Pedestrian Safety Engineering and ITS-Based 

Countermeasures Program for Reducing Pedestrian 

Fatalities, Injury Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures 

Final System Impact Report 

Contract No.: DTFH61-96-C-00098 Task No.: 9842 

Submitted to 

United States Department of Transportation 

Submitted by 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 

January 30, 2009
 

ii 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
 

iii 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

January 30, 2009 

4. Title and Subtitle: 

Pedestrian Safety and ITS-Based Countermeasures Program for Reducing 

Pedestrian Fatalities, Injury Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures Draft 

Zone/Area-Wide Evaluation Technical Memorandum 6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Authors: 

K. Pécheux (SAIC); J. Bauer (SAIC); P. McLeod (Sprinkle Consulting, Inc.) 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address: 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 

1710 SAIC Drive, M/S T1-12-3 

McLean, VA 22102 

Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. 

18115 US Highway 41 North, Suite 600 

Lutz, FL 33549 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-96-C-00098; Task 9842 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

United States Department of Transportation 

ITS Joint Program Office, HVH-1 

400 7th Street SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

HOIT-1 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Tamara Redmon and Gabe Rousseau served as COTRs on this project. Morris Oliver served as COTR on the San Francisco 

Deployment 

16. Abstract 

FHWA awarded three cooperative agreements to Las Vegas, NV; Miami-Dade, FL; and San Francisco, CA to demonstrate and 

evaluate the effectiveness of a combined pedestrian safety engineering and intelligent transportation systems (ITS)-based areawide countermeasures program for reducing pedestrian fatalities, injuries, conflicts, and other surrogate measures of safety. 

Each of the field teams conducted two-phase studies, which included self-evaluations of the pedestrian countermeasures that 

were ultimately selected and deployed. The objectives of the evaluations were to assess the safety and mobility impacts of the

pedestrian countermeasures deployed through the collection and analysis of quantitative data. A wide range of data was 

collected. Data included safety surrogate measures of effectiveness (MOEs) (e.g., driver and pedestrian behavioral data), driver 

mobility MOEs (e.g., travel times and speeds along corridors), and pedestrian mobility MOEs (e.g., average pedestrian delays). 

FHWA also sponsored an independent national evaluation of the countermeasures as well as a cross-cutting study of the teams’ 

findings. This report presents and discusses the evaluation results for 18 pedestrian safety countermeasures (or combination of 

countermeasures) and contains cross-cutting analyses, where possible, of those countermeasures that were deployed by more 

than one of the field teams. Lessons learned by the field teams throughout the course of the project are also synthesized and 

presented herein. 

Overall, the implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive pedestrian safety program proved to be a very challenging 

undertaking for each of the three field teams involved. There were many lessons learned over the course of the more than 6-

year project, ranging from assembling and maintaining communications with a diverse set of project partners, to countermeasure 

selection and procurement, to the details associated with the successful application of particular countermeasures. The 

quantitative results are fairly mixed and in some cases inconsistent. Nonetheless, there were many notable and promising 

findings from the field tests and evaluations that might be applied by other jurisdictions in their efforts to improve the safety of 

pedestrians. 

17. Key Words 

Pedestrian; Safety; ITS, Countermeasures; Surrogates; 

Injuries; Crashes; Vehicle; Conflicts; Speed; Delay; Customer; 

Satisfaction; National Test, Evaluation 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public from: 

The National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21.No of Pages 

117 

22. Price 

N/A 

Form DOT F1700.7 Reproduction of completed page authorized. 
 

iv 

NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States 

Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. 

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or 

manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of 

this document. 

NOTICE 

For more information on this project please contact: 

Kelley Klaver Pecheux, Ph.D. 

Science Applications International Corporation 

1710 SAIC Drive, M/S T1-12-3 

McLean, VA 22102 

Phone: 703-676-2385 

Fax: 703-676-2432 

E-Mail: kelley.k.pecheux@saic.com
Executive Summary January 2009 

 v 

Executive Summary 

In the spring of 2001, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Request for 

Applications (RFA) to select one or more local jurisdictions to demonstrate and evaluate the 

effectiveness of a comprehensive pedestrian safety countermeasures program. As a result, 

FHWA awarded three cooperative agreements to the following locations: Las Vegas, Nevada; 

Miami-Dade County, Florida; and San Francisco, California. The three study teams were 

charged with demonstrating and evaluating the effectiveness of a combined pedestrian safety 

engineering and intelligent transportation systems (ITS)-based area-wide countermeasures 

program for reducing pedestrian fatalities, injuries, conflicts, and other surrogate measures of 

safety. 

Each of the field teams conducted two-phase studies. Phase I involved a detailed analysis of 

pedestrian crashes, the selection of appropriate countermeasures, the development of 

implementation and evaluation plans, and collection and analysis of baseline data. Phase II 

involved the actual implementation and assessment of the impacts of the countermeasures 

identified in Phase I. The project included self-evaluations conducted by each of the field teams, 

as well as an independent national evaluation and cross-cutting study conducted by an 

independent contractor. 

As a result of the pedestrian safety analyses conducted in Phase I, each team selected a number 

of pedestrian safety countermeasures for deployment. Throughout the project, some of the 

selected countermeasures changed due to issues with vendors, procurement, or approval from 

location jurisdictions to install the countermeasures. Nevertheless, in the end, a wide range of 

traditional and ITS-based countermeasures were deployed at a large number of sites in the three 

locations. 

EVALUATION OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of the evaluations were to assess the safety and mobility impacts of the pedestrian 

safety countermeasures selected for deployment. The evaluations involved collecting and 

analyzing quantitative data related to the safety and mobility impacts of the countermeasures. 

The field teams collected and compared baseline and post-deployment data at the sites where 

countermeasures were deployed. A wide range of data was collected, depending on the 

countermeasures being deployed. Data collected included those associated with safety surrogate 

measures of effectiveness (MOEs) (e.g., driver and pedestrian behavioral data), driver mobility 

MOEs (e.g., travel times and speeds along corridors), and pedestrian mobility MOEs (e.g., 

pedestrian delays). 

This report brings together the findings from the self-evaluations and contains cross-cutting 

analyses, where possible, of those countermeasures that were deployed by more than one of the 

field teams. Lessons learned by the field teams throughout the course of the project are also 

synthesized and presented herein. 

RESULTS 

This report presents and discusses the evaluation results for 18 pedestrian safety countermeasures 

(or combination of countermeasures). Ten of the 18 countermeasures were deployed by more 

than one of the field teams, and the remaining seven countermeasures were deployed by only one 

of the three field teams. For the purposes of presenting and discussing the results, the 

countermeasures were grouped into the following six categories: 
Executive Summary January 2009 

 vi 

• Static signs 

• Active signs 

• Pavement markings 

• Signals and signal timing 

• Physical separation 

• Lighting 

The findings are fairly mixed and in some cases inconsistent; however, this is not surprising 

considering the wide range of countermeasures installed, the various pedestrian safety problems 

at hand, the diverse locations and study sites at which the countermeasures were installed, and 

the somewhat different approaches to data collection and evaluation used by the three field 

teams. These were studies conducted in the field with real-world variables that cannot be 

controlled. Nonetheless, there were many notable and promising findings from the field tests 

and evaluations. A summary of the findings is as follows: 

STATIC SIGNS

• TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs. Installed at eight sites 

across the three field test locations, driver yielding behavior was the primary MOE for 

assessing the effectiveness of these signs. While there were a few significant changes 

found across the eight sites, there were inconsistencies in what changes were found and at 

which sites. These findings limit the conclusions that can be made regarding the 

effectiveness of these signs. 

• In-street pedestrian signs. Installed at nine sites across the three field deployment 

locations, in-street pedestrian crossings signs appear to be highly effective at increasing 

driver yielding to pedestrians. The location at the roadway centerline appears to capture 

drivers’ attention more effectively than roadside signs, as evidenced by large increases in 

driver yielding at all but one of the nine sites. However, all three study teams noted that 

while these signs were effective at changing driver behaviors, they had a very short 

lifespan at the many of the sites. These issues can be overcome in a number of ways, 

including: 

 Placing the signs on raised medians as opposed to at street level 

 Placing only one sign at the crosswalk as opposed to using multiple signs on the 

approach 

 Avoiding use of the signs in locations with high truck or bus traffic 

 Carefully considering turning movements and lane width when determining 

locations for sign installation 

• Pedestrian zone signs. Installed at one site in Miami, the results indicate that the 

countermeasure was not effective in reducing speed or increasing driver yielding / 

braking in the presence of pedestrians. The researchers have suggested that this 

ineffectiveness may be related to the low speeds observed prior to deployment, and 

therefore there was not much margin for improvement. 
Executive Summary January 2009 

 vii 

ACTIVE SIGNS

• NO TURN ON RED (NTOR) sign. Tested in Miami, and compared with both the static 

NTOR and the static conditional NTOR, the effectiveness of the electronic NTOR sign 

was assessed by observing driver violations of the NTOR restriction, right-turn drivers 

making complete stops, and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Use of the electronic NTOR 

sign resulted in the fewest turning violations (32 percent overall) of the three signs tested 

as well as the highest percentage of those violators that made a complete stop before 

violating the turn restriction. This sign may be especially effective in visually cluttered 

areas where motorists are less likely to see and respond to a static sign. 

• Portable speed trailers. Installed in all three field locations, the primary MOE for 

assessing the effectiveness of speed trailers was average vehicle speed and driver 

yielding. The San Francisco team measured significant reductions in speed at their two 

test sites, while the Miami team did not. Significant increases in driver yielding at the 

San Francisco sites translated into decreases in pedestrian delays. There was an increase 

in driver braking mid-block in Miami, and no significant increase in driver yielding in 

Las Vegas. Based on these findings, it appears that the speed trailers can impact drivers’ 

speeds and possibly increase their awareness of the presence of pedestrians at these 

locations. 

PAVEMENT MARKINGS

• High visibility crosswalks. Tested at three locations in Las Vegas, there were no 

significant increases in driver yielding at any of the sites, and yielding distance results 

were inconsistent across the sites. There were significant reductions in drivers blocking 

the crosswalk at one of the sites. The results showed that high visibility crosswalks do 

not appear to be effective in changing driver behaviors in the vicinity of the crosswalks. 

This result could be due in part to the fact that the crosswalk markings deteriorated in a 

matter of weeks as a result of the heat causing a release of oils in the pavement. 

• Advance stop lines. Installed at two locations in San Francisco, there were no 

significant changes in driver yielding, vehicle stop position, or pedestrian-vehicle 

conflicts at either site after installation of the advance stop lines. Based on these results, 

it appears that advance stop lines had no impacts on driver behavior or pedestrian safety. 

• LOOK pavement stencils. Installed at four sites in San Francisco, there were few 

impacts on pedestrian looking behaviors and no impact on pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. 

Although the “LOOK” stencil markings are one of the least expensive countermeasures 

tested, the results indicate that this is not an effective countermeasure. Additionally, the 

San Francisco team noted that they were highly susceptible to fading and blemishes 

(similar to the high visibility crosswalk treatments in Las Vegas). 

SIGNALS AND SIGNAL TIMING

• Pedestrian countdown signals. The findings from the Miami sites strongly point to 

overall increases in safe pedestrian behavior as a result of the pedestrian countdown 

signals, with significant and consistent positive results for all three critical MOEs: call 

button pressing, pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of flashing DON’T WALK, and 

pedestrian signal violations. The results from the Las Vegas study team, however, were 
Executive Summary January 2009 

 viii 

mixed, possibly due to signal timing issues at the intersections. The Las Vegas team also 

found a large increase in the percent of pedestrians that looked before crossing the street, 

which may have resulted from the animated eyes display on the countdown signals 

installed in Las Vegas. 

• Call buttons that confirm the press. Installed in both Miami and Las Vegas at a total of 

three intersections, call buttons that confirm the press show a fairly strong and consistent 

positive impact on pedestrian safety in terms of increasing use of the call buttons and, in 

turn, reducing pedestrian violations and pedestrians trapped in the roadway. Call button 

presses increased significantly and to above 50 percent at both Miami sites, and 

pedestrian signal violations decreased at all three sites (however, overall pedestrian signal 

violations remained above 50 percent at both Miami sites). It was, however, difficult to 

see the LED light in bright Florida sunlight, making the auditory feedback more critical 

to the efficacy of the device at the Miami sites. 

• Automated pedestrian detection (to activate or extend pedestrian crossing phase). 

Installed in both San Francisco and Miami, the only significant finding was a 9 percent 

reduction in the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the roadway at the Miami site. 

While these results suggests that pedestrians may have been making safer crossings, there 

were no measurable impacts of the pedestrian detection systems on pedestrian clearance 

(those clearing before the end of the WALK or clearance phases) or conflicts with motor 

vehicles (which were generally low to begin with). The San Francisco team noted that 

the technology appeared to be a promising, but needed further testing and refinement. 

• Activated flashing beacons. There were some clear increases in pedestrian safety 

where the activated flashing beacons were installed in San Francisco. There was a 

significant increase in driver yielding, corresponding decreases in pedestrian delay, and 

decreases in conflicts at both sites. There was an increase in yielding distance at one of 

the intersections in San Francisco and a decrease in pedestrians trapped at the other 

intersection. At the Las Vegas site, driver yielding did not change significantly, but this 

could have been a result of driver yielding improvements due to the installation of other 

countermeasures in earlier stages. For those drivers who yielded, yielding distances 

increased. 

• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB). The results of the study showed clear 

safety benefits associated with the introduction of the pedestrian activated RRFB in 

Miami. After installation of the RRFBs, driver yielding to both staged pedestrians and 

local resident crossings increased at both deployment sites, the percentage of pedestrians 

trapped in the middle of the road decreased at one of the sites, and evasive conflicts 

decreased at both sites. At one of the sites, the number of conflicts decreased each time 

the RRFB treatment was introduced and increased each time it was removed. At the other 

site, the decrease in conflicts after the RRFB was introduced was maintained each time it 

was removed. This may have represented some type of learning effect on the part of 

motorists. 

• Leading pedestrian interval. Installed at four sites in San Francisco and two sites in 

Miami, the findings indicate that the countermeasure was effective at increasing left-turn 

driver yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, although the magnitude of left-turn 

yielding was smaller in San Francisco than in Miami (likely because left-turn driver 

yielding was already very high in San Francisco and therefore there was less opportunity 
Executive Summary January 2009 

 ix 

for improvement). This effect does not appear to apply to right-turn driver yielding 

possibly due to the high frequency of right-turners who do not stop at a red light before 

turning. The Miami team also measured significant increases in pedestrian call button 

pushes and the number of pedestrians that start to cross at the beginning of the cycle. 

• Prohibition of permissive left turns. Installed at one site in Miami, the data indicate 

that this countermeasure may be an effective way to improve pedestrian safety at 

intersections by reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts; however, the findings also indicate 

that there was a substantial portion of left-turners that violated the red signal. While this 

countermeasure has potential for increasing pedestrian safety, the signal configuration 

should be taken into consideration in order to mitigate left-turners violating the signal. 

PHYSICAL SEPARATION

• Median refuge islands. Based on the results, it appears that the installation of a median 

refuge island at a mid-block location was effective in increasing driver yielding to 

pedestrians and reducing pedestrian delay, while the median refuge islands at the 

signalized intersections in San Francisco appear to be less effective at altering driver and 

pedestrian behaviors. 

• Danish offset (in combination with high-visibility crosswalk, advance yield 

markings, and YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs). Installed at two sites in Las 

Vegas (at one mid-block location and at one signalized intersection), this combination of 

countermeasures appears to have led to an increase in safe pedestrian and driver 

behaviors. The Las Vegas team measured significant increases in driver yielding and 

diverted pedestrians as well as significant decreases in trapped pedestrians. Pedestrian 

delay was significantly reduced at the mid-block location where a designated crossing 

area had not previously existed, although pedestrian delay increased at signalized 

intersection. There was no significant impact on vehicle delay at Lake Mead even though 

there was an increase in yielding. While driver yielding did increase significantly at the 

two locations, only 40 percent of drivers yielded at the mid-block location after 

installation of the countermeasures, while 76 percent of drivers yielded at the signalized 

intersection after installation of the countermeasures. This could be a result of the 

location of the Danish offset, the type of Danish offset that was installed, and/or whether 

or not a crosswalk existed in the baseline condition. At the signalized intersection site, 

the Danish offset was made more visible with the use of bright yellow bollards and there 

was a crosswalk in the baseline condition. At the mid-block location, the Danish offset 

was perhaps less visible and was located where there was not previously a crosswalk. In 

addition, vehicle speed could also play a role in the results. At the midblock location, 

there was a posted speed limit of 45 mph, while the posted speed limit through the 

signalized intersection was 30 mph. Drivers may be more willing and able to yield on the 

lower speed roadway. In general, though, the suite of countermeasures appears to have 

made pedestrian crossings safer. 

LIGHTING 

• Dynamic lighting. The findings from the Las Vegas team that tested the impacts of 

dynamic lighting at a high-visibility crosswalk location suggest that dynamic lighting 

used with automatic pedestrian detection increases pedestrian safety. Driver yielding and 
Executive Summary January 2009 

 x 

pedestrian diversion increased significantly while the percent of trapped pedestrians 

significantly decreased. While driver yielding increased, its prevalence was still low at 

35 percent. In Miami, the addition of dynamic lighting to a crosswalk that had a 

rectangular rapid flashing beacon did not appear to further improve driver yielding or 

pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. The Miami researchers suggested that this may have 

occurred because the dynamic lighting is not very noticeable in the presence of the highly 

intense flashing beacons.

LESSONS LEARNED 

Implementation and evaluation of the Pedestrian Safety Engineering and ITS-Based 

Countermeasures Program was challenging. The major steps in the project included: 

• Establishing and maintaining a multi-agency pedestrian safety team to oversee and guide 

the project 

• Identifying pedestrian safety and mobility problems, including potential contributing 

factors to crashes 

• Selecting pedestrian safety countermeasures corresponding to the problems identified 

• Obtaining funding and support for pedestrian safety improvements 

• Procuring, deploying, and maintaining the countermeasures 

• Evaluating the effectiveness of the countermeasures 

Each step of the project offered new challenges to the project partners that are presented here as 

lessons learned. The lessons learned include general lessons learned and countermeasurespecific lessons learned. General lessons learned include the following: 

• Assemble a diverse set of project partners to address the range of issues that might arise 

during the study. 

• Implement regular communication and participation mechanisms for project partners from 

project kick-off. 

• Use a variety of methods/sources to understand problems and to determine causes of 

crashes at prominent pedestrian crash locations. 

• Begin the program by implementing low-cost countermeasures for the greatest potential of 

widespread use. 

• Pursue a variety of funding sources for the pedestrian safety program. 

• Do not underestimate the complexity of procurement. 

• Budget ample time for deployment and coordinate with the appropriate jurisdictions. 

• Consider how the timing of countermeasure deployment may impact the experimental 

design and evaluation. 

• Consider the unique aspects of collecting and reducing pedestrian safety data. 

Countermeasure-specific lessons learned include the following: 

• Strategically place in-street pedestrian signs to reduce the chance of them being hit by 

vehicles and to maximize their effectiveness. 

• Consider the technical issues surrounding the use of automated pedestrian detection and 

activated flashing beacons. 
Executive Summary January 2009 

 xi 

• Translate public service messages into multiple languages in order to conduct a successful 

outreach to non-English speaking populations. 

• Be prepared to demonstrate to concerned traffic engineers that the electronic NTOR sign 

will not significantly disrupt traffic progression along a corridor. Work with the local 

electrical department and vendors to make sure everything is in place for success. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Overall, the implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive pedestrian safety program 

proved to be a very challenging undertaking for each of the three field teams involved. There 

were many lessons learned over the course of the 6-year project, ranging from assembling and 

maintaining communications with a diverse set of project partners, to countermeasure selection 

and procurement, to the details associated with the successful application of particular 

countermeasures. 

For the purposes of this summary and cross-cutting analysis report, the 18 countermeasures were 

classified according their effectiveness in producing measurable changes in driver and/or 

pedestrian behaviors as hypothesized for the evaluations. While it is recognized that other 

factors can certainly impact overall countermeasure effectiveness, the classification of the 

countermeasures in this way was done in an attempt to give the reader an idea as to which 

countermeasures may have the most promise in ultimately impacting pedestrian safety and which 

others may not. Countermeasures were classified in one of the following four categories: high 

effectiveness, moderate effectiveness, low effectiveness, or effectiveness depends on application. 

