radar speed signs is approved by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD Expressway specifications dictate that the digits be 18” in height, and 36” by 48” sign dimensions. The signs are typically used on roadways with 45+ MPH speed limits.

For neighborhoods and school zones, the MUTCD specifies that the absolute minimum sign dimensions allowed are 24” by 30” (with digits 12" in height), and provides for larger dimensions in increments of six inches *"where speed, volume, or other factors result in conditions where increased emphasis, improved recognition, or increased legibility would be desirable"* [2003 MUTCD 2B.03].

Many vendors offer a larger, more visible 30 ” x 42" display sign with digits 15” in height, which vendors claim has become the overwhelming choice for school zones, neighborhoods, and playground areas. The 30” x 42” sign is 75% larger than the MUTCD minimum. It provides improved visibility, but is not inappropriately large for this application, as is the case with the even larger 36” x 48” sign.

All radar speed signs must be FCC approved, and must display an identification plate with the appropriate FCC information. SpeedCheck radar speed signs meet both of these requirements.11

**National Use:**
Fixed Changeable Message Speed Limit signs are commonly used in major cities, towns, and near college campuses and schools where speeding along major corridors has been identified. San Francisco has focused their use primarily on key arterial routes and near schools.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Cost per SignMaterials/Supplies/Equipent
			$22,900
			$5,700Installation Labor
			$13,600
			$3,400Engineering/Adminstration
			$11,700
			$2,900Total Cost
			$48,200
			$12,000**Availability:**
Changeable Message Speed Limit signs are available off the shelf from multiple vendors.

**Vendors:**
There are multiple vendors.
SpeedCheck Information Display Products, Indianapolis, Indiana, http://enforcementproducts.com/speedmonitoringtrailers.html
Wattco, State College, Pennsylvania, http://www.wattco.net/ats.htm
3M, St. Paul, Minnesota, http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Traffic_Safety/TSS/Offerings/Products/Permanent_Signing/
Fortel Traffic, Inc., Anaheim, California, http://www.forteltraffic.com/
Western Pacific, San Leandro, California, http://www.wpsignal.com/gh/fsmd.htm

**How/Who Installed:**
The Changeable Message Speed Limit signs were procured in a competitive bid process but were installed by City forces. The fixed radar speed signs were installed on street light poles with appropriate electrical service points by the San Francisco DPT signal shop.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**
Approval is required from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to install fixed radar speed signs on existing streetlight poles with appropriate electrical service points.

**Installation Challenges:**
Street light poles needed to be surveyed to determine whether appropriate electrical wiring and service points were available for connection to the fixed radar speed signs. In addition to being located where electricity was available, the signs also needed to be placed at strategic locations (e.g., not too close to intersections or to visual distractions). Some of the selected locations did not have adequate electrical service points so alternate locations had to be found for the installations. At some of the locations, the growth of nearby trees blocked visibility of the signs, requiring tree branches to be trimmed, and at one location the radar speed sign had to be relocated to a different street light pole location not blocked by foliage.

**Maintenance Needs:**
Radar speed signs must be monitored to verify that they are working properly. Nearby tree branches and other foliage may require regular pruning if they block the visibility of the signs by drivers.

3.13. Retro-Reflective Materials

**Purpose and Description:**back pack with retro-reflective belt wrapsretro-reflective belt wrapsAs part of pedestrian safety outreach, several types of retro-reflective materials were chosen for distribution to San Francisco pedestrians, particularly school children and seniors. The retro-reflective items were chosen based on extensive discussions with educators, public health professionals, and advocates for seniors and children. Zipper pulls, clipsters, and belt wraps were identified as the most useful items for school children, while clipsters, badge clipsters, and armbands were considered most useful for seniors. The items were embellished with retro-reflective material and printed with slogans such as “Be Safe, Be Seen” or “Look, Slow Down, Focus.”

**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):**
Because the item is not a traffic control device, it is not addressed by MUTCD.

**National Use:**
Retro-reflective materials are becoming more commonly used in pedestrian safety campaigns nationwide.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Unit CostMaterials/Supplies/Equipent
			$7,300
			$1.39Installation Labor
			n/a
			n/aEngineering/Adminstration
			$7,200
			$1Total Cost
			$14,500
			$1.39Note: There were 5,250 units of retro-reflective materials purchased (mainly zipper pulls and clipsters, some armbands and belt wraps) totaling $7,300.