Seven of the countermeasures were classified as being highly effective in impacting behaviors 

related to pedestrian safety. These seven countermeasures cover a range of applications, 

including signal timing, active and in-street signs, call buttons that provide feedback, and 

roadway design elements. Each of the countermeasures offers something unique over traditional 

countermeasures, whether it provides additional information to pedestrians, is highly visible to 

pedestrians or motorists, or gives an advantage to pedestrians when crossing. Therefore, it is not 

surprising that these countermeasures resulted in the most positive impacts. They include: 

• Leading pedestrian interval 

• Pedestrian countdown signals 

• In-street pedestrian signs 

• Activated flashing beacons 

• Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) 

• Call buttons that confirm the press 

• Danish offset combined with high-visibility crosswalk, advance yield markings, and 

YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs 

Four of the countermeasures were classified as being moderately effective in impacting 

behaviors related to pedestrian safety. These countermeasures were the most difficult to classify 

in that there were positive findings, yet the findings were either mixed, inconsistent, or 

inconclusive either within or across the field locations. They include: 

• Electronic No Turn on Red (NTOR) sign 

• Prohibition of permissive left turns 

• Portable speed trailers 
Executive Summary January 2009 

 xii 

• Automated pedestrian detection (to activate or extend pedestrian crossing phase) 

Five of the countermeasures were classified as having low effectiveness in impacting behaviors 

related to pedestrian safety. Three of these countermeasures were pavement markings and two 

of the countermeasures were static signs. These five countermeasures are static and it is not 

surprising that they did not produce more significant results when compared against the active 

and more innovative devices. The low effectiveness countermeasures include: 

• High visibility crosswalks 

• Advance yield markings 

• LOOK pavement stencils 

• TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs 

• Pedestrian zone signs 

The effectiveness of two of the countermeasures seemed to depend mostly on the application, 

with positive impacts in one application and less positive impacts in another application. These 

countermeasures include: 

• Median refuge island 

• Dynamic lighting 
Table of Contents January 2009 

 xiii 

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES UNDER INVESTIGATION ..........................................................................1

EVALUATION OF COUNTERMEASURES .......................................................................................................................3

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS .....................................................................................................................................3

RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................................................4

STATIC SIGNS ............................................................................................................................................................4

TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS Signs......................................................................................4

In-street Pedestrian Crossing Signs...................................................................................................................12

Pedestrian Zone Signs........................................................................................................................................17

ACTIVE SIGNS..........................................................................................................................................................18

NO TURN ON RED (NTOR) Signs ....................................................................................................................18

Portable Radar Speed Trailers ..........................................................................................................................22

PAVEMENT MARKINGS ............................................................................................................................................26

High Visibility Crosswalk ..................................................................................................................................27

Advanced Stop Lines ..........................................................................................................................................31

LOOK Pavement Stencils...................................................................................................................................33

SIGNALS AND SIGNAL TIMING .................................................................................................................................36

PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS........................................................................................................................36

Call Buttons that Confirm the Press ..................................................................................................................40

Automated Pedestrian Detection........................................................................................................................45

Activated Flashing Beacons...............................................................................................................................47

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon .................................................................................................................56

Leading Pedestrian Interval (Pedestrian Head Start)........................................................................................60

Prohibition of Permissive Left Turns .................................................................................................................65

PHYSICAL SEPARATION ...........................................................................................................................................67

Median Refuge Islands.......................................................................................................................................68

Danish Offset, High-Visibility Crosswalk, Median Refuge, Advance Yield Markings, and Yield to Pedestrian 

Signs...................................................................................................................................................................71

LIGHTING.................................................................................................................................................................77

Dynamic Lighting...............................................................................................................................................77

LESSONS LEARNED...............................................................................................................................................81

GENERAL LESSONS LEARNED..................................................................................................................................81

Lesson #1—Assemble a Diverse Set of Project Partners to Address the Range of Issues That Might Arise 

During the Study ................................................................................................................................................81

Lesson #2—Implement Regular Communication and Participation Mechanisms for Project Partners from 

Project Kick-Off .................................................................................................................................................83

Lesson #3—Use a Variety of Methods/Sources to Understand Problems and to Determine Causes of Crashes 

at Prominent Pedestrian Crash Locations .........................................................................................................84

Lesson #4—Begin the Program by Implementing Low-cost Countermeasures for the Greatest Potential of 

Widespread Use .................................................................................................................................................85

Lesson #5—Pursue a Variety of Funding Sources for the Pedestrian Safety Program .....................................86

Lesson #6—Do Not Underestimate the Complexity of Procurement .................................................................87

Lesson #7—Budget Ample Time for Deployment and Coordinate with the Appropriate Jurisdictions .............87

Lesson #8—Consider How the Timing of Countermeasure Deployment May Impact the Experimental Design 

and Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................88

Lesson #9—Consider the Unique Aspects of Collecting and Reducing Pedestrian Safety Data .......................89

COUNTERMEASURE-SPECIFIC LESSONS LEARNED ...................................................................................................91

Lesson #1—Strategically Place In-street Pedestrian Signs to Reduce the Chance of Them Being Hit by 

Vehicles and to Maximize Their Effectiveness ...................................................................................................91
Table of Contents January 2009 

 xiv 

Lesson #2—Consider the Technical Issues Surrounding the Use of Automated Pedestrian Detection .............92

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................................94

HIGH EFFECTIVENESS..............................................................................................................................................94

MEDIUM EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................................................................................................96

LOW EFFECTIVENESS...............................................................................................................................................97

EFFECTIVENESS DEPENDS ON APPLICATION ............................................................................................................98

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................99
List of Figures January 2009 

 xv 

List of Figures 

FIGURE 1. SIGNS USED IN LAS VEGAS AND SAN FRANCISCO (LEFT) AND SIGN USED IN MIAMI (RIGHT) ......................5

FIGURE 2. SIGN AT GUERRERO & 16TH IN SAN FRANCISCO ............................................................................................5

FIGURE 3. DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES AT MISSION & AVALON................................................................................8

FIGURE 4. DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES AT GUERRERO & 16TH ...................................................................................9

FIGURE 5. DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES AT MISSION & OCEAN (SIGNIFICANT CHANGES) ..........................................9

FIGURE 6. DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES AT MISSION & PERSIA (SIGNIFICANT CHANGES) ........................................10

FIGURE 7. IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN SIGN IN SAN FRANCISCO.......................................................................................12

FIGURE 8. IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN SIGNS IN SOUTH MIAMI BEACH.............................................................................13

FIGURE 9. IN-STREET SIGNS ALONG BONANZA BETWEEN D AND F STREETS IN LAS VEGAS........................................13

FIGURE 10. MODIFIED VERSION OF IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN SIGN INSTALLED ALONG TWAIN AVENUE IN LAS VEGAS

............................................................................................................................................................................14

FIGURE 11. YIELDING DISTANCES AT LAS VEGAS SITE BEFORE AND AFTER INSTALLATION OF IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN 

SIGNS...................................................................................................................................................................16

FIGURE 12. MUTCD W11-2 PEDESTRIAN WARNING SIGN AND SUPPLEMENTAL DISTANCE PLAQUE .........................17

FIGURE 13. STATIC AND ACTIVE NTOR SIGNS TESTED IN MIAMI...............................................................................19

FIGURE 14. STOPPING BEHAVIOR OF DRIVER VIOLATORS AT MIAMI SITE ..................................................................21

FIGURE 15. PORTABLE RADAR SPEED TRAILERS (LEFT: SIGNS USED IN LAS VEGAS; RIGHT: SIGNS USED IN SAN 

FRANCISCO).........................................................................................................................................................23

FIGURE 16. EXAMPLE OF HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS TESTED IN LAS VEGAS .......................................................27

FIGURE 17. DISTRIBUTION OF DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES AT MARYLAND PARKWAY & SIERRA VISTA ................30

FIGURE 18. DISTRIBUTION OF DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES AT FLAMINGO & KOVAL ..............................................30

FIGURE 19. DISTRIBUTION OF DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES AT LAKE MEAD & LAS VEGAS BOULEVARDS ..............31

FIGURE 20. ADVANCE STOP LINES TESTED IN SAN FRANCISCO ..................................................................................32

FIGURE 21. LOOK PAVEMENT STENCILS TESTED IN SAN FRANCISCO ........................................................................33

FIGURE 22. PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL WITH ANIMATED EYES ......................................................................36

FIGURE 23. CALL BUTTONS TESTED IN MIAMI ............................................................................................................40

FIGURE 24. CAMERA USED FOR AUTOMATED PEDESTRIAN DETECTION......................................................................45

FIGURE 25. OVERHEAD FLASHING BEACONS TESTED IN LAS VEGAS ..........................................................................48

FIGURE 26. ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACONS USED IN LAS VEGAS (LEFT) AND SAN FRANCISCO (RIGHT) .................48

FIGURE 27. IN-SURFACE (LEFT) AND ABOVE GROUND BOLLARD (RIGHT) SENSORS USED IN SAN FRANCICSO ..........48

FIGURE 28. DRIVER YIELDING AT 16TH & CAPP ...........................................................................................................52

FIGURE 29. DRIVER YIELDING AT MISSION & SANTA ROSA........................................................................................52

FIGURE 30. DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES AT MARYLAND PARKWAY & DUMONT.....................................................53

FIGURE 31. DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES AT 16TH & CAPP ........................................................................................54

FIGURE 32. DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCE AT MISSION & SANTA ROSA.......................................................................54

FIGURE 33. RRFB IN MIAMI........................................................................................................................................56

FIGURE 34. LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL..............................................................................................................61

FIGURE 35. STATIC SIGN SUPPORTING THE PROHIBITION OF PERMISSIVE LEFT TURNS ...............................................65

FIGURE 36. MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND AT A SAN FRANCISCO INTERSECTION ...............................................................68

FIGURE 37. MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND AT MID-BLOCK LOCATION IN LAS VEGAS ........................................................69

FIGURE 38. DANISH OFFSET AT MARYLAND PARKWAY AND DUMONT STREET ..........................................................71

FIGURE 39. LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD: BELMONT STREET TO MCCARRAN STREET ....................................................71

FIGURE 40. ADVANCE YIELD MARKINGS AND YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN BEFORE DANISH OFFSET AT 

MARYLAND PARKWAY AND DUMONT STREET ....................................................................................................72

FIGURE 41. ADVANCED YIELD MARKINGS INSTALLED AT LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD: BELMONT STREET TO 

MCCARRAN STREET............................................................................................................................................72

FIGURE 42. DRIVER YIELDING DISTANCES ON LAKE MEAD: BELMONT TO MCCARRAN .............................................76

FIGURE 43. DYNAMIC LIGHTING ON POLE IN LAS VEGAS............................................................................................77
List of Tables January 20009 

 xvi 

List of Tables 

TABLE 1. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES SELECTED FOR DEPLOYMENT......................................................2

TABLE 2. TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGNS STUDY SITES......................................................6

TABLE 3. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGNS ...................6

TABLE 4. TURNING DRIVER YIELDING IN MIAMI...........................................................................................................7

TABLE 5. RIGHT-TURN DRIVER YIELDING IN LAS VEGAS..............................................................................................7

TABLE 6. RTOR DRIVERS THAT COME TO A COMPLETE STOP AT LAS VEGAS STUDY SITES ......................................10

TABLE 7. DRIVERS BLOCKING CROSSWALK AT LAS VEGAS STUDY SITES ..................................................................10

TABLE 8. PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE CONFLICTS ...............................................................................................................11

TABLE 9. STUDY SITES FOR IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNS........................................................................13

TABLE 10. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNS ..........................................14

TABLE 11. DRIVER YIELDING ......................................................................................................................................15

TABLE 12. PEDESTRIAN ZONE SIGN STUDY SITE.........................................................................................................17

TABLE 13. NO TURN ON RED SIGNS STUDY SITE.........................................................................................................19

TABLE 14. DRIVERS VIOLATING NTOR ......................................................................................................................20

TABLE 15. STOPPING BEHAVIOR OF DRIVER VIOLATORS MAKING RTOR ..................................................................21

TABLE 16. RTOR DRIVERS BLOCKING CROSSWALK....................................................................................................22

TABLE 17. PORTABLE RADAR SPEED TRAILER STUDY SITES ......................................................................................23

TABLE 18. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR PORTABLE RADAR SPEED TRAILERS ..................................................24

TABLE 19. VEHICLE SPEEDS ........................................................................................................................................24

TABLE 20. DRIVER BRAKING ON COLLINS AVENUE IN MIAMI ....................................................................................25

TABLE 21. DRIVER YIELDING ......................................................................................................................................25

TABLE 22. AVERAGE PEDESTRIAN DELAY ..................................................................................................................26

TABLE 23. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK STUDY SITES ..............................................................................................28

TABLE 24. TURNING DRIVER YIELDING TO PEDESTRIANS IN PARALLEL CROSSWALKS...............................................29

TABLE 25. DRIVERS BLOCKING CROSSWALK ..............................................................................................................29

TABLE 26. ADVANCE STOP LINE STUDY SITES............................................................................................................32

TABLE 27. LOOK PAVEMENT STENCILS STUDY SITES................................................................................................34

TABLE 28. PEDESTRIAN LOOKING BEHAVIOR..............................................................................................................35

TABLE 29. PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS STUDY SITES.....................................................................................37

TABLE 30. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS ..................................................38

TABLE 31. CALL BUTTON PRESSES..............................................................................................................................38

TABLE 32. PEDESTRIANS IN THE CROSSWALK AFTER FLASHING DON’T WALK........................................................38

TABLE 33. PEDESTRIANS VIOLATING THE SIGNAL.......................................................................................................39

TABLE 34. PEDESTRIANS BEGINNING THEIR CROSSINGS DURING THE WALK.............................................................39

TABLE 35. PEDESTRIANS THAT LOOK FOR VEHICLES BEFORE CROSSING....................................................................39

TABLE 36. CALL BUTTONS THAT CONFIRM THE PRESS STUDY SITES ..........................................................................41

TABLE 37. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR CALL BUTTONS THAT CONFIRM THE PRESS .......................................41

TABLE 38. PERCENT OF SIGNAL CYCLES CALL BUTTON WAS PRESSED .......................................................................42

TABLE 39. PERCENT OF PEDESTRIANS VIOLATING SIGNAL .........................................................................................42

TABLE 40. PEDESTRIANS CROSSING DURING THE WALK PHASE ................................................................................43

TABLE 41. PEDESTRIANS TRAPPED IN THE ROADWAY.................................................................................................44

TABLE 42. AUTOMATED PEDESTRIAN DETECTION STUDY SITES.................................................................................45

TABLE 43. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR AUTOMATED PEDESTRIAN DETECTION ..............................................46

TABLE 44. PEDESTRIANS TRAPPED IN THE ROADWAY.................................................................................................47

TABLE 45. ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACONS STUDY SITES..........................................................................................49

TABLE 46. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACONS .......................................................50

TABLE 47. DIVERTED PEDESTRIANS ............................................................................................................................51

TABLE 48. TRAPPED PEDESTRIANS..............................................................................................................................51

TABLE 49. DRIVERS YIELDING TO PEDESTRIANS.........................................................................................................52

TABLE 50. AVERAGE PEDESTRIAN DELAY ..................................................................................................................55

TABLE 51. AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY .......................................................................................................................55

TABLE 52. PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE CONFLICTS .............................................................................................................55
List of Tables January 20009 

 xvii 

TABLE 53. RRFB STUDY SITES ...................................................................................................................................57

TABLE 54. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACONS .......................................................57

TABLE 55. STAGED DAYTIME CROSSINGS ...................................................................................................................58

TABLE 56. STAGED NIGHTTIME CROSSINGS ................................................................................................................58

TABLE 57. RESIDENT CROSSINGS ................................................................................................................................59

TABLE 58. LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL STUDY SITES ..........................................................................................61

TABLE 59. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL.......................................................62

TABLE 60. LEFT-TURN DRIVER YIELDING ...................................................................................................................63

TABLE 61. RIGHT-TURN DRIVER YIELDING .................................................................................................................64

TABLE 62. PEDESTRIANS PUSHING CALL BUTTON ......................................................................................................64

TABLE 63. PEDESTRIANS CROSSING DURING BEGINNING OF WALK CYCLE...............................................................65

TABLE 64. PROHIBITION OF PERMISSION LEFT TURNS STUDY SITE.............................................................................66

TABLE 65. PEDESTRIANS CROSSING DURING WALK ..................................................................................................67

TABLE 66. VEHICLES TURNING DURING PROTECTED LEFT-TURN PHASE.....................................................................67

TABLE 67. CONFLICTS .................................................................................................................................................67

TABLE 68. MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND STUDY SITES......................................................................................................68

TABLE 69. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR MEDIAN REFUGE ISLANDS .................................................................69

TABLE 70. DRIVERS YIELDING TO PEDESTRIANS.........................................................................................................70

TABLE 71. AVERAGE PEDESTRIAN DELAY ..................................................................................................................70

TABLE 72. DANISH OFFSET STUDY SITES ....................................................................................................................73

TABLE 73. DIVERTED PEDESTRIANS ............................................................................................................................74

TABLE 74. PEDESTRIAN LOOKING BEHAVIOR..............................................................................................................74

TABLE 75. TRAPPED PEDESTRIANS..............................................................................................................................75

TABLE 76. DRIVERS YIELDING TO PEDESTRIANS.........................................................................................................75

TABLE 77. AVERAGE PEDESTRIAN DELAY ..................................................................................................................76

TABLE 78. DYNAMIC LIGHTING STUDY SITES .............................................................................................................78

TABLE 79. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR DYNAMIC LIGHTING...........................................................................79

TABLE 80. DRIVER YIELDING ......................................................................................................................................79

TABLE 81. DIVERTED PEDESTRIANS ............................................................................................................................80

TABLE 82. PEDESTRIANS TRAPPED IN THE ROADWAY.................................................................................................80

TABLE 83. COUNTERMEASURE-SPECIFIC LESSONS LEARNED ......................................................................................93
Abbreviations January 2009 

 xviii 

Abbreviations 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems 

JPO Joint Program Office 

LED Light-Emitting Diode 

LPI Leading pedestrian interval 

MOEs Measures of Effectiveness 

NTOR No Turn on Red 

RFA Request for Applications 

RTOG Right Turn on Green 

RTOR Right Turn on Red 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 1 

INTRODUCTION 

In the spring of 2001, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Request for 

Applications (RFA). The intent of the RFA was to select one or more local jurisdictions to 

demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive pedestrian safety 

countermeasures program for reducing pedestrian fatalities, injuries, and conflicts. By spring of 

2002, FHWA awarded three cooperative agreements to the following locations: Las Vegas, 

Nevada; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and San Francisco, California. 

Through this program, the FHWA sought to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of a 

combined pedestrian safety engineering and intelligent transportation systems (ITS)-based areawide countermeasures program for reducing pedestrian fatalities, injuries, conflicts, and other 

surrogate measures of safety. The countermeasures included traditional safety engineering 

design-based countermeasures, as well as ITS-based countermeasures. Traditional pedestrian 

safety engineering countermeasures included: signs and markings, eliminating permissive leftturns, leading pedestrian intervals, medians, roadway lighting, overall safety improvements at 

intersections, and other efforts to slow travel speeds in pedestrian-traveled areas. Examples of 

ITS technologies included: pedestrian countdown signals, ITS push buttons that confirm the 

press, automatic detection of pedestrians, and dynamic signs restricting right-turn-on-red. 

The pedestrian countermeasure studies conducted at each of the three locations noted above were 

conducted in two phases. Phase I involved the following elements: 

• Provide a detailed analysis of the pedestrian problem. 

• Identify areas that have a particularly high number of pedestrian crashes. 

• Perform an analysis of potential countermeasures for reducing pedestrian crashes. 

• Develop a detailed implementation and evaluation plan. 

• Collect and analyze baseline data at the evaluation sites. 

Phase II involved the implementation and evaluation of the countermeasures identified in Phase 

I. The project included self-evaluations conducted by each of the field teams, as well as an 

independent national evaluation and cross-cutting study conducted by an independent contractor. 

The self-evaluations focused on the impacts of the individual countermeasures, while the 

national evaluation focused on the zone-wide and area-wide impacts of the countermeasures 

program. The results of the national zone-/area-wide evaluation were summarized in a technical 

memorandum to FHWA. This report brings together the findings from the self-evaluations and 

contains cross-cutting analyses, where possible, of those countermeasures that were deployed by 

more than one of the three field teams. 