**Availability:**
Information, resources, strategies and products are available off the shelf.

**Vendors:**
Multiple vendors supply retro-reflective materials for pedestrian safety campaigns.

**How/Who Installed:**
The retro-reflective materials were distributed primarily by SFMTA staff to middle/elementary schools and senior citizen centers, and then by their staffs to individual students and seniors.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**Not applicable.

**Installation Challenges:**
It was particularly challenging to contact, organize, and publicize multiple community meetings at schools and senior citizen centers, and to recruit volunteers to help distribute the pedestrian safety retro-reflective materials.

**Maintenance Needs:**Not applicable.

3.14. Education

**Purpose and Description:**
The PedSafe outreach program is described in more detail in Chapter 5 and in Appendix A.

The outreach plan focused on delivering basic safety tips in addition to information regarding PedSafe countermeasures. The outreach was implemented in two ways. The first component involved conducting outreach with municipal agencies responsible for pedestrian safety through regular inter-agency contacts. In addition, outreach was conducted jointly with grassroots community groups and the City Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, integrated with other projects.

The second phase of the plan involved specific PedSafe safety measure education outreach with three components: (1) in-person education in five schools and six senior centers located within the PedSafe area zones, (2) distribution of retro-reflective materials, and (3) distribution of two video public service announcements (PSAs) to local media outlets. This public outreach was coordinated with San Francisco’s Safe Schools Project, funded in part by the State of California, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS).

The video PSAs, were translated into Spanish, Russian, Chinese-Mandarin, and Chinese-Cantonese. These were distributed to cable and ethnic/small TV stations for airplay at no charge. Their messages focused on the need for drivers to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, and for pedestrians to obey safety signals.

**Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD):** Not a safety device.

**National Use:**
Many cities and towns in the United States have implemented pedestrian safety campaigns. The Federal Highway Administration and Walking Info.org, (the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center) offer information and resources for conducting pedestrian safety education campaigns. The city of San Jose has won an award for their pedestrian safety outreach program.

**Cost:**
	Item
			Total Cost
			Unit CostMaterials/Supplies/EquipentInstallation Labor
			$1,200
			for video productionEngineering/Adminstration
			$14,600
			for video distribution and direct outreachTotal Cost
			$15,800**Availability:**
There are many national and local organizations that provide information and resources about how to conduct pedestrian safety education campaigns. The video PSAs were available free of charge from the FHWA pedestrian safety campaign toolbox. (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/pedcampaign/).

**Vendors:**
Consultants are available to provide media development services.

**How/Who Installed:**
The pedestrian safety educational outreach efforts emphasized the specific for school children and seniors walking in their neighborhoods and provided area-specific safety suggestions. The presentations focused on providing information about how to use the pedestrian safety devices installed as part of the PedSafe program. The grassroots media campaign consisted of hiring a consultant to translate public service announcement videos into other languages to deliver a targeted message to drivers and pedestrians. The PSAs were sent to several television media outlets for airplay during available public service announcement slots. The service announcements were presented in English as well as Spanish, Russian, and Chinese to communicate with San Francisco’s diverse non-English speaking communities.

**Utility/Environmental Issues:**Not applicable.

**Installation Challenges:**
Extensive time and coordination was required to organize community meetings at schools and senior center sites

**Maintenance Needs:** Not applicable

3.15. Devices Not Deployed

Several countermeasures originally proposed in the Phase I Concept Plan were not implemented. The reasons are explained as follows.

3.15.1. Smart Lighting and Other Lighting Improvements

“Smart lighting” is a promising concept of supplemental street corner and crosswalk lighting triggered by pedestrian detection. The Phase I Concept Plan proposed this countermeasure for several intersections that had experienced higher numbers of nighttime pedestrian injuries, based on findings regarding the general safety benefits of enhanced roadway lighting. The FHWA publication *Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide* refers to two studies indicating that additional lighting led to a 30% reduction in all collisions in one study, and a 43% reduction in fatal crashes and 17% reduction in injury crashes in a second study.12

More detailed research early in Phase II could not find a major U.S. city that had experimented with this technology, although it was proposed for use in Miami and Las Vegas.13 SFMTA management was concerned about the possible liability exposure from such a device. In addition to the potential liability exposure from the possible malfunctioning of a new device, there was also potential for drivers or pedestrians to claim that glare or distraction created by the device contributed to a crash.

Street lighting is not managed by the Department of Parking and Traffic in San Francisco, and the other two departments that operate street lights (Public Utilities Commission) and design lighting improvements (Public Works) were not interested in cooperating on street lighting improvements considering the funding available. (Although these departments were consulted during Phase I, the departments felt the overall size of the project budget available in Phase II was insufficient.)