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES UNDER INVESTIGATION

As noted above, each of the field teams employed a systematic process to pedestrian problem 

identification and countermeasure selection. As a result of these safety analyses, each team 

selected a number of pedestrian safety countermeasures for deployment. Throughout the project, 

some of the selected countermeasures changed due to issues with vendors, procurement, or 

approval from location jurisdictions to install the countermeasures. Nevertheless, in the end, a 

wide range of traditional and ITS-based countermeasures were deployed at a large number of 

sites in the three locations. This system impact and cross-cutting study report focuses on the 

findings for 18 countermeasures, which have been grouped into the following 6 categories: 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 2 

• Static signs 

• Active signs 

• Pavement markings 

• Signals and signal timing 

• Physical separation 

• Lighting 

The countermeasures are listed in Table 1, where the shaded areas illustrate the countermeasures 

identified as “cross-cutting,” meaning they were deployed by more than one of the field teams. 

The last column indicates the page number within the report where the results for each 

countermeasure can be found. 

Table 1. Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures Selected for Deployment 

Countermeasures Miami LV SF Page #

Static Signs 

TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs X X X 4 

In-street pedestrian signs X X X 12 

Pedestrian zone signs X 17 

Active Signs 

NO TURN ON RED (NTOR) signs X 18 

Portable radar speed trailers X X X 22 

Pavement Markings 

High visibility crosswalk treatment X 26 

Advance stop lines X 31 

LOOK pavement stencils X 33 

Signals and Signal Timing 

Pedestrian countdown signals X X 36 

Call buttons that confirm the press X X 40 

Automated pedestrian detection X X 45 

Activated flashing beacons X X 47 

Rectangular rapid flashing beacon1 X 56 

Leading pedestrian interval (Pedestrian head start) X X 60 

Prohibition of permissive left turns X 65 

Physical Separation 

Median refuge island X X 68 

Danish offset (with high visibility crosswalk, advance yield 

markings and YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs) 

 X 71 

Lighting 

Dynamic lighting X X 77 

1

This countermeasure was installed in Las Vegas, but results were not available at the time of this report. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 3 

EVALUATION OF COUNTERMEASURES

The impacts of the countermeasures were assessed through self evaluations by the individual 

field teams. Full documentation of the self evaluations can be found in each team’s Phase II 

Final Report(s) (1,2,3,4). The deployment strategies and experimental designs developed by each 

team took into account the need to assess the site-specific impacts of the countermeasures, albeit 

somewhat differently. While the San Francisco and Miami field teams deployed many of the 

countermeasures at multiple sites, these teams selected one or more “study” or evaluation sites 

for each countermeasure. It was at these sites where they collected data for the evaluation of the 

countermeasures. At these sites, the countermeasure under study was always the first and only 

countermeasure deployed so as to allow a before and after comparison of the data. The Miami 

team also conducted a few studies where they varied the “treatments” at the study sites. For 

example, while testing the impacts of the electronic NO TURN ON RED (NTOR) sign, they also 

tested and compared the impacts of the static NTOR and conditional NTOR signs. 

By contrast, the Las Vegas team used a staged approach to countermeasure deployment and 

evaluation at a more limited number of study sties. At each study site, a variety of 

countermeasures were deployed in a series of stages. As such, each stage allowed for a before 

and after analysis of the impacts of the countermeasure(s) installed in that stage; however, only 

in the first stage were the impacts of the countermeasure(s) compared to the true baseline. In 

each subsequent stage, only the incremental impacts could be measured. 

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

The primary purpose of this System Impact Report is to bring together, summarize, and discuss 

the findings of the evaluations of the individual countermeasures conducted by the three field 

teams. In cases where a countermeasure was deployed by more than one of the three field teams, 

as much as possible, the results are presented in a cross-cutting manner. Where a 

countermeasure was deployed by only one of the three field teams, the results are summarized 

from the corresponding findings report from that deployment team. 

Regarding the cross-cutting analyses, there were a number of challenges encountered that limited 

the comparability of some of the findings across the field deployment locations. One challenge 

was that there were variations in the countermeasures or the manner in which they were 

deployed by the field teams. In some cases, the field teams deployed variations of the same 

countermeasure. For example, the San Francisco and Las Vegas teams deployed a text sign 

reading “Turning Traffic Yield to Pedestrians” while the Miami team deployed a mixed textsymbol sign with the same message. In other cases, the countermeasure was the same, but was 

applied differently in the different cities. For example, the San Francisco team deployed median 

refuge islands at signalized intersections, while the Las Vegas team deployed median refuge 

islands at mid-block crosswalk locations. 

Another challenge was that there were variations in the MOEs that were used to test the impacts 

of the countermeasures. In some cases, the same MOE was used, but the data were collected 

somewhat differently. For example, for the MOE, “frequency of pedestrian violations,” the 

Miami team observed and recorded those pedestrians that crossed outside of the WALK phase, 

while the Las Vegas team observed and recorded those pedestrians that crossed only during the 

DON’T WALK phase. For the MOE, “pedestrians trapped in the roadway,” the Miami team 

measured the percentage of cycles in which a pedestrian was trapped, while the Las Vegas team 

measure the percentage of pedestrians trapped. In other cases the field teams did not collect the 

same MOEs with which to compare in a cross-cutting analysis. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 4 

Based on these issues, the cross-cutting analyses presented in this report are somewhat limited, 

and these issues should be considered when interpreting the results and conclusions. 

RESULTS 

Results are presented for each of the 18 countermeasures (or combination of countermeasures) 

separately. For each countermeasure or group of countermeasures, the following information is 

presented: 

• Description of the countermeasure as it was deployed in each city 

• Brief description of the sites and manner in which the countermeasure was deployed 

• Measures of effectiveness used to assess the impacts of the countermeasure on pedestrian 

and / or driver behavior and / or mobility 

• A summary and cross-cutting analysis (if applicable) of the findings from the 

evaluation(s) 

• Discussion 

STATIC SIGNS

Several static signs were installed and tested for their impact on pedestrian safety. These signs 

included: 

• TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS Signs 

• In-street pedestrian signs 

• Pedestrian zone signs 

The findings for the site-specific evaluations for each of these signs are presented below. 

TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS Signs 

TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10-5 MUTCD 2003) signs are used to 

remind drivers who are making turns that they must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks, 

particularly at signalized intersections where right turns on red (RTOR) are permitted. 

These signs were installed by all three field teams. In Las Vegas and San Francisco, the text 

version of the sign, as shown in Figure 1, was installed at multiple intersections. In Miami, the 

signs used were symbol versions of the text signs installed in San Francisco and Las Vegas. 

These signs retained the text message TURNING VEHICLES and TO and substituted the yield 

symbol for the word YIELD and the pedestrian symbol for the word PEDESTRIAN (as 

illustrated in Figure 1). The purpose of using this symbol sign in place of the text message sign 

was to make the sign more comprehensible to tourists that were not native speakers of English 

and to increase the recognition distance of the sign.
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 5 

 

 Figure 1. Signs used in Las Vegas and San Francisco (Left) and Sign Used in Miami 

(Right) 

Deployment Locations 

In Miami, symbol versions of the signs were tested at two intersections along Collins Avenue in 

Miami Beach. These signs were placed on the mast arm next to the traffic signals and were 

intended for both left-turn and right-turn drivers. In Las Vegas, text signs were tested at two 

different positions at two high crash locations: at one intersection the sign was placed next to the 

traffic signal (on the far side of the intersection), while at the other intersection the sign was 

placed on a sign pole 50 feet ahead of the intersection. In both cases, the signs were placed on 

the right and were intended for drivers making right turns. At both sites, a pedestrian crossing 

warning sign was installed at the same time as the turning sign. In San Francisco the signs were 

installed at four intersections with similar characteristics. At three of the four sites, the signs 

were positioned in one quadrant of the intersection and were directed at left-turn drivers on one 

approach (Figure 2). At the fourth site, the sign was directed at drivers making right turns on one 

approach. These locations are identified in Table 2. 

Figure 2. Sign at Guerrero & 16th in San Francisco 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 6 

Table 2. TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS Signs Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Miami Collins & 17th 

Collins & 21st

Both sites are located in South Beach just four blocks from each 

other. 

San 

Francisco 

Mission & Ocean 

Mission & Avalon 

Mission & Persia 

Guerrero & 16th 

Three of the sites are located in the same zone (along Mission 

Avenue) and have common speeds, parking, and surrounding 

land uses. The Guerrero & 16th site is located closer to 

downtown San Francisco, but has similar characteristics to the 

other sites. 

Las Vegas Harmon & Paradise 

Lake Mead & Pecos 

Sign was deployed in Stage 2 (after installation of Danish offset, 

median refuge island, and high visibility crosswalk treatment). 

Sign was placed at the intersection and installed in combination 

with a pedestrian crossing warning sign on all approaches. 

Sign placed 50 feet upstream of intersection and installed in 

combination with a pedestrian crossing warning sign (only 

countermeasures installed at this location). Signs were installed 

on all four approaches to the intersection. 

Measures of Effectiveness 

Based on the placement of the signs, the teams collected a variety of MOEs to test the impacts of 

the signs on pedestrian safety and mobility, as well as driver mobility, as shown in Table 3. The 

primary purpose of the TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS text and symbol signs 

is to increase driver yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalks during turns. Therefore, MOEs 

considered critical in assessing the effectiveness of these signs included driver behaviors such as 

yielding, blocking crosswalks, and coming to a complete stop before making a right turn on red. 

Other MOEs important in the assessment of the signs included pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and 

pedestrian and vehicle delay. 

Table 3. Measures of Effectiveness for TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS 

Signs 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

Miami LV SF 

% of cycles where a pedestrian was trapped in the roadway √ √

% of drivers yielding to pedestrians √ √ √

% of RTOR drivers that come to a complete stop √

% of vehicles blocking crosswalk √

% of cycles with pedestrian-vehicle conflicts √ √ √

Pedestrian crossing time √

Pedestrian delay √ √
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 7 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

To test the effectiveness of the signs in increasing driver yielding during turns, the teams 

measured a variety of driver behaviors. Due to the sign placement on the mast arm in Miami and 

the intention for the sign to be directed at both left- and right-turning drivers, the Miami team 

measured yielding separately for drivers making left turns and for those making right turns. 

These results are presented in Table 4. The results in the table show that there was a highly 

significant increase in both left-turn and right-turn driver yielding at Collins & 21st, while there 

was an unexplained decrease in left-turn driver yielding at Collins & 17th. 

Table 4. Turning Driver Yielding in Miami 

% of Left-turning Drivers Yielding Site 

Before After % Change p-value 

Collins & 17th 59 

(n = 188) 

51 

(n = 370) 

-8 >0.05

Collins & 21st 50 

(n = 487) 

77 

(n = 207) 

+27 0.01 

% of Right-turning Drivers Yielding Site 

Before After % Change p-value 

Collins & 21st 63 

(n = 371) 

79 

(n = 132) 

+16 0.01 

Due to the sign placement on the right in Las Vegas and the intention for the sign to be directed 

at right-turning drivers, the Las Vegas team measured yielding for drivers making right turns on 

red (RTOR) separately from drivers making right turns on green (RTOG). These results are 

shown in Table 5. 

Table 5. Right-turn Driver Yielding in Las Vegas 

% of RTOR Drivers Yielding Site 

Before After % Change p-value 

Harmon & Paradise 

61.3 

(n = 31) 

73.3 

(n = 30) 

+12 0.156

Lake Mead & Pecos 

51.3 

(n = 76) 

90.9 

(n = 55) 

+39.7 <0.001 

% of RTOG Drivers Yielding Site 

Before After % Change p-value 

Harmon & Paradise 

73.5 

(n = 102) 

76.7 

(n = 90) 

+3.2 0.615

Lake Mead & Pecos 

81.9 

(n = 73) 

79.7 

(n = 64) 

-2.2 0.566 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 8 

The only significant impact on right-turn driver yielding at the two sites in Las Vegas was at 

Lake Mead & Pecos, where the sign was installed 50 feet upstream of the intersection. At this 

site, there was a highly significant increase in RTOR driver yielding. There was no significant 

change in yielding by drivers making RTOG. While there was an increase in driver yielding at 

Harmon & Paradise, it was not highly significant. This could be due to the fact that the sign was 

installed in Stage 2 following installation of a Danish offset, median refuge island, and high 

visibility crosswalk treatment. Over 60 and 70 percent of RTOR and RTOG drivers, 

respectively, were already yielding to pedestrians before installation of the signs in Stage 2. 

The San Francisco team found no significant impacts on the percentage of drivers yielding to 

pedestrians during turns. 

In addition to driver yielding, the San Francisco team also measured the distance drivers yielded 

before the crosswalk at each of the four sites where the signs were tested. The hypothesis was 

that the presence of the signs would encourage drivers to yield further away from the crosswalk. 

The team observed driver yielding and recorded whether drivers yielded within 5 feet of the 

crosswalk, between 5 and 10 feet of the crosswalk, or more than 10 feet from the crosswalk. The 

before and after distributions for each of the four test sites are shown in Figure 3 through Figure 

6. 

While the figures show that yielding distances after installation of the signs tended to increase at 

Mission & Avalon and at Guerrero & 16th, these changes were not statistically significant due to 

the small sample sizes. There were significant changes in driver yielding distance at Mission & 

Ocean and at Mission & Persia. At Mission & Ocean after installation of the signs, more drivers 

yielded within 5 feet of the crosswalk and fewer drivers yielded more than 10 feet from the 

crosswalk, a counterintuitive result. At Mission & Persia, there was a decrease in the number of 

drivers yielding within 5 feet of the crosswalk and more drivers yielding more than 10 feet from 

the crosswalk. 

Driver Yielding Distances at Mission & Avalon

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 5ft 5 - 10 ft >10 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 13)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 16)

Figure 3. Driver Yielding Distances at Mission & Avalon 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 9 

Driver Yielding Distances at Guerrero & 16th 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 5ft 5 - 10 ft >10 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 58)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 9)

Figure 4. Driver Yielding Distances at Guerrero & 16th

Driver Yielding Distances at Mission & Ocean

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 5ft 5 - 10 ft >10 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 407)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 470)

Figure 5. Driver Yielding Distances at Mission & Ocean (Significant Changes) 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 10 

Driver Yielding Distances at Mission & Persia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 5ft 5 - 10 ft >10 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 86)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 151)

Figure 6. Driver Yielding Distances at Mission & Persia (Significant Changes) 

The Las Vegas study team measured the percentage of drivers making a RTOR that came to a 

complete stop and the percentage of drivers blocking the crosswalk. The results are shown in 

Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. While there was a highly significant increase in drivers 

coming to a complete stop and a highly significant decrease in drivers blocking the crosswalk at 

Harmon and Paradise, the findings were the contrary at Lake Mead and Pecos. 

Table 6. RTOR Drivers That Come to a Complete Stop at Las Vegas Study Sites 

% of RTOR Drivers that Come 

Site to a Complete Stop 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Harmon & Paradise 

74.4 

(n = 129) 

97.5 

(n = 235) 

+23.1 <0.0001 

Lake Mead & Pecos 

75.4 

(n = 268) 

58 

(n = 200) 

-17.4* >0.05* 

*Counterintuitive result; however statistical test not significant due to 1-tailed test. 

Table 7. Drivers Blocking Crosswalk at Las Vegas Study Sites

% of Drivers Blocking the 

Site Crosswalk 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Harmon & Paradise 

10.9 

(n = 129) 

0 

(n = 235) 

-10.9 <0.0001 

Lake Mead & Pecos 

39.3 

(n = 267) 

82.3 

(n = 198) 

+43* >0.05* 

*Counterintuitive result; however statistical test not significant due to 1-tailed test. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 11 

There were few significant impacts on pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, which were observed 

infrequently at the test sites in both San Francisco and Miami. There was a significant increase 

in conflicts at Harmon and Paradise in Las Vegas. The significant impacts on pedestrian-vehicle 

conflicts are shown in Table 8. 

Table 8. Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflicts 

% of Pedestrian-Vehicle 

Location Site Conflicts 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Lake Mead & Pecos 

1.7 

(n = 345) 

0.23 

(n = 432) 

-1.47 0.021 

San Francisco Mission & Ocean 

2.4 

(n = 421) 

0.6 

(n = 481) 

-1.8 0.05 

There were no significant impacts on pedestrians trapped in the roadway in Miami or at Harmon 

& Paradise in Las Vegas. The percentage of pedestrians trapped in the roadway did drop from 

5.3 percent to 2.8 percent (p-value = 0.04) at Lake Mead & Pecos after installation of the signs 

50 feet upstream of the intersection. 

There were mixed and non-significant findings regarding pedestrian delay and crossing time at 

the San Francisco test sites and a significant increase in pedestrian delay at both Las Vegas sites. 

Discussion 

Driver yielding behaviors and conflicts were the primary MOEs for assessing the effectiveness 

of the signs. The results show that there were only a few measurable significant changes in 

driver yielding behaviors and conflicts, and there were inconsistencies in these significant 

findings across the sites where the signs were installed. An increase in actual turning driver 

yielding was measured at only two of eight sites where the signs were installed, at Collins & 21st

in Miami and at Lake Mead & Pecos in Las Vegas (where the sign was placed 50 feet upstream 

of the intersection). A decrease in conflicts was measured at only two of eight sites where the 

signs were installed, at Mission & Ocean in San Francisco and at Lake Mead & Pecos. Positive 

impacts on drivers stopping before RTOR and drivers blocking crosswalks were measured at 

Harmon & Paradise in Las Vegas (where the sign was placed at the intersection itself), while 

there were counterintuitive findings for the MOEs at Lake Mead & Pecos. Impacts on yielding 

distances were mixed across the four test sites in San Francisco. Based on these findings, it is 

difficult to make conclusions as the effectiveness of the signs in improving driver yielding 

behavior and in reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. 

It should be noted that neither of the signs evaluated in this project is proposed to be included in 

the next version of the MUTCD. The new R10-15 sign is similar to the text and symbol version 

tested in Miami, but includes color differences and a turning arrow. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 12 

In-street Pedestrian Crossing Signs 

In-street pedestrian crossing signs (2003 MUTCD R1-6 and R1-6a signs) are intended for use at 

uncontrolled (unsignalized) crosswalks to remind drivers of laws regarding pedestrians’ rightsof-way (Figure 7). They are more noticeable than roadside signs and may also exert a minor 

traffic-calming effect by effectively narrowing the inside lanes slightly on roads with no raised 

median. The signs can be installed with either a portable or fixed base. The dimensions of the 

signs are 12” x 44”, and the color is a fluorescent yellow-green diamond sheeting with 10” x 24” 

white high intensity sheeting inserts. The overall height of the signs is 47 inches. 

Figure 7. In-Street Pedestrian Sign in San Francisco 

In-street pedestrian crossing signs were installed and tested in Miami, Las Vegas, and San 

Francisco. According to the Miami team, the cost for each sign was $225.00. The installation 

cost was $50.00 per sign for a total cost of $275.00 per installed sign. 

Deployment Locations 

The study sites for in-street pedestrian crossing signs are shown in Table 9. In Miami, in-street 

pedestrian signs were placed at three unsignalized intersections along Collins Avenue in South 

Beach (Figure 8). Two signs were installed at each of the three intersections, one for the 

northbound Collins approach and one for the southbound Collins approach. In San Francisco, instreet pedestrian signs were placed at four intersections. In Las Vegas, eight in-street pedestrian 

signs were placed along Bonanza in between D and F Street (Figure 9). A modified version of 

the sign stating, “watch for pedestrians,” was used along Twain Avenue, and four of these signs 

were installed along Twain between Cambridge and Swenson Streets (Figure 10). Signs used in 

San Francisco and those used along Twain in Las Vegas did not include the STATE LAW or 

WITHIN CROSSWALK text associated with the MUTCD signs. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 13 

Table 9. Study Sites for In-street Pedestrian Crossing Signs 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Miami Collins & 6th 

Collins & 9th 

Collins & 13th 

This section of Collins Avenue is a 2-lane, 2-way roadway 

with parking on both sides of the roadway. The posted 

speed limit is 25 mph. 

San Francisco 16th & Capp (marked 

crosswalk) 

16th & Capp (unmarked 

crosswalk) 

Mission & France 

Mission & Admiral 

The treatment intersections are medium-sized, low-speed 

intersections, located in institutional, commercial, or 

industrial areas. Street parking is present at all intersections. 

Two intersections are four-legged; Mission and Admiral is a 

skewed intersection, while Mission and France is a Tintersection. All intersections are stop-controlled and have 

two-way flow. 

Las Vegas Bonanza between D and F 

Twain Avenue between 

Cambridge and Swenson 

This section of Bonanza is a multi-lane, 2-way roadway. 

This section of Twain is a multi-lane, 2-way roadway. 

Figure 8. In-street Pedestrian Signs in South Miami Beach 

Figure 9. In-street Signs along Bonanza between D and F Streets in Las Vegas 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 14 

Figure 10. Modified Version of In-street Pedestrian Sign Installed along Twain Avenue in 

Las Vegas 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The primary purpose of the in-street pedestrian signs is to increase driver awareness and yielding 

to pedestrians. Thus, MOEs considered critical in assessing the effectiveness of the in-street 

pedestrian signs included driver yielding, pedestrians trapped, and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. 

These and other MOEs collected by the teams are shown in Table 10. 

Table 10. Measures of Effectiveness for In-street Pedestrian Crossing Signs 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

Miami LV SF 

% of drivers yielding to pedestrians √ √ √

Distance drivers yielded to pedestrians in crosswalk √

% of cycles where a pedestrian was trapped in the roadway √ √ √

% pedestrian-vehicle conflicts √ √

Average pedestrian delay √ √

Summary/Analysis of Results 

The primary MOE used to assess the effectiveness of the in-street pedestrian signs was driver 

yielding. The Las Vegas team measured driver yielding to those pedestrians outside, but within 

200 feet of the crosswalks on Bonanza at D and F Streets. Along Twain, driver yielding was 

measured for pedestrians crossing mid block between Cambridge and Swenson. 

While the three field teams used different applications of the in-street pedestrian signs in terms 

of location and number of signs used, the signs proved to be very effective in increasing driver 

yielding. These results are shown in Table 11. Driver yielding increased from between about 13 

percent and 46 percent depending on the location and the level of driver yielding measured in the 

baseline. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 15 

Table 11. Driver Yielding 

% of Drivers Yielding 

Location Site to Pedestrians 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Collins & 6th 32 

(n = 400) 

78 

(n = 440) +46 0.01 

Collins & 9th 21 

(n = 400) 

65 

(n = 240) +44 0.01 

Miami 

Collins & 13th 34 

(n = 1200) 

69 

(n = 200) +35 0.01 

16th & Capp 

(marked crosswalk) 

60.5 

(n = 519) 

73.6 

(n = 447 +13.1 <0.01 

16th & Capp 

(unmarked crosswalk) 

39.6 

(n = 96) 

59.6 

(n = 109) +20 <0.01 

Mission & France 43 

(n = 164) 

78 

(n = 91) +35 <0.01 

San Francisco 

Mission & Admiral 22 

(n = 41) 

57.4 

(n = 47) +35.4 <0.01 

Bonanza between D and F 74 

(n = 89) 

47 

(n = 106) -27* >0.05 

Las Vegas Twain between Cambridge 

and Swenson 

7 

(n = 141) 

35 

(n = 79) +18 <0.001 

*Counterintuitive result; results are not significant due to 1-tailed test. 

In addition to the percentage of drivers that yielded to pedestrians, the Las Vegas team measured 

the distance at which drivers yielded to pedestrians. The hypothesis was that the signs would 

increase yielding distances. The team observed driver yielding and recorded whether drivers 

yielded within 10 feet of the pedestrian, between 10 and 20 feet of the pedestrian, or more than 

20 feet from the pedestrian. The before and after distributions for yielding distances are shown 

in Figure 11. Statistical comparisons were made for each of the three yielding distances, and the 

results showed that there was a significant increase in drivers yielding between 10 and 20 feet 

(15% increase, p < 0.05) and in drivers yielding more than 20 feet (15% increase, p < 0.05).
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 16 

Driver Yielding Distances on Bonanza between D St. and F St.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 10ft 10 - 20 ft >20 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 66)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 50)

Figure 11. Yielding Distances at Las Vegas Site Before and After Installation of In-street 

Pedestrian Signs 

While all three teams measured the percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway at the test sites, 

there were no significant changes in this MOE at any of the sites. 

There were no significant changes in the percentage of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at the Miami 

sites or at two of the three sites in San Francisco. Only at Mission & Admiral in San Francisco 

was there a significant decrease in pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Conflicts were reduced from 

17.1 percent in the baseline to 2.1 percent after installation of the knockdown signs (p = 0.02). 

There were no significant changes in average pedestrian delay in Las Vegas or at two of the three 

sites in San Francisco. Only at one of the sites in San Francisco (Mission & France) was there a 

significant change in average pedestrian delay after installation of the in-street pedestrian signs. 

Average pedestrian delay decreased from 7.9 seconds in the baseline to 5 seconds after 

installation of the knockdown signs (p = 0.02). 

Discussion 

Based on the results of these studies, in-street pedestrian crossings signs are highly effective at 

increasing driver yielding to pedestrians. The location at the roadway centerline appears to 

capture drivers’ attention more effectively than roadside signs. However, all three teams noted 

that while these signs were effective at increasing driver yielding, they had a very short lifespan 

at the many of the sites. In Miami, the test sites were narrow streets and did not have a median 

island to protect the signs. In Las Vegas, the signs were destroyed by trucks making turns at the 

test sites. Therefore, placement of the signs is critical to their continued effectiveness in 

increasing driver yielding and potentially improving pedestrian safety. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 17 

Pedestrian Zone Signs 

This countermeasure is intended to alert motorists that the upcoming section of roadway is 

associated with frequent pedestrian crossings. It includes a W11-2 pedestrian warning sign with a 

supplemental distance plaque (2 miles in the case of this deployment) that gives the distance that 

pedestrians may be encountered (Figure 12). The pedestrian warning sign is yellow in the shape 

of a diamond with a figure of a person walking. The Miami team acquired the signs for $25 each 

and installed them for $45 each. 

Deployment Locations 

Pedestrian zone signs were deployed at nine locations in the Miami area, approximately 30 feet 

from a crosswalk at an intersection. The signs were tested at a mid-block section of Collins 

Avenue between 10th Street and 11th Street, which is described in Table 12. The pedestrian 

zone warning sign was installed on Collins Avenue 10 meters north of 10th Street facing 

northbound traffic. 

 

Figure 12. MUTCD W11-2 Pedestrian Warning Sign and Supplemental Distance Plaque 

Table 12. Pedestrian Zone Sign Study Site 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Miami Collins Avenue 

between 10th and 

11th Street 

Midblock location in the heart of the South Beach entertainment 

area. Collins Avenue is 2-lanes at this area and on-street parking 

with an ADT of 29,500 and a speed limit of 30 mph. Area has high 

density of pedestrians and high incidence of pedestrian crashes. 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The Miami study team used the following four MOEs to assess the impacts of the pedestrian 

zone signs on driver and pedestrian behavior: 

• Vehicle speed 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 18 

• % driver braking 

• % of pedestrians trapped in the crosswalk 

• % of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts 

The team measured driver speed prior to passing a pedestrian and the percent of pedestrians 

crossing when a vehicle was present that a conflict occurred. The percent of drivers who applied 

their brakes in the vicinity of a pedestrian was measured as a way to capture driver yielding 

behavior. Additionally, the Miami team collected data on the percent of pedestrians that were 

trapped in the crosswalk. It was expected that the pedestrian zone signs would increase driver 

braking for pedestrians and decrease vehicle speed, trapped pedestrians, and pedestrian-vehicle 

conflicts because drivers would be more cautious and alert to pedestrians in the area of the sign. 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

Following the deployment of the pedestrian zone signs, vehicle speeds when pedestrians were 

present did not change significantly. Before the sign was installed, driver speed averaged around 

19 mph which was 10 mph below the posted speed limit of 30 mph. Driver speed probably did 

not decrease with the addition of the sign because speed was already so low. 

There were no significant changes in average vehicle speed, the percentage of drivers braking 

when a pedestrian was present, or in the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the roadway at the 

study site. No conflicts were observed in the before or after conditions. 

Discussion 

Collectively, these observations seem to indicate that the countermeasure was ineffective at 

altering driver behavior at this location. The researchers have suggested that this ineffectiveness 

may be related to the low speeds observed prior to deployment, which creates a “floor effect” in 

the data whereby there is not much margin for improvement. Also, the static nature of this 

warning sign against other signs may not draw the attention of many drivers. 

ACTIVE SIGNS

Two types of active signs were installed and tested for their impact on pedestrian safety. These 

signs included: 

• NO TURN ON RED (NTOR) signs 

• Portable radar speed trailers 

The findings for the site-specific evaluations of these signs are presented below. 

NO TURN ON RED (NTOR) Signs 

NO TURN ON RED (NTOR) signs are placed on signal mast arms as an indication to motorists 

that right turns on red are prohibited. The Miami team evaluated the relative effectiveness of 

three different types of NTOR signs was analyzed: 1) a static NO TURN ON RED (R10-11a 

2003 MUTCD) sign, 2) a static and conditional NO TURN ON RED WHEN PEDESTRIANS 

IN CROSSWALK sign (the pre-existing sign) (not in the existing or proposed MUTCD), and 3) 

an electronic NO TURN ON RED SIGN that is illuminated only during the phases when right 

turns are prohibited and a pedestrian has pushed the call button. Each of these signs is shown in 

Figure 13. The electronic sign used by the Miami study team displayed a “YIELD TO 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 19 

PEDESTRIANS” message during the green phase for right-turners and was dark during the 

protected right turn phase. 

Figure 13. Static and Active NTOR Signs Tested in Miami 

Deployment Locations 

NTOR signs were deployed at one site in Miami (Table 13). In Miami, the three different types 

of NTOR signs mentioned above were deployed in phases at the intersection of 41st and Pine 

Tree. The intersection was chosen for deployment because it is within a high crash zone. The 

study team collected data on drivers using a dedicated right turn lane on Pine Tree Drive with a 

right turn indication that preceded the pedestrian WALK phase. The crosswalk observed for the 

study was across the south leg of Pine Tree Drive at 41st Street. At the beginning of the study, the 

data were collected with the conditional NO TURN ON RED WHEN PEDESTRIANS IN 

CROSSWALK sign installed. In the next phase, the conditionalsign was replaced with a NO 

TURN ON RED sign. For the following phase, the static sign was replaced with the electronic 

sign. Finally, the electronic sign was removed and the conditional “NO TURN ON RED” sign 

was used again. 

Table 13. No Turn on Red Signs Study Site 

Location Study Site Site Description 

Miami 41st & Pine Tree Intersection of 2-way, four-lane arterials. Primary street is 41st with 

an ADT of 39,000 vehicles per day. 

Location with history of motorist-pedestrian crashes wherein 

motorist turned right on red into a crossing pedestrian. 

Prior to study, intersection had a conditional NTOR (when 

pedestrians in crosswalk). 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The purpose of NTOR signs is to reduce conflicts between right-turn vehicles and pedestrians by 

eliminate right turns during the red signal phase. Miami used the following four MOEs for the 

NTOR countermeasures: 

• Drivers violating NTOR 

• Drivers making stop before right turn 

• % pedestrian-vehicle conflicts 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 20 

The primary MOE for the NTOR signs was the percent of drivers violating the sign. Miami 

examined the effects of the sign on driver violations to include the percent of drivers violating 

the NTOR regardless of pedestrian presence and the percent of drivers violating the NTOR when 

pedestrians were at the curb. The percent of drivers making a stop before turning and pedestrianvehicle conflicts was also assessed by the Miami study team. 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

The results for the primary measure of effectiveness, percentage of drivers violating the NTOR 

restriction, are shown in Table 14. Driver violations varied somewhat between the three NTOR 

signs, but violations were lowest with the electronic sign present. Violations were also lowest 

with the electronic sign for the two subcategories of violations: percent violations when a 

pedestrian was present at the curb and percent violations when a pedestrian was present in the 

crosswalk. When a pedestrian was in the crosswalk there was a 34 percent violation rate for the 

conditional static sign, 11 percent violation rate with the static NTOR sign, and a 6 percent 

violation rate for the electric or active NTOR sign. When a pedestrian was waiting to start to 

cross, violation rates were 90 percent and 94 percent for the conditional and static NTOR signs 

whereas the rate was only 25 percent for the active NTOR sign. Interestingly, the violation rate 

when pedestrians were present at the curb jumped back up to 92 percent after the electronic sign 

was replaced with the static NTOR sign. 

Table 14. Drivers Violating NTOR 

Baseline % Drivers Violating the NTOR 

MOEs Conditional 

Static 

Static NTOR 

(Measure 1) 

Active 

NTOR 

(Measure 2) 

Static NTOR 

(Measure 3) 

p-value 

% violations—all 34 41 32 48 0.0008 

% violations when 

ped present at curb 90 94 25 92 0.0001 

% violations when 

ped present in 

crosswalk 

34 11 6 8 0.0001 

Drivers who violated the NTOR sign were observed to be much more likely to make a full stop 

with the electronic sign present (78 percent) than with either of the static signs (29 percent and 

31 percent). Likewise, drivers violating the sign were much less likely to make a rolling stop or 

not stop at all when the electronic sign was present than when either of the other signs were used. 

Full results are shown in Table 15 and graphically in Figure 14. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 21 

Table 15. Stopping Behavior of Driver Violators Making RTOR 

Baseline % Driver Violators Stopping Before RTOR 

MOEs Conditional 

Static 

Static NTOR 

(Measure 1) 

Active NTOR 

(Measure 2) 

Static NTOR 

(Measure 3) 

p-value 

% violators that 

made full stop 29 31 78 65 0.0001 

% violators that 

made rolling stop 30 29 9 20 0.0001 

% violators that did 

not stop 41 40 13 15 0.0001 

Stopping Behavior of Driver Violators at Miami Site

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 Baseline 

(Conditional Static)

 Measure 1 

(Static NTOR)

 Measure 2 

(Active NTOR)

 Measure 3 

(Static NTOR)

Condition

% of Drivers

Made full stop Made rolling stop Did not stop

Figure 14. Stopping Behavior of Driver Violators at Miami Site 

The results for drivers blocking the crosswalk are shown in Table 16. Interestingly, the percent 

of motor vehicles blocking the crosswalk rose with the electronic sign. The researchers 

hypothesize that this is the result of greater compliance with the prohibition (and therefore more 

people stopped waiting to turn). 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 22 

Table 16. RTOR Drivers Blocking Crosswalk 

Baseline % RTOR Drivers Blocking Crosswalk 

MOEs Conditional 

Static 

Static NTOR 

(Measure 1) 

Active NTOR 

(Measure 2) 

Static NTOR 

(Measure 3) 

p-value 

% drivers that 

blocked crosswalk 1.7 0 20.8 20.2 <0.0001

The frequency of evasive conflicts was small, but easily the lowest with the electronic sign (1 

percent for conditional static sign, 2 percent for the static NTOR sign, and 0.1 percent for the 

electronic NTOR sign). 

Discussion 

The results of this study indicate that the electronic NTOR sign was relatively effective in 

decreasing unsafe driver behaviors in the presence of pedestrians. Following installation of the 

electronic sign, there was a moderate reduction in overall turning violations (only 32 percent as 

compared to 41 percent with the static NTOR sign and 34 percent with the static conditional 

NTOR sign). Perhaps more importantly, there was a large reduction in turning violations when a 

pedestrian was present at the curb following installation of the electronic NTOR sign (only 25 

percent as compared to over 90 percent with the static signs). There was also an increase in 

complete stops made prior to violating the turn prohibition and a reduction in conflicts. This 

sign may be especially effective in visually cluttered areas where motorists are less likely to see 

and respond to a static sign. 

Portable Radar Speed Trailers 

Portable radar speed trailers are used to deter speeding. These devices can be installed along the 

side of the road - typically in parking areas - and display the speed of each approaching vehicle. 

Above a user-selected maximum, the signs “blank out” to avoid enticing drivers into exhibitions 

of speed. A computer within the device records speed data. 

Portable speed trailers were installed by all three field teams. In Miami and San Francisco, a 

speed limit sign was included on the trailer. In Las Vegas, the speed trailer display provided 

feedback on the fine associated with the speed, if applicable (Figure 15). In Miami, the speed 

trailers were furnished by the City of Miami Beach. The estimated cost for each trailer was $25 

per day. The estimated installation cost was $45 per trailer. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 23 

 Figure 15. Portable Radar Speed Trailers (Left: Signs used in Las Vegas; Right: Signs 

used in San Francisco) 

Deployment Locations 

In Miami, a speed trailer was tested at a mid-block location in Miami Beach. The speed trailer 

was parked beside the road on Collins Avenue just beyond 38th Street in advance of an 

uncontrolled mid-block crosswalk. In Las Vegas, a speed trailer was tested at a mid-block 

location along Fremont between 6th and 7th Streets. In San Francisco, speed trailers were tested 

at four different locations. The study sites are described in Table 17. 

Table 17. Portable Radar Speed Trailer Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Miami Collins between 38th

and 39th 

This segment of Collins runs one-way northbound with three 

lanes and parking on both sides of the road. The posted 

speed limit is 30 mph. 

Las Vegas Fremont between 6th

and 7th 

Fremont Street is classified as a minor arterial and the posted 

speed limit is 25 mph. First 15 days was installed on the 

north side of street. Then speed trailer was installed on south 

side of street (for eastbound traffic). 

San Francisco 16th & Capp1 

Mission & France 

Mission & Admiral1

Geary & 11th 

All intersections carry 2-way traffic on both streets. Side 

street traffic is controlled by stop signs. Posted speed limit at 

Mission & France and Geary & 11th is 40 mph. Posted speed 

limit at Mission & Admiral is 25 mph. 

1

 Note, speed trailers were towed away during data collection at these sites; therefore, results are not presented for 

these sites. 

Application of the speed trailers varied between the three locations. In Miami, the speed trailer 

was placed just downstream of a signalized intersection in advance of an uncontrolled mid-block 

crosswalk. At this site, pedestrians were observed crossing mid-block, outside of the designated 

uncontrolled midblock crosswalk. This site was selected to manage drivers’ speeds prior to this 

mid-block crossing area. In San Francisco, speed trailers were placed along streets in areas 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 24 

where the cross streets were controlled by stops signs only. These sites were selected to manage 

drivers’ speeds along these uncontrolled sections of roadway and to increase driver yielding to 

pedestrians attempting to cross the major streets in the crosswalks at the unsignalized 

intersections. 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The teams collected a variety of MOEs to test the impacts of the speed trailers on pedestrian 

safety and mobility, as shown in Table 18. The purpose of portable radar speed trailers is to 

deter speeding. Therefore, the most critical MOE in assessing the effectiveness of the speed 

trailers was vehicle speed in the vicinity of the speed trailers. Other MOEs important in the 

assessment of the speed trailers included driver yielding to pedestrians at mid-block locations, 

pedestrians trapped in the roadway, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian delay. 

Table 18. Measures of Effectiveness for Portable Radar Speed Trailers 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

Miami LV SF 

Vehicle speed √ √

% of drivers yielding to pedestrians √ √ √

% of cycles where a pedestrian was trapped in the roadway √ √

% of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts √ √

Pedestrian delay √

Summary/Analysis of Results 

Both the Miami and San Francisco teams measured vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the speed 

trailers. In Miami, speeds were measured for vehicles that were observed during a sample of 30 

pedestrians crossing outside of the crosswalk between 38th and 39th Streets. In San Francisco, 

vehicle speeds were measured in the vicinity of the speed trailers, which were placed upstream of 

crosswalks at 2-way stopped controlled intersections. These results are presented in Table 19. 

Table 19. Vehicle Speeds 

Vehicle Speed Location Site 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Miami Collins between 

38th and 39th

25.9 

(n = 3301

) 

26.2 

(n = 3001) 

+0.30 0.05 

Mission & 

France 

26 

(n = 642

) 

24 

(n = 462) 

-2 <0.01 

San Francisco 

Geary & 11th 29 

(n = 802

) 

25 

(n = 492) 

-4 <0.01 

1

 Number of pedestrian crossings observed 

2

 Number of vehicle-pedestrian interactions 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 25 

There was a statistically significant, albeit not practically significant, increase in mean speed 

measured on Collins Avenue. In San Francisco, there was a small but significant decrease in 

mean speed measured at both sites. 

In addition to measuring vehicle speeds, the teams measured driver yielding. The Miami team 

measured a surrogate for driver yielding by recording the percentage of drivers who applied the 

brakes when a pedestrian was crossing outside of the mid-block crosswalk. These results are 

presented in Table 20. The results show that the average number of drivers braking during midblock pedestrian crossings increased by about 10 percent while the speed trailer was at the site. 