3.15.2. Upgrade of In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights

In-pavement crosswalk lights have been found to be effective at reducing conflicts in San Francisco (as described in Chapter 4, Section 4.3-3). However, there is disagreement about which type of lighting display is the most effective. For example, LightGuard products include a “Pedestrian Crossing” warning sign with LEDs and in-pavement lights which is visible from both approaches, while the Traffic Safety Corp. version uses uni-directional lights.

In the Phase I Concept Plan, DPT proposed repairing and upgrading the Mission and Santa Rosa crosswalk pavement lights, a Traffic Safety Corp. device, which had been installed prior to the PedSafe project (one of four such installations in San Francisco). This could have included a more visible configuration of lights. The Mission & Santa Rosa installation had proven unreliable and had been turned off indefinitely, due primarily to water collecting in the cans below the lights, despite waterproofing efforts by electricians, and due secondarily to problems with the microwave pedestrian detection units. Pressure from policy makers and the news media forced DPT to remove the lights and commit to replacing them with flashing beacons, rather than attempt any upgrade. Data were already collected at all four in-pavement crosswalk light locations.

3.15.3. Pedestrian Scramble (Exclusive Pedestrian Phase)

San Francisco has a long history with pedestrian scramble phasing (exclusive pedestrian phases), dating back to the 1950s with several intersections in the financial district. During Phase I of the PedSafe project (but completely separate from the PedSafe project, and without any federal funding), new pedestrian scramble phases were installed at four intersections on Stockton Street. A fifth adjacent intersection was proposed for Phase II, and initial work started, including investigation of equipment needs and development of new signal timings.

However, implementation was deferred indefinitely due to concerns about impacts on Muni public transit schedule adherence. Extensive analysis was conducted to measure the impacts of the previous pedestrian scramble phases and to determine whether potential delays to Muni could be mitigated. This additional intersection is particularly sensitive to delays to Muni because there are three major lines on Stockton and one on Sacramento, with combined ridership (about 80,000 weekday passenger trips) exceeding many rail transit lines in the nation.

This improvement is still planned for the future after transit signal priority can be provided and other signal timing adjustments made to satisfy Muni management.

Data are presented in Chapter 4, Section 4.3-1 regarding the performance of several other pedestrian scramble intersections.

3.15.4. Animated Eyes Signals

The animated eyes countdown signals were not installed as originally planned, because the vendor, Relume, lost interest in supporting experimentation with the device in San Francisco, apparently after assessing the market potential for the devices. City staff also expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of this concept. Some even characterized it as “cartoon-like.” Because San Francisco is committed to the countdown version of pedestrian signals, any such device would also need to include the countdown element. It is logistically difficult to ensure that all of the symbols (eyes plus hand/walking man), in addition to the countdown numbers, are visible within the standard pedestrian signal head (16” x 18”).

The “LOOK” pavement stencils are considered a “low tech” variation on this concept. However, they are less striking and much easier to “tune out” than a novel pedestrian signal.

7City of Madison, *“Year 2 Field Evaluation of Experimental ‘In-Street’ YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN Signs”* (submitted to FHWA), 1999.8*In-Street Yield To Pedestrian Sign Application in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.* Iowa Department of Transportation, Final Report, 2003.9Crosswalk Enhancement Comparison Study, Experimental Embedded Pavement Flashing Light System vs. Standard Overhead Yellow Flashing Beacon, May 7, 2001, City of San Jose, Mansour Malek.10http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsmart/places.htm11MUTCD speed radar sign guidelines: http://www.informationdisplay.com/radar-speed-sign-FAQ.shtml. 10/19/0712 Kittleson & Associates for FHWA, *Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide*, August 2004, Report No. FHWA-HRT-04-09113According to FHWA website statistics, four metro areas were using “smart lighting” as of 2004: West Palm Beach, Los Angeles/Orange/Riverside Counties, Chicago, and Dallas/Fort Worth. See http://itsdeployment2.ornl.gov/deploymentstatistics/Results.asp?ID=828&rpt=M&Year=2004
      
  Book traversal links for 3. DEPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURES
      ‹ 2. Countermeasure Implementation
                    Up
                    4. Data Analysis of Countermeasures ›
                
                Book:San Francisco PedSafe Phase II: Final Implementation Report and Executive Summary
              1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION
                2. Countermeasure Implementation
                3. DEPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURES
                4. Data Analysis of Countermeasures
                5. Outreach and Education
                6. Phase II Conclusions
                Appendix A: Outreach Assembly Summary and Evaluation 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