The San Francisco team measured driver yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalks at the 2-way 

stop controlled intersections just downstream of the portable speed trailers. The Las Vegas team 

measured driver yielding to pedestrians crossing Fremont midblock between 6th and 7th Streets. 

The results are shown in Table 21. The results show that driver yielding increased significantly 

at Geary & 11th, and while there was an increase in yielding at Mission & France, it was not 

statistically significant. The Las Vegas team measured a large decrease in driver yielding. 

Table 20. Driver Braking on Collins Avenue in Miami 

% Driver Braking Site 

Before After % Change p-value 

Collins between 38th and 39th 44 

(n = 3301

) 

54 

(n =3001) 

+10 0.05 

1

 Number of pedestrian crossings observed 

Table 21. Driver Yielding 

% of Drivers Yielding to 

Location Site Pedestrians 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Mission & France 

78.1 

(n = 641

) 

89.1 

(n = 461) 

+11 0.20 

San Francisco 

Geary & 11th 37.5 

(n = 801

) 

59.2 

(n = 491) 

+21.7 0.01 

Las Vegas Fremont between 6th and 7th 67 

(n = 96) 

43 

(n = 28) 

-232 >0.052

1

Vehicle-pedestrian interactions 

2

Counterintuitive result; not significant due to 1-tailed test. 

There were almost no pedestrians trapped in the roadway before or after installation of the speed 

trailer at the Miami or Las Vegas sites. 

The San Francisco team also measured average pedestrian delay. The hypothesis was that if the 

speed trailers increased driver yielding to pedestrians mid-block that there would be a 

corresponding decrease in pedestrian delay. The average pedestrian delays before and after 

installation of the speed trailers are shown in Table 22. The results show that there was a 

significant decrease in average pedestrian delay at both sites, and these decreases correspond to 

the increases in driver yielding shown in Table 21. At Geary and 11th, average pedestrian delay 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 26 

decreased by about 4 seconds per pedestrian, which corresponds to the nearly 22 percent increase 

in the percentage of drivers yielding to pedestrians at this site after installation of the speed 

trailer. At Mission & France, average pedestrian delay decreased by 1.35 seconds. This smaller 

decrease corresponds to the 11 percent, albeit not statistically significant, increase in driver 

yielding at this site after installation of the speed trailer. 

Table 22. Average Pedestrian Delay 

Average Pedestrian Delay 

Site Location (sec) 

Before After 

Change 

(sec) p-value 

Mission & France San Francisco 

13.4 

(n = 113) 

12 

(n = 114) 

-1.4 0.01 

Geary & 11th San Francisco 

14.6 

(n = 71) 

10.5 

(n = 52) 

-4.1 0.01 

Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts were measured by the Miami and San Francisco teams. No vehiclepedestrian conflicts were observed in Miami either before or after installation of the speed 

trailers. In San Francisco, there were no significant changes in vehicle-pedestrian conflicts after 

installation of the speed trailers. There were also no significant impacts on pedestrians trapped 

in the roadway in Miami as a result of the speed trailer. 

Discussion 

Average vehicle speed and driver yielding were the primary MOE for assessing the effectiveness 

of the speed trailers. The results show only small reductions in average speeds at the San 

Francisco sites and no measurable changes in average speeds at the Miami sites. There were 

significant increases in the percentage of drivers yielding / braking during the presence of 

pedestrians at the Miami site and at one of the San Francisco sites, and this increase in yielding 

also resulted in significant decreases in pedestrian delay at both sites in San Francisco. There 

were no significant changes in the other MOEs measured by the teams in the assessment of 

portable speed trailers. Based on these findings, it appears that the speed trailers can impact 

drivers’ speeds and possibly increase their awareness of the presence of pedestrians at these 

locations. 

PAVEMENT MARKINGS

Several types of pavement markings were installed and tested for their impact on pedestrian 

safety. These pavement markings included: 

• High visibility crosswalk treatment 

• Advance stop lines 

• “LOOK” pavement stencils 

The findings for the site-specific evaluations for each of these pavement markings are presented 

below. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 27 

High Visibility Crosswalk 

The objective of the high visibility crosswalk is to enhance visibility of the crossing area in an 

attempt to indicate to drivers where pedestrians will be crossing the roadway. By increasing the 

visibility of the crosswalk, this countermeasure could also be expected to encourage more 

pedestrians to use crosswalks. 

High visibility crosswalks were installed in a number of locations in Las Vegas where existing 

crosswalks had faded or were otherwise inconspicuous to both drivers and pedestrians (Figure 

16). 

Figure 16. Example of High-visibility Crosswalks Tested in Las Vegas 

Deployment Locations 

The Las Vegas team installed a variety of countermeasures at each test site in a staged approach. 

Therefore, high visibility crosswalks were installed and tested at a number of intersections in Las 

Vegas. As such, the high visibility crosswalks were sometimes installed in combination with 

other countermeasures as well as in different stages of installment at the sites. This presentation 

of the results of the high visibility crosswalks includes only those locations where high visibility 

crosswalks were installed in Stage 1. These sites are described in Table 23. 

At the intersections of Flamingo & Koval and Lake Mead & Las Vegas Boulevards a high 

visibility crosswalk was installed in Stage 1 and was the only treatment applied to the 

intersections during this stage. At Maryland Parkway & Sierra Vista, a high visibility crosswalk 

was installed in stage 1 in combination with relocating the existing pedestrian warning sign and 

installing a raised pavement marking standard line 100 feet long at the upstream crosswalk. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 28 

Table 23. High Visibility Crosswalk Study Sites 

Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Flamingo & Koval 

Lake Mead & Las Vegas Blvds. 

Maryland Pkwy & Sierra Vista 

 

Installed in Stage 1 (only countermeasure) 

Installed in Stage 1 (only countermeasure) 

Installed in Stage 1 in combination with relocating the existing 

pedestrian warning sign and installing an RPM standard line from 

the crosswalk 100 feet upstream on the Maryland Pkwy 

approaches to the intersection. 

Measures of Effectiveness 

As the purpose of high visibility crosswalks is to enhance the visibility of the crossing area so 

that drivers are aware of where the pedestrians are crossing, the primary MOEs in assessing the 

effectiveness of the crosswalks include: 

• % of drivers yielding to pedestrians 

• Distance drivers yield before crosswalk 

• % drivers blocking crosswalk 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

The Las Vegas team measured driver yielding at the test sites both before and after installation of 

the high visibility crosswalks. Drivers that were observed were those making right turns on 

green on all four approaches to the intersections at Flamingo & Koval and Lake Mead & Las 

Vegas Blvds and those drivers making right turns on green and permissive left turns from 

Maryland Parkway onto Sierra Vista. The results are shown in Table 24. It can be seen that in 

all three locations there was actually a decrease in driver yielding after installation of the 

crosswalk treatments. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 29 

Table 24. Turning Driver Yielding to Pedestrians in Parallel Crosswalks 

% of Drivers Yielding to 

Site Pedestrians 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Maryland Pkwy & Sierra Vista 

(right turn on green and permissive 

left turn drivers from Maryland 

Pkwy onto Sierra Vista) 

63 

(n = 30) 

38 

(n = 158) -25* >0.05

Flamingo & Koval 

(right turn on green yielding on all 

four approaches) 

89 

(n = 164) 

7 

(n = 278) -82* >0.05

Lake Mead & Las Vegas Blvds. 

(right turn on green yielding on four 

approaches) 

35 

(n = 68) 

27 

(n = 247) -8* >0.05 

* Counterintuitive result; results are not significant due to 1-tailed test. 

The before and after measurements of the percentage of drivers blocking the crosswalks at each 

of the three test sites are shown in Table 25. These results are mixed, with a very large increase 

in drivers blocking the crosswalk at Maryland Parkway & Sierra Vista. The only significant 

decrease in the percentage of drivers blocking the crosswalk occurred at Flamingo & Koval, 

where the percentage dropped from 21 to 3 percent after installation of the high visibility 

crosswalk treatment. 

Table 25. Drivers Blocking Crosswalk 

% of Drivers Blocking 

Site Crosswalk 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Maryland Pkwy & Sierra Vista 

1 

(n = 89) 

61 

(n = 158) 

+60* >0.05

Flamingo & Koval 

21 

(n = 105) 

3 

(n = 88) 

-18 <0.0001 

Lake Mead & Las Vegas Blvds. 

21 

(n = 68) 

19 

(n = 247) 

-2 >0.05 

* Counterintuitive result; results are not significant due to 1-tailed test. 

The Las Vegas team also measured the distance that drivers yielded in advance of the crosswalk 

during their turns. The before and after distributions of driver yielding are shown in Figure 17 

through Figure 19. At Maryland Parkway & Sierra Vista (Figure 17) there was a significant shift 

in drivers yielding less than 5 feet from the crosswalk to drivers yielding 5 to 10 feet before the 

crosswalk. At Lake Mead & Las Vegas Boulevards (Figure 18) there was a similar shift, but the 

change was not statistically significant. At Flamingo & Koval (Figure 19) there was actually a 

significant increase (14 percent) in drivers yielding less than 5 feet from the crosswalk after the 

high visibility crosswalk treatment was installed. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 30 

Driver Yielding Distances at Maryland Parkway & Sierra Vista

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 5ft 5 - 10 ft >10 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 16)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 60)

Figure 17. Distribution of Driver Yielding Distances at Maryland Parkway & Sierra Vista 

Driver Yielding Distances at Flamingo & Koval

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 5ft 5 - 10 ft >10 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 139)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 19)

Figure 18. Distribution of Driver Yielding Distances at Flamingo & Koval 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 31 

Driver Yielding Distances at Lake Mead Blvd & Las Vegas Blvd

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 5ft 5 - 10 ft >10 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 24)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 67)

Figure 19. Distribution of Driver Yielding Distances at Lake Mead & Las Vegas 

Boulevards 

Discussion 

Based on these results, high visibility crosswalks do not appear to be effective in changing driver 

behaviors in a desirable way. This result could be due in part to the fact that the crosswalk 

markings deteriorated in a matter of weeks as a result of the heat causing a release of oils in the 

pavement. 

Advanced Stop Lines 

Vehicles often encroach into crosswalks while waiting either to make a right turn on red or for 

the signal to change. This behavior can prevent pedestrians from having a clear path to cross the 

street in the crosswalk. Advanced stop lines are pavement markings at intersections in advance 

of the crosswalk that indicate to motorists where they should stop at the intersection. They are 

intended to reduce the occurrence of motorists blocking the crosswalk and to reduce conflicts 

between pedestrians and vehicles. 

Advance stop lines were installed and tested in San Francisco, as shown in Figure 20. A 

supplemental countermeasure, red visibility curb zones, was evaluated concurrently. These red 

lines prohibit on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the intersection, thereby improving 

the visibility between pedestrians and motorists. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 32 

Figure 20. Advance Stop Lines Tested in San Francisco 

Deployment Locations 

Advance stop lines were installed and tested at two locations, one signalized intersection and one 

unsignalized intersection, in San Francisco. These study sites are described in Table 26. 

Table 26. Advance Stop Line Study Sites 

Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Geary & 11th Stop-controlled, major street with posted speed limit of 30 

mph, on-street parking, four legs, mixed residential land use 

Market & Noe Signalized, major street with posted speed limit of 25 mph, 

on-street parking, six legs, residential land use 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The purposes of advance stop lines are to remind drivers to stop before the crosswalk area, 

requiring drivers to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians to cross the road unimpeded by 

vehicles, and reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Thus, the MOEs critical to assessing the 

effectiveness of the advance stop lines include: 

• % of drivers yielding to pedestrians 

• Distance drivers yield (at Geary & 11th) 

• Vehicle stop position (at Market & Noe) 

• % of cycles pedestrian-vehicle conflicts 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

There were no significant changes in driver yielding, vehicle stopped position, or pedestrianvehicle conflicts at either site after installation of the advance stop lines. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 33 

Discussion 

Based on these results, it appears that advance stop lines had no impacts on driver behavior. 

LOOK Pavement Stencils 

LOOK pavement stencils are pavement markings designed to remind pedestrians to look for 

vehicles before crossing, as shown in Figure 21. These markings were tested in San Francisco as 

an inexpensive alternative to incorporating animated eyes in the countdown pedestrian signal. 

Originally, the San Francisco study team intended to use the countdown signal with animated 

eyes but was unable to due to lack of product availability. 

Figure 21. LOOK Pavement Stencils Tested in San Francisco 

The pavement markings used in San Francisco were three feet long and one foot wide, and were 

made using white thermoplastic material. The word LOOK was shown between two arrows 

pointing toward the directions of cross traffic. Eyeballs were added inside the Os to enhance the 

message. These pavement markings were applied to the roadbed facing the sidewalk along the 

gutter line. San Francisco also used bilingual, custom-made LOOK signs with both English 

words and Chinese characters in certain locations. 

Deployment Locations 

The LOOK pavement stencils were studied at four intersections in San Francisco (Table 27). 

Pedestrian and driver behaviors were observed at Harrison & 4th, Mission & 17th, and Geary & 

6th.whereas only customer satisfaction surveys were conducted at the Columbus & Broadway 

site. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 34 

 

Table 27. LOOK Pavement Stencils Study Sites 

Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Harrison & 4th 4-leg signalized intersection with low traffic speeds (25-30 mph) and onstreet parking. Located in primarily commercial district. Consists of oneway streets and includes turn lanes for a freeway on-ramp. 

Columbus & 

Broadway 

4-leg signalized intersection with low traffic speeds (25-30 mph) and onstreet parking. Located in primarily commercial district. Skewed 

intersection 

Mission & 17th 4-leg signalized intersection with low traffic speeds (25-30 mph) and onstreet parking. Located in primarily residential district. 

Geary & 6th 4-leg signalized intersection with low traffic speeds (25-30 mph) and onstreet parking. Located in primarily residential district. Raised median 

present on Geary 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The pavement stencils were expected to increase the number of pedestrians that look for vehicles 

before entering the crosswalk and to reduce vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. The following MOEs 

were used by San Francisco to test the effectiveness of the pavement stencils in meeting these 

objectives: 

• % of pedestrians that look before crossing 

• % of pedestrians that look towards intersection 

• % of pedestrians that look over shoulder 

• % of cycles with pedestrian-vehicle conflicts 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

The results for the primary MOE, pedestrian looking behavior, are shown in Table 28. The 

results show that the LOOK pavement stencils were not effective in increasing pedestrian 

looking behavior. The overall incidence of pedestrian looking actually decreased (increases were 

observed at one site), though the local data collection team cautions that this MOE was difficult 

to observe given the video data collection methodology. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 35 

Table 28. Pedestrian Looking Behavior 

% Pedestrians that Look 

Site Before Crossing 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Harrison & 4th 58.6 

(n = 232) 

49.1 

(n = 281) 

-9.5* 0.12

Mission & 17th 70.6 

(n = 506) 

53.3 

(n = 1410) 

-17.3* <0.01 

Geary & 6th 57.4 

(n = 418) 

55.3 

(n = 331) 

-2.1* 0.69 

% Pedestrians that Look 

Site Toward Intersection 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Harrison & 4th 37.9 

(n = 136) 

24.6 

(n = 138) 

-13.3* 0.02 

Mission & 17th 57.9 

(n = 357) 

43.8 

(n = 752) 

-14.1* <0.01 

Geary & 6th 34.7 

(n = 240) 

43.8 

(n = 180) 

+9.1 0.06 

% Pedestrians that Look 

Site Over Shoulder 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Harrison & 4th 1.3 

(n = 136) 

0 

(n = 138) 

-1.3* 0.25

Mission & 17th 20.6 

(n = 357) 

12.3 

(n = 752) 

-8.3* <0.01 

Geary & 6th 4.8 

(n = 240) 

22.7 

(n = 180) 

+17.9 <0.01 

* Counterintuitive result 

Regarding the occurrence of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, there were no significant changes after 

installation of the pavement stencils. 

Discussion 

It is not believed that the stencils were responsible for the changes in pedestrian looking 

behavior, but rather data collection inconsistencies or some other outside factor. Given the 

difficulty experienced by the data collection team, it is recommended that video camera angles 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 36 

and placements should be pilot tested to ensure that the MOEs are easily observable. Although 

the LOOK stencil markings are one of the least expensive countermeasures tested, the results 

indicate that this may not be an effective countermeasure. Additionally, the San Francisco team 

noted that they were highly susceptible to fading and blemishes. 

SIGNALS AND SIGNAL TIMING

A range of signals and signal timing strategies was implemented and tested for their impact on 

pedestrian safety. These signals and signal timing strategies included: 

• Pedestrian countdown signals 

• Call buttons that confirm the press 

• Automated pedestrian detection 

• Activated flashing beacons 

• Rapid flash beacon 

• Leading pedestrian interval (pedestrian head start) 

• Prohibition of permissive left turns 

The findings for the site-specific evaluations for these countermeasures are presented below. 

PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS 

This treatment consisted of a pedestrian countdown signal that displayed a walking person 

symbol during the WALK indication. It then counted down the seconds in the clearance phase 

along with the flashing hand display and finally, displayed the solid hand during the DON’T 

WALK indication which began during the all red phase. The signals were programmed to begin 

the countdown at the start of the pedestrian clearance (flashing hand) phase and counted down to 

0 at the end of the yellow phase. 

In Las Vegas, the signal also displayed “animated eyes” to remind pedestrians to look left and 

right for vehicles before crossing the street (Figure 22). 

Figure 22. Pedestrian Countdown Signal with Animated Eyes 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 37 

Deployment Locations 

Pedestrian countdown signal study sites are shown in Table 29. In Miami, pedestrian countdown 

signals were installed and tested at two sites just four blocks from each other in South Beach. 

Pedestrians were observed crossing Alton Road, a multi-lane arterial road in Miami Beach at 

Lincoln in the first site and at 16th at the second site. Pedestrian-vehicle collisions are more 

likely to occur among older pedestrians in this location than in other parts of Miami. 

In Las Vegas, pedestrian countdown signals were installed and tested at the intersection of 

Flamingo Road and Koval Lane. The countdown signals were deployed at all four crosswalks. 

At this intersection, there were three stages of pedestrian safety countermeasure deployment. 

The countdown signals were installed in the second stage following high-visibility crosswalks, 

which were geared more toward drivers. 

Table 29. Pedestrian Countdown Signals Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Miami Alton & Lincoln Alton is a multi-lane arterial with ADT of 46,000. 

Alton & 16th Alton is a multi-lane arterial with ADT of 46,000. 

Las Vegas Flamingo & Koval Flamingo Road is a major arterial with an ADT of 

40,500 near Koval Lane. 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The Miami and Las Vegas study teams used a variety of measures focused on pedestrian 

behavior to gauge the effectiveness of the pedestrian countdown signal in increasing pedestrian 

compliance with the signal and assisting pedestrians in making informed decisions about 

crossing so that they are less likely to be still be in the crosswalk at the end of the crossing phase. 

These MOEs are shown in Table 30. Two of the MOEs considered critical for assessing this 

countermeasure were the percent of pedestrians violating the signal and the percent of 

pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of the flashing DON’T WALK. Other important MOEs 

were used by the teams to look at other aspects of pedestrian signal compliance such as the 

percent of cycles in which the call button was pressed. 

At Alton and Lincoln, there was a long delay between the collection of baseline data and the 

installation of the countdown signals. At the other Miami site, Alton and 16th, the countdown 

signals were installed in the second phase of a two phase pedestrian safety countermeasure 

deployment at that intersection. During the first phase, call buttons that confirm the press were 

installed and the data collected at this phase were used as the baseline data for the next 

countermeasure that was installed, countdown pedestrian signals. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 38 

Table 30. Measures of Effectiveness for Pedestrian Countdown Signals 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

Miami LV 

% of cycles the call button was pressed √

% of pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of the flashing DON’T WALK √

% of pedestrians violating the signal √

% of pedestrians beginning their crossings during the WALK √

% of pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of the all red √

% of pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing √

Summary/Analysis of Results 

The Miami study team observed the percent of cycles where a pedestrian was present that the 

call button was pressed. The sites saw large, significant increases in call button presses as shown 

in Table 31. 

Table 31. Call Button Presses 

% of Cycles the Call 

Location Site Button was Pressed 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Miami Alton & Lincoln 

35 

(n = 450) 

95 

(n = 450) 

+60 0.01 

Miami Alton & 16th 62.7 

(n = 810) 

79.7 

(n = 300) 

+17 0.01 

The Las Vegas team measured a 19 percent increase in pedestrians still in the crosswalk at the 

end of the flashing DON’T WALK (Table 32), which was a counter-intuitive finding. 

Table 32. Pedestrians in the Crosswalk after Flashing DON’T WALK 

% Pedestrians in the 

Crosswalk at the End of the 

Location Site Flashing DON’T WALK 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Flamingo & 

Koval 

31 

(n = 455) 

50 

(n = 544) 

+19* >0.05* 

*

Counterintuitive result; not significant due to 1-tailed test. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 39 

In Las Vegas, the percent of pedestrians violating the signal remained the same at the low level 

of 5 percent (Table 33). The lack of decrease with the introduction of countdown pedestrian 

signals may be due to the already low level of violators. Las Vegas’ definition of signal 

violation includes only those pedestrians who step into or near the crosswalk during the solid red 

hand. 

Table 33. Pedestrians Violating the Signal 

% Pedestrians Violating the 

Location Site Signal 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Flamingo & Koval 

5 

(n = 303) 

5 

(n = 235) 

0 NA 

Results from Las Vegas in Table 34 show that there was a large and significant increase in the 

percent of pedestrians that began their crossing during the WALK phase. This increase 

corresponds to the increase in the percent of signal cycles that the call button was pushed, but 

does not seem to align with the increase in pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of the flashing 

red hand, presumably because the increase in pedestrians entering the crosswalk earlier in the 

phase should mean a decrease in pedestrians still in the crosswalk late in the phase. 

Table 34. Pedestrians Beginning their Crossings during the WALK 

% Pedestrians Beginning their 

Location Site Crossings during the WALK 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Flamingo & Koval 

51 

(n = 455) 

80 

(n = 544) 

+29 <0.001 

The Las Vegas team measured a significant increase in the percent of pedestrians that looked for 

vehicles before crossing at the study site (Table 35). 

Table 35. Pedestrians that Look for Vehicles Before Crossing 

% of Pedestrians who Look 

Location Site for Vehicles Before Crossing 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Flamingo & Koval 

63 

(n = 380) 

86 

(n = 235) 

+23 <0.001 

There were no significant impacts of the pedestrian countdown signal countermeasure on the 

percentage of pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of the all red in Las Vegas. 

Discussion 

The increased use of the call buttons after installation of the countdown signals points to an 

increase in safe pedestrian behavior as a result of the pedestrian countdown signals. The increase 

in call button pushing was anticipated because the pedestrians receive more feedback when they 

press the button. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 40 

The results from the Las Vegas study team were mixed. While Las Vegas found a 29 percent 

increase in pedestrians beginning their crossings during the WALK phase and a consistent low 

level of pedestrians violating the signal (5 percent), they measured a substantial (19 percent) 

increase in pedestrians that were still in the crosswalk at the end of the flashing DON’T WALK. 

Two of the crosswalks at this intersection were very long, requiring pedestrians to cross 10 lanes 

within 22 seconds. The Las Vegas researchers noted that this was not enough time for some 

pedestrians to cross which may account for some of the high percent of pedestrians in the 

crosswalk at the end of the flashing DON’T WALK in the before (31 percent) and after cases (50 

percent), but it is still unknown what the reasons were for the combination of shifts seen in 

pedestrian crossings between the before and after conditions. 

The Las Vegas study team also measured pedestrians’ looking behavior before crossing and 

found a large (23 percent) increase in the percent of pedestrians that looked before crossing the 

street. It is possible that the animated eyes incorporated into the countdown signal deployed by 

Las Vegas led pedestrians to be more watchful when crossing the street. 

In summary, the pedestrian countdown signal appears to be an effective and low cost way to 

increase safe pedestrian behavior. 

Call Buttons that Confirm the Press 

Call buttons that confirm the press consist of a pedestrian stainless steel push button with a piezo 

driven solid state switch that provides two types of feedback when the push button is pressed. 

First, the button is illuminated with a 1200 millicandela red light emitting diodes (LED) for 0.1 

second (Figure 23). Second, a 2.6 kHz tone is sounded simultaneously with the LED flash when 

the button is pressed and a 2.3kHz tone is sounded when the button is released. The device could 

also be modified so the light remains on until the onset of the “WALK” indication. The audio 

and visual feedback helps to ensure that the feedback will be detected by pedestrians even with 

bright sunlight. 

As reported by the Miami team, the cost for each pedestrian push button was $105.00. The 

installation cost was $40.00 per call button for a total cost of $145.00 per installed button. 

Figure 23. Call Buttons Tested in Miami 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 41 

Deployment Locations 

The Las Vegas study team deployed the push button that confirms press at all four crosswalks of 

the intersection of Fremont Street and 7th Street. Fremont Street is a minor arterial where 

pedestrian safety issues include not using the crosswalks, a high percentage of elderly 

pedestrians involved in crashes, and pedestrians failing to yield. In Miami, the buttons were 

installed at 17 intersections but data were collected at only two intersections: 41st Street & Pine 

Tree Drive and Alton Road & 16th Street. Call buttons that confirm the press were installed only 

at the crosswalks across 41st Street and Alton Road, whereas in Las Vegas, call buttons that 

confirm the press were installed for all four crosswalks at the study site. The study sites are 

summarized in Table 36. 

Table 36. Call Buttons that Confirm the Press Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Description 

41st Miami St. and Pine Tree Dr. Multilane arterial with bi-directional ADT of 39,000 . 

Alton Road and 16th St. Multilane arterial with bidirectional ADT of 46,000. 

Las Vegas Fremont St and 7th St. Minor arterial, commercial land use area with hotels and 

casinos. Speed limit of 25 mph on Freemont. 4-legged 

intersection. ADT on Fremont Street is 13,800 (2006). 

 Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) 

The teams used a variety of MOEs to assess the effectiveness of the call buttons that confirm the 

press. Call buttons that confirm the press give pedestrians feedback to let them know that the 

button is operating and that the signal is responding to their request. This is likely to increase 

confidence in pedestrians that the signal system is serving their needs as well as the motorists’ 

needs. This is expected to lead to an increase in push button use by pedestrians as well as fewer 

signal violations by pedestrians. Because pedestrians are waiting for the WALK to cross, there 

should also be fewer pedestrians trapped in the roadway. 

The specific MOEs used to assess the effectiveness of the call buttons that confirm the press are 

shown in Table 37. MOEs considered to be critical in assessing the effectiveness of the buttons 

include the frequency of pedestrian signal violations and the percent of cycles in which the 

button had been pushed. Other important MOEs include the frequency of pedestrians crossing 

during the WALK and pedestrians trapped. 

Table 37. Measures of Effectiveness for Call Buttons that Confirm the Press 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

Miami LV 

% of cycles in which call button has been pushed √

Frequency of pedestrian signal violation √ √

Pedestrians crossing during the WALK √ √

Pedestrians trapped √ √
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 42 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

The Miami study team measured the percent of signal cycles in which the call button was 

pressed when there was a pedestrian present with the opportunity to press the button. The results 

in Table 38 below show a significant increase in the call button presses across both Miami sites. 

Table 38. Percent of Signal Cycles Call Button was Pressed 

% Cycles Call Button 

Location Site Pressed 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

41st St. and Pine Tree Dr. 

33.8 

(n = 420) 

58.1 

(n = 570) 

+24.3 0.01 

Miami 

Alton Road and 16th St. 

41.8 

(n = 600) 

54.2 

(n = 810) 

+12.4 0.01 

The percent of pedestrian signal violations was defined differently in Miami and Las Vegas. The 

Miami study team used a stricter definition of pedestrian signal violation such that any crossing 

that began outside of the WALK phase was considered a violation. In Las Vegas, a violation 

was recorded only when the pedestrian began crossing when the solid red hand was displayed on 

the pedestrian head. The before and after results of the pedestrian signal violations are shown in 

Table 39. The results below show significant decreases in the percentage of pedestrians 

violating the signal across both definitions of violation in both Miami and Las Vegas. 

Table 39. Percent of Pedestrians Violating Signal 

% Pedestrians that Began 

Their Crossing outside of Location Site the WALK Phase 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

41st St. and Pine Tree Dr. 

70.4 

(n = 879) 

52.6 

(n = 1044) 

-17.8 0.01 

Miami 

Alton Road and 16th St. 

59.7 

(n = 1577) 

51.7 

(n = 2490) 

-8 0.01 

% Pedestrians that Began 

Their Crossing during the Location Site Solid DON’T WALK Phase 

Before After 

% 

Change 

pvalue 

Las Vegas Fremont St.: 6th St. to 8th St. 

14 

(n = 437) 

9 

(n = 275) 

-5 <0.05 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 43 

The Miami and Las Vegas study teams both looked at the impact that the call buttons that 

confirm press had on pedestrians beginning to cross during the WALK phase. This is a similar 

measure to the percent of pedestrians violating the signal, although it is not quite the inverse of 

this measure in either the Miami or Las Vegas studies. Miami measured the percent of 

pedestrians who pushed the call button that waited to cross during the WALK phase. This is 

more restrictive than the measure used by the Las Vegas team where any pedestrian crossing 

during the WALK phase was counted, not just those that pushed the button. The results are 

shown in Table 40. 

The results from Miami show a significant increase in the percent of pedestrians who press the 

button that wait to cross until the WALK phase. Las Vegas actually measured an insignificant 

decrease in the percent of pedestrians that crossed during the WALK phase. The percent of 

pedestrians beginning to cross during the WALK phase was fairly high (79 percent) before the 

push button was installed, so it may be that all of the pedestrians that would be persuaded to push 

the button by this new countermeasure were already doing so. 

Table 40. Pedestrians Crossing during the WALK Phase 

% Pedestrians who 

Pressed Button that 

Location Site Waited for WALK Phase 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

41st St. and Pine Tree Dr. 

51.2 

(n = 142) 

72.5 

(n = 331) 

+21.3 0.01 

Miami 

Alton Road and 16th St. 

82.1 

(n = 248) 

85.9 

(n = 439) 

+3.8 0.05 

% Pedestrians that Begin 

Crossing during the Location Site WALK Phase 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Las Vegas Fremont St.: 6th St. to 8th St. 

79 

(n = 202) 

71 

(n = 248) 

-8 >0.05 

Both study teams found a small decrease in the percent of signal cycles that pedestrians were 

trapped in the roadway although that decrease was significant in only two of the three 

intersections studied (Table 41). Since pedestrians get trapped in the roadway often when they 

begin crossing late in the cycle, a decrease would be reasonable given the corresponding increase 

in pedestrians beginning their crossings during the WALK phase. 

For this MOE, both the Miami and Las Vegas research teams scored a pedestrian as trapped if 

the pedestrian had to wait at least 5 seconds before finishing crossing in the middle of the road, 

at the centerline, or between lanes because of through traffic or a string of turning vehicles. 

Miami measured the percent of cycles in which a pedestrian crossed that a pedestrian was 

trapped. In Miami, the percentage of cycles that a pedestrian was trapped was computed by 

dividing the number of times a pedestrian was trapped in the road by the number of cycles that a 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 44 

pedestrian crossed. Alternatively, Las Vegas looked at the percent of crossing pedestrians that 

were trapped. 

Table 41. Pedestrians Trapped in the Roadway 

% Cycles Pedestrians 

Location Site Trapped in the Roadway 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Miami 41st St. and Pine Tree Dr. 

3.8 

(n = 420) 

3.1 

(n = 570) 

-0.7 >0.05 

Miami Alton Road and 16th St. 

4.7 

(n = 600) 

2.4 

(n = 810) 

-2.3 0.025 

% Pedestrians Trapped in 

Location Site the Roadway 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Las Vegas Fremont St.: 6th St. to 8th St. 

2 

(n = 437) 

0.4 

(n = 275) 

-1.6 <0.05 

Discussion 

The call button that confirms press shows a fairly strong positive impact on safe pedestrian 

behaviors in both Miami and Las Vegas. Out of all three intersections tested, the data indicate a 

significant decrease in pedestrian signal violations. The Miami study team found a significant 

increase in button pushing behavior and the percent of pedestrians who pushed that call button 

that waited to cross until the WALK phase. Additionally, two out of three intersections studied 

showed a significant decrease in pedestrians trapped in the roadway. Given these findings, the 

call button that confirms press has been demonstrated to be a cost-effective way to increase safe 

pedestrian behavior. It was difficult to see the LED light in bright Florida sunlight. It appeared 

that the auditory feedback was more critical to the efficacy of the device. In areas with less bright 

sunlight the pilot light might be more salient. These buttons might also be useful to visually 

impaired pedestrians because they confirm the button press. However, accessible call buttons 

with a locator tone would be preferred when taking into account the needs of visually impaired 

pedestrians. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 45 

Automated Pedestrian Detection 

Automated pedestrian detection is used to automatically detect pedestrians and put a call into the 

traffic signal or some other device to warn drivers of the presence of pedestrians. Automated 

pedestrian detection was deployed in Miami and San Francisco to either activate the pedestrian 

phase or to adjust signal timing as needed to accommodate pedestrians in the crosswalk. In 

Miami, video detection technology was deployed to detect pedestrians on the sidewalk 

approaching the curb at a mid-block traffic signal. Two rectangular zones were set up on the 

sidewalk approaching the curb, and pedestrians had to cross both zones to trigger the device. The 

device could determine direction of movement by the order in which the zones were crossed. 

With this method the pedestrian only put in a call when entering the crosswalk. 

In San Francisco, video detection technology was installed to provide additional crossing time 

for pedestrians in the crosswalk. There were three detection zones, including the south curb 

zone, the center zone, and the north curb zone. As a pedestrian crossed the street, a video camera 

mounted on a utility pole detected the pedestrians crossing into each zone (Figure 24). If a 

pedestrian was detected at a time and location where it was predicted that the pedestrian would 

not reach the curb before the light turned red, the signal controller extended the solid red hand 

(Don’t Walk), along with the green ball for the parallel motor vehicle traffic, up to 3 seconds. 

When such an extension was made, a compensating reduction in the Walk phase on the next 

cycle was made so that the cross street did not lose overall green time at the signal. 

Figure 24. Camera Used for Automated Pedestrian Detection 

Deployment Locations 

The video detection system in Miami was installed at one mid-block traffic signal along Alton 

Road in South Beach. At this mid-block crossing, pedestrians do not always use the push button 

to activate the traffic signal that provides them a protected crossing. The video detection system 

in San Francisco was installed at one crosswalk at the intersection of 9th and Howard Streets in 

the SOMA West District. Table 42 shows the automated pedestrian detection study sites. 

Table 42. Automated Pedestrian Detection Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Miami Alton Road Mid-block traffic signal 

San Francisco 9th & Howard Intersection crosswalk 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 46 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The field teams collected a variety of MOEs to test the impacts of the pedestrian detection 

technology on pedestrian safety and mobility, depending on the purpose of the pedestrian 

detection. These MOES are shown in Table 43. In Miami, the purpose of the pedestrian 

detection was to detect pedestrians at the curb before they entered the crosswalk, putting a call 

into the traffic signal controller to provide a WALK for the pedestrians and a red light for the 

roadway motor vehicle traffic. 

In San Francisco, the purpose of the pedestrian detection was to extend the walk time for 

pedestrians still in the crosswalk late in the clearance phase. MOEs considered to be critical to 

assessing the automated pedestrian detection in this study were pedestrian clearance and 

pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. 

Table 43. Measures of Effectiveness for Automated Pedestrian Detection 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

Miami SF 

% of cycles where a pedestrian was trapped in the roadway √ √

% of pedestrians crossing entire crosswalk during the WALK √ √

% of pedestrians that cleared crosswalk during flashing DON’T WALK √

% of pedestrians that cleared crosswalk during red hand √

% of pedestrians pressing the call button √

% of pedestrians crossing during the WALK √

% of pedestrians crossing 2nd half of crosswalk during the WALK √

% of pedestrians crossing none of the crosswalk during the WALK √

% vehicle-pedestrian interactions √

% of cycles with pedestrian-vehicle conflicts √ √

Pedestrian delay √

% of diverted pedestrians √

Note: Miami broke down those pedestrians not crossing entirely on the WALK into two groups: 1) those that 

benefited from the WALK call put in by automatic detection for the second half of the crossing (last two lanes), and 

2) those that did not benefit at all because they finished the crossing before the WALK (crossed none of the 

crosswalk during the WALK). 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 47 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

There were no significant impacts on pedestrian clearance at the intersection crosswalk in San 

Francisco or at the mid-block crosswalk in Miami where pedestrian detection was installed. 

There were significant reductions in pedestrians being trapped in the roadway in the mid-block 

crosswalks in Miami, as shown in Table 44, but not in San Francisco (there were no pedestrians 

trapped in either the baseline or post deployment in San Francisco). After the pedestrian 

detection was installed, the Miami team measured a 9 percent reduction in the percentage of 

cycles where a pedestrian was trapped. 

Table 44. Pedestrians Trapped in the Roadway 

% of Cycles Where 

Pedestrian is Trapped / Location Site % Pedestrians Trapped 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Miami Alton Road mid-block 

crossing (cycles) 17 8 -9 0.0453 

San Francisco 9th & Howard 

(pedestrians) 0 0 0 NA 

There was a very low incidence of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts both before and after installation 

of the pedestrian detection in Miami and San Francisco, and there were no significant impacts of 

the pedestrian detection systems on the other MOEs collected by the teams. 

Discussion 

The only significant finding, a 9 percent reduction in the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway at the Miami study intersection, suggests that pedestrians may have been making safer 

crossings; however, there were no measurable impacts of the pedestrian detection systems on 

pedestrian clearance or conflicts with motor vehicles. The San Francisco team did note that the 

technology appeared to be a promising, but needed further testing and refinement 

Activated Flashing Beacons 

Activated flashing beacons are used to alert drivers to a pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk 

ahead and to encourage pedestrians to cross at the crosswalk. This countermeasure consists of 

flashing yellow lights at a crosswalk that are either activated by the pedestrian pushing a button 

at the curb or by an automated pedestrian detection device. In Las Vegas, the flashing yellow 

lights were over the crosswalk on a mast arm and included downward lighting above the 

crosswalk, as shown in Figure 25. The lights were activated by a pedestrian pushing a button at 

the curb. The flashing yellow lights used in San Francisco were mounted on poles located on the 

side of the road at the crosswalk, as shown in Figure 26. A push button was used for activation 

at one site (16th & Capp) in San Francisco and automated detection with infrared sensors was 

used for the other site (Mission & Santa Rosa). The infrared sensors were installed on the curb 

using both an above ground bollard and an in-surface activation device, as shown in Figure 27. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 48 

Figure 25. Overhead Flashing Beacons Tested in Las Vegas 

Figure 26. Activated Flashing Beacons Used in Las Vegas (Left) and San Francisco (Right) 

Figure 27. In-surface (Left) and Above Ground Bollard (Right) Sensors Used in San 

Francicso 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 49 

Deployment Locations 

The activated flashing beacon study sites are described in Table 45. In Las Vegas, the activated 

flashing beacon was deployed at the unsignalized intersection of Maryland Parkway and Dumont 

Street, a primarily commercial area with shopping complexes and a shopping mall. Maryland 

Parkway is a major arterial with a speed limit of 30 mph and an ADT of 43,000. Dumont Street 

is a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The activated flashing beacons and push 

buttons were installed for pedestrians crossing either direction across Maryland Parkway. 

The flashing beacons were installed in the third stage of a three-stage pedestrian safety 

improvement effort at that intersection. Prior to the installation of flashing beacons, the 

following countermeasures were deployed: Danish offset, median refuge, high-visibility 

crosswalk, and advance yield markings with a vehicles-must-yield-to-pedestrians sign. 

In San Francisco, the activated flashing beacon was tested at two intersections. Two types of 

flashing beacons were studied at two intersections. At 16th & Capp, the beacon was push button 

activated and at Mission & Santa Rosa it was activated by infrared automatic detection. 

The countermeasure was deployed at 16th and Capp for pedestrians crossing 16th at a marked 

intersection on the west side. The second deployment site was Mission and Santa Rosa for the 

marked crosswalk over Mission on the north side of the intersection. Advanced stop lines were 

also installed at both sites in San Francisco. The lines were installed on at the Mission and 16th

approaches. The intersection of 16th and Capp additionally received an in-street pedestrian yield 

sign. 

Table 45. Activated Flashing Beacons Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

A 4-legged intersection in a commercial area. Maryland Parkway 

is a major arterial with a speed limit of 30 mph and an ADT of 

43,000. 

16th & Capp A 4-legged intersection in a mixed land use area near a transit 

station and school. Capp is stop-controlled. There are 3 through 

lanes on 16th and 2 through lanes on Capp at the intersection. 

The speed limit is 25 mph. 

San 

Francisco 

Mission & Santa 

Rosa 

A 3-legged intersection in a mixed residential and commercial 

area with a 25 mph speed limit. There are 4 through lanes on 

Mission and 2 through lanes on Santa Rosa at the intersection. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 50 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The Las Vegas and San Francisco study teams collected a variety of MOEs to test the impacts of 

the activated flashing beacons on pedestrian safety and mobility, as well as driver mobility, as 

shown in Table 46. Activated flashing beacons were expected to reduce vehicle-pedestrian 

conflicts, to increase the number of drivers that yield to pedestrians, as well as to increase the 

number of pedestrians that cross within the designated crosswalk. It was also expected that this 

countermeasure would help reduce pedestrian delay due to increase driver yielding. The 

countermeasure was not expected to significantly increase driver delays. Measures of 

effectiveness considered critical for assessing activated flashing beacons were percent of 

pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians, distance drivers yield 

before crosswalks, and percent of diverted pedestrians. Other important MOEs are also included 

in Table 46. 

Table 46. Measures of Effectiveness for Activated Flashing Beacons 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

LV SF 

% of diverted pedestrians √ √

% of pedestrians trapped in the roadway √ √

% of drivers yielding to pedestrians √ √

Distance drivers yield before crosswalk √ √

Average pedestrian delay √ √

Average vehicle delay √

% pedestrian-vehicle conflicts √

Summary/Analysis of Results 

To assess the effectiveness of the activated flashing beacons on pedestrian safety, the teams 

measured the percent of diverted pedestrians, or the percentage of pedestrians that modified their 

paths to use the crossing with the flashing beacons, and that walked out of their way to do so. 

The results of this measure are presented in. The only significant result shows a decrease in the 

percent of diverted pedestrians, a counterintuitive result. Table 47. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 51 

Table 47. Diverted Pedestrians 

% of Diverted 

Location Site Pedestrians 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

11 

(n = 198) 

23 

(n = 452) 

+12 <0.01

San Francisco 16th & Capp 

16.1 

(n = 372) 

16.4 

(n = 324) 

-0.3 0.92 

San Francisco Mission & Santa Rosa 

19.1 

(n = 319) 

9.5 

(n = 327) 

-9.6* <0.01 

*Counterintuitive result 

The study teams also measured the percent of pedestrians that were trapped in the roadway 

before and after the flashing beacons were installed. Although all three sites showed a decrease, 

only one site had a statistically significant decrease in the percent of pedestrians trapped as 

presented in Table 48. 

Table 48. Trapped Pedestrians 

% of Pedestrians 

Location Site Trapped in the Roadway 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

4 

(n = 198) 

1.3 

(n = 452) 

-2.7 >0.05

San Francisco 16th & Capp 

1.3 

(n = 372) 

0 

(n = 120) 

-1.3 0.34 

San Francisco Mission & Santa Rosa 

4.1 

(n = 319) 

0 

(n = 327) 

-4.1 <0.01 

The study teams also assessed the impact of the activated flashing beacons on driver yielding, 

and the results are shown in Table 49. The Las Vegas study team measured no change in the 

percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians; however, this follows several increases in yielding 

measured in the first two phases of pedestrian safety countermeasure installations at the 

Maryland Parkway and Dumont intersection. Figure 28 and Figure 29 show the results of the 

driver yielding measured at the two San Francisco sites. At these sites, the San Francisco team 

recorded drivers yielding to all pedestrians (“full yield), drivers yielding to some, but not all 

pedestrians (“partial yield”), and drivers not yielding. At both sites there was a significant 

increase in the percent of drivers fully yielding to pedestrians and a corresponding drop in 

drivers that did not yield. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 52 

Table 49. Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians 

% of Drivers Yielding to 

Site Pedestrians 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Maryland Pkwy & Dumont 

76 

(n = 246) 

77 

(n = 840) 

+1 >0.05 

Driver Yielding at 16th & Capp in San Francisco

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Full yield Partial yield No yield

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 188)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 227)

Figure 28. Driver Yielding at 16th & Capp 

Driver Yielding at Mission & Santa Rosa in San Francisco

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Full yield Partial yield No yield

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 188)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 227)

Figure 29. Driver Yielding at Mission & Santa Rosa 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 53 

The effects of the activated flashing beacon on the distance from the crosswalk that drivers 

yielded are shown in Figure 30. The Las Vegas team grouped drivers yielding less than 10 feet 

from the crosswalk, between 10 and 20 feet, and greater than 20 feet from the crosswalk. The 

Las Vegas results show a substantial decrease in the percentage of drivers yielding closer to the 

crosswalk (less than 10 feet) (p<0.001). The results also show significant increases in the 

percentage of drivers yielding 10 to 20 feet away and in drivers yielding more than 20 feet away 

(p<0.001 and p<0.05, respectively). 

Driver Yielding Distances at Maryland Parkway & Dumont

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 10ft 10 - 20 ft >20 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 188)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 645)

Figure 30. Driver Yielding Distances at Maryland Parkway & Dumont 

The San Francisco team looked at drivers yielding less than 5 feet from the crosswalk, between 5 

and 10 feet, and greater than 10 feet from the crosswalk. The team’s results are presented in 

Figure 31 and Figure 32. At the intersection of 16th and Capp, there were significant increases in 

yielding farther from the crosswalk, whereas at Mission and Santa Rosa, there were significant 

increases in yielding closer to the crosswalk. Data collected at Mission and Santa Rosa may 

have been impacted by observation errors due to a poor camera angle. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 54 

Driver Yielding Distances at 16th & Capp in San Francisco

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 5ft 5 - 10 ft >10 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 332)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 273)

Figure 31. Driver Yielding Distances at 16th & Capp 

Driver Yielding Distances at Mission & Santa Rosa in San Francisco

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 5ft 5 - 10 ft >10 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 257)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 317)

Figure 32. Driver Yielding Distance at Mission & Santa Rosa 

Significant decreases were measured in pedestrian delay at both study intersections in San 

Francisco as shown in Table 50. There was a non-significant increase in pedestrian delay at the 

Las Vegas site. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 55 

Table 50. Average Pedestrian Delay 

Average Pedestrian 

Location Site Delay (sec) 

Before After 

Change p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

7.46 

(n = 198) 

8.12 

(n = 452) 

+0.66 >0.05

San Francisco 16th & Capp 

4.8 

(n = 372) 

3.2 

(n = 365) 

-1.6 <0.01 

San Francisco Mission & Santa Rosa 

4.4 

(n = 319) 

2.9 

(n = 327) 

-1.5 <0.01 

The Las Vegas team measured vehicular delay at the activated flashing beacon site. The results 

are shown in Table 51. Overall, vehicle delay was reduced by almost 3 seconds at the Maryland 

Parkway and Dumont intersection. 

Table 51. Average Vehicle Delay 

Average Vehicle Delay 

Location Site (sec) 

Before After 

Change p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

3.81 

(n = 246) 

1.25 

(n = 1633) 

-2.56 <0.01 

The percent of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts decreased significantly after the activated flashing 

beacon was implemented at both intersections in San Francisco as shown in Table 52. 

Table 52. Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflicts 

% Pedestrian-Vehicle 

Location Site Conflicts 

Before After 

Change p-value 

San Francisco 16th & Capp 

6.7 

(n = 372) 

0.8 

(n = 120) 

-5.9 <0.01 

San Francisco Mission & Santa Rosa 

6.1 

(n = 312) 

2.9 

(n = 335) 

-3.2 0.05 

Discussion 

Results from the San Francisco and Las Vegas study teams show mixed impacts from the 

deployment of activated flashing beacons. There were some clear improvements in safe driver 

behaviors in San Francisco. Driver yielding increased significantly at both intersections, and 

pedestrian-vehicles conflicts decreased. Pedestrian mobility, as measured through pedestrian 

delay, improved significantly. At Mission and Santa Rosa, there were some counterintuitive 

results such as a decrease in yielding distance and a decrease in the percentage of pedestrians that 

walk out of their way to use the crosswalk. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 56 

In Las Vegas, the activated flashing beacons generally did not result in significant changes in 

driver behaviors. Driver yielding decreased by a surprising 62% along with a significant 

decrease in driver delay. Those drivers that did yield, yielded at a greater distance from the 

crosswalk. 

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon 

The rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) is used to supplement standard pedestrian 

warning signs. The apparatus tested consisted of two LED flashers placed on either side of the 

pedestrian warning sign, as shown in Figure 33. The flashers were each 6 inches wide and 2.5 

inches high, were placed 9 inches apart, and were visible to both directions of traffic. The two 

LEDs flashed in a wig-wag (left-right) pattern. The flash pattern consisted of the left LED 

flashing two times (in a slower type of a rapid flash). Each time the left LED was energized, it 

was followed by the right LED, which flashed in a very fast rapid three flash volley. There were 

a total of 190 flashes per 30-second cycle. The device was activated by pedestrians pushing call 

buttons. Four signs were installed at each crosswalk, and the devices were linked by radio 

frequency transponders so a depression of any of the pedestrian call buttons activated the flashers 

on all four signs. A separate LED facing the pedestrian notifies him or her that the device has 

been activated, and an audible message reinforces the visual cue to the pedestrian. 

Figure 33. RRFB in Miami 

Deployment Locations 

The Miami team evaluated the RRFB at two multilane crosswalks in Miami, Florida under 

FHWA permission to experiment (Table 53). A reversal design was employed in this 

experiment to demonstrate experimental control at each site. At the South Bayshore Drive 

crosswalk a sign was placed on the left side of each approach and on the right side of each 

approach at the median island. At the NW 67th Street site a sign along with beacons was placed 

on the left side of each approach and on the right side at a median just after the crosswalk on the 

northbound approach and before the crosswalk on the southbound approach. 

 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 57 

Table 53. RRFB Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

NW 67th St. & 

Main Street 

The crosswalk on NW 67th Street in Miami Lakes traversed two 

lanes in the southbound direction and two lanes and a turning 

lane in the northbound direction. There was no median island at 

this location. The two-way ADT on NW 67th Street was 25,215. 

The posted speed limit at the crosswalk was 40 mph. 

Miami 

South Bayshore 

Drive & Darwin 

The crosswalk on South Bayshore Drive in Coconut Grove 

traversed two lanes in the southbound direction and two lanes in 

the northbound direction. A median island that included a cut for 

pedestrians separated traffic in both directions at this location. 

The two-way ADT on South Bayshore Drive was 38,996. The 

posted speed limit at the crosswalk was 35 mph. 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The Miami study team collected a variety of MOEs to test the impacts of RRFBs on pedestrian 

safety, as shown in Table 54. RRFBs were expected to reduce vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, to 

increase the number of drivers that yield to pedestrians, as well as to increase the number of 

pedestrians that cross within the designated crosswalk. Measures of effectiveness considered 

critical for assessing RRFBs are percent of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, percent of drivers 

yielding to pedestrians, and percent of pedestrians trapped, as shown in Table 54. 

Table 54. Measures of Effectiveness for Activated Flashing Beacons 

Measure of Effectiveness Miami 

% of pedestrians trapped in the roadway √

% of drivers yielding to pedestrians √

% pedestrian-vehicle conflicts √

The Miami team observed local resident crossings as well as staged crossings. Staged crossings 

always followed a specific crossing protocol. First, the pedestrian placed one foot in the 

crosswalk when an approaching vehicle was just beyond the cone placement distance (this is the 

measured distance for the vehicle speed, which ensures a safe stopping distance for vehicles 

traveling at the posted speed). If the vehicle made no attempt to stop, the pedestrian did not 

proceed to cross and scored the vehicle and any subsequent vehicles as not yielding. If the 

vehicle clearly began to yield and the next lane was free, the staged pedestrian would begin 

crossing. The staged pedestrian always stopped at the lane line and make sure the next lane was 

clear. If a large gap appeared the staged pedestrian finished the crossing. This is essentially the 

protocol followed by police officers when they conduct pedestrian crossing enforcement sting 

operations. This protocol insures the safety of the staged pedestrians. Residents were only scored 

if they initiated a crossing in the same manner as the staged pedestrian by placing at least one 

foot in the crosswalk. Pedestrians that did not place a foot into the crosswalk were not scored 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 58 

because according to the Florida Statutes, drivers are not required to yield unless the pedestrian 

is in the crosswalk. 

Summary / Analysis of Results 

The results showed that the RRFBs produced a marked increase in yielding behavior at both 

crosswalks and that similar data were collected from staged pedestrians and local residents using 

the crosswalks (Table 55 through Table 57). Data also indicated that the use of the device 

produced a reduction in evasive conflicts between drivers and pedestrians at both sites and a 

reduction in the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the center of the road at the crosswalk 

without a median island. 

Table 55. Staged Daytime Crossings 

% Drivers Yielding Location Site 

Before After % Change 

Miami NW 67th & Main Street 

4.2 

(n = 2330) 

55.2 

(n = 2131) 

+51 

Miami S Bayshore & Darwin 

4.1 

(n = 2075) 

60.1 

(n = 1361) 

+56 

Table 56. Staged Nighttime Crossings 

% Drivers Yielding Location Site 

Before After % Change 

Miami NW 67th & Main Street 

4.4 

(n = 703) 

69.8 

(n = 223) 

+65.4 

Miami S Bayshore & Darwin 

2.5 

(n = 139) 

66 

(n = 225) 

+63.5 

Combining the daytime and nighttime measured yielding at NW 67th & Main Street, an analysis 

of variance showed a p-value of 0.01 (F = 256.12) (a significant increase in driver yielding). 

Combining the daytime and nighttime measured yielding at S. Bayshore & Darwin, an analysis 

of variance showed a p-value of 0.01 (F = 467.9) (a significant increase in driver yielding). 

 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 59 

Table 57. Resident Crossings 

% Drivers Yielding Location Site 

Before After % Change p-value 

Miami NW 67th & Main Street 

12.5 

(n = 137) 

73.7 

(n = 259) 

+61.2 0.001 

Miami S Bayshore & Darwin 

5.4 

(n = 200) 

83.4 

(n = 111) 

+78 0.001 

An analysis of variance of the resident crossings at NW 67th & Main Street showed a p-value of 

0.01 (F = 53.18), a significant increase in driver yielding to local resident crossings. An analysis 

of variance of the resident crossings S Bayshore & Darwin showed a p-value of 0.01 (F = 

148.85), a significant increase in driver yielding to local resident crossings. 

The percentage of evasive conflicts at the crosswalk on NW 67th Street averaged 11 percent 

during the baseline condition and declined to 2.5 percent during the first treatment condition and 

tended to remain lower for the remainder of the study independent of the condition. The 

percentage of evasive conflicts at the crosswalk on South Bayshore Drive averaged 5.5 percent at 

the crosswalk at this site during the baseline condition and declined to 0 percent during the first 

treatment condition. In general returns to baseline were associated with increased conflicts while 

returns to the treatment condition were associated with declines in conflicts at this site. An 

analysis of variance of the conflicts showed a p-value < 0.05 (F = 6.63) and < 0.01 (F = 13.85) 

for NW 67th & Main and at Bayshore & Darwin, respectively, which indicates a significant 

decrease in evasive conflicts was observed in the flasher condition at both sites. 

Pedestrians were trapped at the centerline at NW 67th Street during 44 percent of the crossing 

during the baseline condition. The percentage of pedestrians trapped declined to 0.5 percent after 

the rapid flash beacon treatment was introduced. This change was replicated each time treatment 

was introduced and removed at this site, with a high percentage of pedestrians trapped when the 

treatment was absent and few pedestrians trapped when the treatment was present. An analysis 

of variance shows a p-value of < 0.01, which indicates that a significant decrease in trapped 

pedestrians was observed in the flasher condition 

Discussion 

The results of this study showed that the use of the RRFBs increased yielding to staged 

pedestrians and local residents. The similar results for staged and resident pedestrians validated 

the use of staged pedestrian methodology to determine levels of yielding and to evaluate the 

efficacy of treatments designed to increase yielding behavior. It was interesting that yielding to 

local residents was somewhat higher than yielding to staged pedestrians. This may be because 

staged pedestrians’ protocol was somewhat less assertive than the crossing method used by local 

residents. 

The results of the study also showed clear safety benefits associated with the introduction of the 

pedestrian activated RRFB. One change was a reduction in the number of pedestrians trapped in 

the middle of the road at the crosswalk on NW 67th Street. Increases in driver yielding should 

be related to reductions in the number of pedestrians trapped in the center of the road. When 

drivers are forced to cross busy roads in gaps because of poor yielding behavior they often can 

only get a gap to cross the first half. Once they are trapped in the roadway with vehicles passing 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 60 

in front and behind them they are likely to become uncomfortable and may as a result be less 

likely to select as good a gap to finish crossing. 

The RRFB treatment reduces the percentage of people trapped by increasing driver yielding. The 

percentage of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the road was not measured at South Bayshore 

Drive because there was a wide median island in place. Essentially, crossing the second half of 

South Bayshore Drive was like beginning a new crossing from a place of relative safety. 

The reduction of evasive conflicts at both sites was another safety finding. At the crosswalk on 

South Bayshore Drive the number of conflicts decreased each time the RRFB treatment was 

introduced and increased each time it was removed. At NW 67th Street the decrease in conflicts 

after the RRFB was introduced was maintained each time it was removed. This may have 

represented some type of learning effect on the part of motorists. 

One reason why this device was so effective may be related to the salience of the flashing 

sequence. Another reason may be related to the direct correlation between the pedestrian sign 

and the flashing device. The flashing device likely produces driver orientation to the pedestrian 

sign and making it stand out from the clutter. The correlation between the flashing light and sign 

with the presence of a pedestrian crossing the street likely helps establish and maintain control of 

the sign over driver behavior. 

While the RRFB treatment did not make it into the MUTCD Notice of Proposed Amendments, it 

has been given interim approval by FHWA. 

Leading Pedestrian Interval (Pedestrian Head Start) 

The leading pedestrian interval is an exclusive pedestrian phase that gives pedestrians a small 

head start before vehicular turning movements begin (Figure 34). The pedestrian walk symbol is 

given a few seconds prior to the green light for parallel vehicle traffic. It is designed to give 

pedestrians a chance to enter the intersection before turning motorists, thereby increasing 

pedestrian visibility and correspondingly increasing driver yielding behavior and reducing 

conflicts. The leading pedestrian interval is thought to be most useful in intersections with high 

turning volumes and long crossing distances. The countermeasure may offer pedestrians more 

protection from left-turning vehicles rather than right-turning vehicles if right turn on red is 

permitted. 

Leading pedestrian intervals were tested in both San Francisco and Miami. The length of the 

head start tested in San Francisco was 4 seconds, and the length of the head start tested in Miami 

was 3 seconds. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 61 

Figure 34. Leading Pedestrian Interval 

Deployment Locations 

The leading pedestrian interval study sites are shown in Table 58. San Francisco deployed and 

tested the leading pedestrian interval at four intersections with the leading interval given to 

pedestrians crossing a four-lane secondary street at all four intersections. Vehicles observed for 

the study were turning from the primary street onto the secondary street. In San Francisco, the 

primary streets that were studied were one-way with the exception of Mission. The Mission & 

6th intersection was an intersection between two, two-way streets. 

In Miami, the leading pedestrian interval was deployed at one 4-legged intersection, Alton & 

Lincoln, and one 3-legged intersection, Collins & 16th, in the South Beach area. At Collins & 

16th, drivers frequently do not stop on red before turning right. Along Alton Road, turning 

drivers often do not yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk that have begun crossing at the WALK. 

Table 58. Leading Pedestrian Interval Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Alton & Lincoln 4-legged intersection located in South Beach. Alton Rd. is 4-

lane, with 35 mph speed limit and has approximately twice the 

traffic volumes than Collins Ave. Predominantly residential. 

Miami 

Collins & 16th 3-legged intersection located in the South Beach entertainment 

district. Collins is 4-lane, with 35 mph speed limit. 

San Francisco Howard & 6th

Howard & 8th 

Harrison & 10th

Mission & 6th 

All sites are located in commercial land use areas at 4-legged 

signalized intersections on streets with speed limits ranging 

from 25 – 30 mph on the primary street. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 62 

Measures of Effectiveness 

A variety of MOEs were used by the Miami and San Francisco study teams to assess the impact 

of the leading pedestrian interval on pedestrian and driver behavior. The primary purpose of the 

leading pedestrian interval is to increase driver yielding, a critical MOE used by both study 

teams. The leading pedestrian intervals are expected to have other benefits as well. By 

allowing pedestrians the opportunity to enter the crosswalk before vehicles begin turning, the 

leading pedestrian interval is expected to reduce vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, allow pedestrians 

to clear the crosswalk on time, improve pedestrian compliance with signals, increase the number 

of drivers that yield to pedestrians, and reduce pedestrian delay. These MOEs are shown in 

Table 59. 

Table 59. Measures of Effectiveness for Leading Pedestrian Interval 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

Miami SF 

% of drivers yielding to pedestrians √ √

% of pedestrians in crosswalk after all-red phase √ √

% of cycles call button pressed √

% of cycles pedestrian-vehicle conflicts √

% of pedestrians crossing during first 4 seconds of WALK √

Pedestrian delay √

Pedestrian crossing time √

Summary/Analysis of Results 

The San Francisco and Miami study teams both assessed left-turn driver yielding to pedestrians 

in the crosswalk although the measure used was slightly different between the two teams. In San 

Francisco, left turn yielding was measured by examining the percent of vehicles that turned left 

in front of pedestrians (i.e., non-yielding). In Miami, a driver was scored as yielding on a leftturn if he or she stopped or slowed and allowed the pedestrian to cross before completing his 

turn. 

The results as shown in Table 60 indicate that there was a small, but significant decrease in 

drivers turning left in front of pedestrians in two of the three intersections in San Francisco. The 

lack of significant reduction in vehicles making left turns in front of pedestrians at Howard and 

8th may be due to a couple of factors. Left-turners at this intersection share a lane with through 

vehicles which will cause left-turners some delay in making a left turn after the light has turned 

green if they are not first in line at a red light. This delay may already give pedestrians an 

advantage in crossing even without the leading pedestrian interval. Additionally, the Howard 

and 8th intersection experiences a low volume of vehicles allowing traffic queues to clear the 

intersection before the next phase. This may allow some pedestrians to start to cross before their 

walk signal. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 63 

At both intersections in Miami, significant increases in drivers yielding on left-turns were 

measured. 

Table 60. Left-turn Driver Yielding 

% Vehicles Turning Left in Front of 

Location Site Pedestrians (those not yielding) 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Howard & 6th 5.6 

(n = 1083) 

1.5 

(n = 1310) 

-4.1 <0.01 

Howard & 8th 16.8 

(n = 416) 

15.4 

(n = 488) 

-1.4 0.59 

San Francisco 

Harrison & 10th 4.1 

(n = 1716) 

2.5 

(n = 836) 

-1.6 0.05 

% of Left-turning Drivers 

Location Site Yielding During WALK 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Alton & Lincoln 

40 

(n = 46) 

58 

(n = 194) 

+18 0.01 

Miami 

Collins & 16th 22 

(n = 59) 

31 

(n = 18) 

+9 0.05 

Both the San Francisco and Miami study teams assessed right-turn driver yielding to pedestrians 

in the crosswalk but in slightly different ways as was done with left turns. These results are 

shown in Table 61. The San Francisco team measured the percent of vehicles turning right in 

front of pedestrians at two intersections: Harrison & 10th and Mission & 6th. At Harrison & 10th, 

drivers on Harrison Street, a one-way street, turned right onto 10th Street, another one-way street. 

At Mission & 6th, drivers were observed turning right from Mission onto 6th Street. The Miami 

team measured the percent of right-turning drivers yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk 

during the WALK phase at one 4-legged intersection of two-way roads. There was a significant 

increase in right-turn driver yielding at only one out of three sites observed for that measure. 

The Miami and San Francisco teams both measured pedestrian clearance but the San Francisco 

team recorded pedestrians who were in the crosswalk after 3.5 seconds of all red whereas the 

Miami team recorded pedestrians who were in the crosswalk at the end of the all red phase. 

There were no statistically significant differences found between the before and after conditions. 

A mix of small increases and decreases in pedestrian clearance was measured for all of the 

intersections scored. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 64 

Table 61. Right-turn Driver Yielding 

% Vehicles Turning Right in 

Location Site Front of Pedestrians 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Harrison & 10th 3.6 

(n = 665) 

6.2 

(n = 321) 

+2.6* 0.07 

San Francisco 

Mission & 6th 9.6 

(n = 691) 

5.2 

(n = 290) 

-4.4 0.02 

*Counterintuitive result 

% of Right-turning Drivers 

Location Site Yielding During WALK 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Miami Alton & Lincoln 

15 

(n = 15) 

15 

(n = 45) 

0 NA

The Miami study team measured the percent of cycles when a pedestrian was present that the call 

button was pressed, and the results are shown in Table 62. Significant increases in pedestrian 

push button pressing were observed within both study corridors, likely because pedestrians had 

learned that pressing the button would lead to the exclusive pedestrian phase. 

Table 62. Pedestrians Pushing Call Button 

% of Cycles Call Button 

Location Site Pressed 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Alton & Lincoln 

69 

(n = 169) 

76 

(n = 431) 

+7 0.05 

Miami 

Collins & 16th 36 

(n = 781) 

51 

(n = 185) 

+15 0.01 

The Miami study team also examined the impact of the leading pedestrian interval on the percent 

of pedestrians crossing during the first 4 seconds of the WALK phase. The results are shown in 

Table 63. The results show a large, significant increase in the percent of pedestrians crossing in 

the beginning of the WALK phase (31 percent at Alton and Lincoln and 21 percent at Collins 

and 6th). The reason for the increase of pedestrians in the crosswalk at the start of the walk cycle 

is likely because the leading pedestrian interval eliminates left turning vehicles for the first few 

seconds of the walk phase reducing the number of pedestrians giving up the right of way to 

turning vehicles. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 65 

Table 63. Pedestrians Crossing during Beginning of WALK Cycle 

% of Pedestrians Crossing 

Location Site during first 4 sec of WALK 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Alton & Lincoln 

45.3 

(n = 858) 

76.5 

(n = 1121) 

+31.2 0.01 

Miami 

Collins & 16th 38 

(n = 300) 

59 

(n = 109) 

+21 0.01 

The incidence of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts in Miami was very rare and there was no 

significant change in conflicts at the sites studied in San Francisco. There were no significant 

impacts on pedestrian delay or crossing time in San Francisco. 

Discussion 

The data from intersections in both San Francisco and Miami indicate that this is an effective 

countermeasure for increasing left-turn driver yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, although 

the magnitude of left-turn yielding was smaller in San Francisco than in Miami. This may be 

because yielding violations appear to be smaller in San Francisco and therefore there was less 

opportunity for improvement. This effect does not appear to carry over for right-turn driver 

yielding. The results also show that the leading pedestrian interval increases pedestrian call 

button pushes and the number of pedestrians that start to cross at the beginning of the cycle. 

As noted by the Miami team, it is possible that the lack of increase in right-turn yielding may be 

due to the high frequency of right-turners who do not stop at a red light before turning in Miami 

and so the lengthened red time may not impact their yielding. 

Prohibition of Permissive Left Turns 

This treatment involved reconfiguring the signal heads to eliminate permissive left turns. Two 

new signals were installed to show the additional phases, the signal timing needed to be adjusted, 

and a static sign indicating LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY (R5-10 2003 MUTCD) (Figure 

35) was installed. The approximate cost of deploying this countermeasure in Miami was $4000. 

Figure 35. Static Sign Supporting the Prohibition of Permissive Left Turns 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 66 

Deployment Locations 

One intersection in Miami, 41st and Pine Tree, received the treatment of prohibition of 

permissive left turns (Table 64). The prohibition was put into effect on the east and west 

directions of the intersection. The intersection is in a commercial area just west of the 

oceanfront. This location was chosen because of a history of motorist-pedestrian crashes wherein 

the motorist turned left into a crossing pedestrian. The primary street, 41st Street, is a two way 

street with two lanes in each direction and an ADT of 39,000 vehicles per day. Observations of 

this intersection were restricted to one leg, the westbound motorists turning left/south across the 

south crosswalk. 

Table 64. Prohibition of Permission Left Turns Study Site 

Location Study Site Site Descriptions 

Miami 41st & Pine Tree Four-legged, signalized intersection in a commercial land use area 

close to the oceanfront. Primary street, 41st, has an ADT of 39,000 

and has four lanes, with parking lanes on both sides of the street. 

History of motorist-pedestrian crashes wherein the motorist turned 

left into a crossing pedestrian. 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The Miami study team collected data on the three countermeasures listed below to assess the 

effectiveness of prohibiting permissive left turns on pedestrian safety. Since the purpose of 

eliminating the permissive left turn is to reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts that occur when 

vehicles make left turns as pedestrians are crossing, the MOE considered most critical is the 

percent of cycles in which there are pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. 

• % of pedestrians crossing during WALK 

• % pedestrian-vehicle conflicts 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

Pedestrian signal compliance improved slightly following the elimination of the permissive leftturn phase (Table 65). However, the prevalence of left-turning motorists turning during the 

prohibited phase is a concern. These motorists, 15 percent of all left turners, turned after the left 

turn indication changed to red. The motorists were presumably more likely to violate the signal 

because they would have to wait until the next cycle as a result of the elimination of the 

permissive left turn phase. The researchers suggest that a lagging protected left turn phase may 

be more effective because it would allow many queued pedestrians to clear the intersection prior 

to the beginning of the protected left turn movement. One other important consideration 

regarding this countermeasure, motorist delay, was not measured. 

The incidence of motorist-pedestrian conflicts was reduced at a statistically significant level 

following the elimination of the permissive left-turn phase (7 percent to 2 percent, p=0.014) 

(Table 67). 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 67 

Table 65. Pedestrians Crossing during WALK 

% Pedestrians Crossing during 

Site WALK 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

41st & Pine Tree 

84 

(n = 2166) 

86.7 

(n = 789) 

+2.7 <0.001 

Table 66. Vehicles Turning during Protected Left-turn Phase 

% of Vehicles Turning during 

Site Protected Left-turn Phase 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

41st & Pine Tree 

66 

(n = 4644) 

85 

(n = 1625) 

+19 <0.001 

 Table 67. Conflicts 

% Pedestrian-vehicle Conflicts 

Site 

Before After % Change p-value 

41st & Pine Tree 

7.2 

(n = 2166) 

2 

(n = 789) 

-5.2 0.014 

 

Discussion 

The data indicate that prohibiting permissive left-turns may be an effective way to improve 

pedestrian safety at intersections by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, 

however, the researchers also found that there was a substantial portion of left-turners that 

violated the red signal. While this countermeasure has potential for increasing pedestrian safety, 

the signal configuration should be taken into consideration in order to mitigate left-turners 

violating the signal. 

PHYSICAL SEPARATION

Two types of physical separation were installed and tested for their impact on pedestrian safety. 

These countermeasures included: 

• Median refuge islands 

• Danish offsets (in combination with refuge island and high visibility crosswalk) 

The findings for the site-specific evaluations for these physical separation countermeasures are 

presented below. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 68 

Median Refuge Islands 

Median refuge islands provide a safe, raised area in the center portion of the roadway for 

pedestrians when crossing wide, multilane streets. They can be provided at mid-block crossings 

or at intersections (Figure 36). The islands allow pedestrians to cross the first half of the 

roadway and then to wait before crossing the second half of the roadway, rather than forcing 

them to find sufficient gaps in both directions of traffic to make their crossing. The islands also 

act as a traffic calming device by reducing the speed of vehicles at mid-block locations and by 

forcing left-turning motorists to reduce their speeds to make shorter radius turns at intersections. 

Figure 36. Median Refuge Island at a San Francisco Intersection 

Deployment Locations 

In San Francisco, median refuge islands were installed at two signalized intersections along 

Geary (Figure 36). At Stanyan, the refuge island was installed on the west crosswalk on Geary. 

At 6th, the refuge island was installed on the east and west crosswalks on Geary. In Las Vegas, a 

median refuge island was installed at a mid-block crosswalk along Harmon between Paradise 

Road and Tropicana Boulevard (Figure 37). The refuge island was installed at the same time as 

a high-visibility crosswalk. The study sites are described in Table 68. 

Table 68. Median Refuge Island Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

San Francisco Geary & Stanyan 

Geary & 6th 

3-leg intersection. 7 lanes on Geary at intersection. 

4-leg intersection. 6 lanes on Geary at intersection. 

Both sites have standard crosswalks, 2-way traffic, signalized 

intersections, street parking, mixed land use, and 25 mph 

speed limits. 

Las Vegas Harmon: Paradise 

Rd. to Tropicana 

Blvd. 

Mid-block crosswalk. Installed with a high-visibility 

crosswalk. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 69 

Figure 37. Median Refuge Island at Mid-block Location in Las Vegas 

Measures of Effectiveness 

To assess the effectiveness of the refuge islands, the teams collected data associated with a 

number of MOEs (Table 69). MOEs considered critical to the assessment of the refuge islands 

included pedestrians trapped in the roadway, pedestrians that diverted to the crosswalk, and 

pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Other MOEs considered included driver yielding and pedestrian 

delay. 

Table 69. Measures of Effectiveness for Median Refuge Islands 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

LV SF 

% of pedestrians trapped in the roadway √ √

% of diverted pedestrians √

% pedestrian-vehicle conflicts √

% of drivers yielding to pedestrians √ √

Average pedestrian delay √ √

Summary/Analysis of Results 

There were no measurable changes in the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the roadway, the 

percentage of pedestrians that were diverted to the crosswalk, or the percentage of pedestrianvehicle conflicts at any of the sites where data for these MOEs were collected. 

With regards to driver yielding, the San Francisco team found no significant impacts on the 

percent of turning drivers that yielded to pedestrians at the intersections where the refuge islands 

were installed (Table 70). This result could be due to the already high percentage of turning 

drivers that yielded to pedestrians at these sites prior to installation of the refuge islands or the 

fact that the drivers did not feel inclined to yield to pedestrians who were protected by the raised 

median. The Las Vegas team did record a significant 24 percent increase in driver yielding at the 

mid-block crosswalk where the refuge island was installed. Driver yielding increased from 22 

percent before the refuge island to 46 percent after installation of the refuge island. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 70 

Table 70. Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians 

% of Drivers Yielding 

Location Site to Pedestrians 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Geary & Stanyan 

80.4 

(n = 158) 

86.6 

(n = 164) 

+6.2 0.18 

San Francisco 

Geary & 6th 96.1 

(n = 186) 

89.7 

(n = 262) 

-6.4 0.15

Las Vegas Harmon: Paradise Rd. to 

Tropicana Blvd.

22 

(n = 77) 

46 

(n = 284) 

+24 <0.001 

Both teams measured pedestrian delay in the crosswalks before and after installation of the 

median refuge islands, and the results are shown in Table 71. While there was no change in 

average pedestrian delay at Geary & Stanyan, there was a significant increase in average 

pedestrian delay at Geary & 6th of 4.2 seconds. This increase in pedestrian delay corresponds to 

a decrease, albeit not significant, in driver yielding at this site. At the mid-block crosswalk in 

Las Vegas, there was a 12.3 second decrease in pedestrian delay corresponding to the increase in 

driver yielding at this site. 

Table 71. Average Pedestrian Delay 

Average Pedestrian 

Location Site Delay (sec) 

Before After 

Change 

(sec) p-value 

Geary & Stanyan 

19.8 

(n = 107) 

19.1 

(n = 104) 

-0.7 0.80 

San Francisco 

Geary & 6th 14.3 

(n = 350) 

18.5 

(n = 595) 

+4.2* <0.01 

Las Vegas Harmon: Paradise Rd. 

to Tropicana Blvd.

19.3 

(n = 1951) 

6.98 

(n = 388) 

-12.3 <0.001 

*Counterintuitive result 

Discussion 

Based on the results, it appears that the installation of a median refuge island at a mid-block 

location was effective in increasing driver yielding to pedestrians and reducing pedestrian delay, 

while the median refuge islands at the signalized intersections in San Francisco appear to be less 

effective at altering driver and pedestrian behaviors. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 71 

Danish Offset, High-Visibility Crosswalk, Median Refuge, Advance Yield Markings, and 

Yield to Pedestrian Signs 

The Las Vegas team deployed a Danish offset at two locations. A Danish offset is an offset at 

the middle of a multilane crossing that provides refuge for pedestrians in terms of physical 

separation from traffic and ensures they are facing the traffic before crossing the second half of 

the roadway. The offset is a type of channelization that encourages pedestrians to turn and walk 

parallel to the traffic they are crossing. At the Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street site (Figure 

38), the channelized offset was created using waist-high bollards and raised medians. At the 

Lake Mead Boulevard site, the offset was developed with median cutouts (Figure 39). At the 

Maryland and Dumont site, a sign with the words LOOK BEFORE CROSSING and an arrow 

pointing the direction of oncoming traffic was also installed. At both sites, the Danish offset was 

combined with other pedestrian safety countermeasures including high-visibility crosswalks, 

advance yield markings, and YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS (R1-5a 2003 MUTCD) signs, 

as shown in Figure 40 and Figure 41. 

Figure 38. Danish Offset at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street 

Figure 39. Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran Street 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 72 

Figure 40. Advance Yield Markings and YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS Sign Before 

Danish Offset at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street 

Figure 41. Advanced Yield Markings installed at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to 

McCarran Street 

Deployment Locations 

In Las Vegas, the Danish offset and supporting countermeasures were deployed at two sites, one 

under the jurisdiction of Clark County and the other in the City of North Las Vegas (Table 72). 

The intersection of Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street in Clark County is primarily a 

commercial area with shopping complexes and a shopping mall. Maryland Parkway is a major 

arterial with a speed limit of 30 mph and an ADT of 43,000. Dumont Street is a minor arterial 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 73 

with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. In addition to these countermeasures, the east approach at 

the Maryland and Dumont intersection was redesigned to permit only right turns.

The second location that received the Danish offset was in the City of North Las Vegas on Lake 

Mead Boulevard between Belmont Street and McCarran Street. Land use in that area is 

primarily residential. Lake Mead Boulevard is a major arterial with a speed limit of 45 mph and 

has an annual average daily traffic (AADT) level of 44,000 vehicles per day. Changes to the site 

also included relocating bus stops and crosswalks. 

Table 72. Danish Offset Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Maryland Pkwy 

& Dumont Street 

A four-legged intersection in a commercial shopping area. 

The primary street, Maryland Parkway, is a major arterial 

with a speed limit of 30 mph and an ADT of 43,000. 

Las Vegas 

Lake Mead 

Boulevard: 

Belmont Street to 

McCarran Street 

A mid-block location on Lake Mead Boulevard, a major 

arterial in a primarily residential area. Lake Mead has a 

speed limit of 45 mph and an AADT of 44,000. 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The Las Vegas study team used a variety of MOEs to assess the impacts of the Danish offset and 

supporting countermeasures. The percent of diverted pedestrians, percent of pedestrians trapped, 

and percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians were considered to be critical in determining the 

effectiveness of these countermeasures in increasing pedestrian safety. Other important MOEs 

considered by the Las Vegas team are also listed below. It was anticipated that these 

countermeasures would increase the percent of pedestrians that crossed within the designated 

crosswalk, increase the percent of pedestrians that looked before crossing, decrease the incidence 

of pedestrian trapped in the roadway, and increase driver yielding. 

• % of diverted pedestrians 

• % of pedestrians that look for vehicles before beginning to cross 

• % of pedestrians that look for vehicles before crossing the second half of the street 

• % of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 

• % of drivers yielding to pedestrians 

• Distance drivers yield before crossing pedestrian 

• Average pedestrian delay 

• Average vehicle delay 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 74 

Summary/Analysis of Results 

At the Maryland and Dumont site, the Las Vegas study team measured significant increases in 

pedestrians that diverted their paths to use the new countermeasures (Table 73). Because there 

was no marked crosswalk at the Lake Mead location, there was no baseline data for comparison 

and so this site was left out of this table. 

Table 73. Diverted Pedestrians 

% of Diverted 

Location Site Pedestrians 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

0 

(n = 631) 

11 

(n = 198) 

+11 <0.001 

There was already a very high percentage of pedestrians looking before beginning to cross the 

street and before crossing the second half of the street and so there was little room to improve, as 

shown in Table 74. The changes measured by the Las Vegas team were small and mixed. 

Table 74. Pedestrian Looking Behavior 

% of Pedestrians That 

Look before Beginning Location Site to Cross 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

100 

(n = 631) 

93 

(n = 198) 

-7 >0.05

Las Vegas Lake Mead: Belmont 

to McCarran 

96 

(n = 61) 

100 

(n = 123) 

+4 >0.05

% of Pedestrians That 

Look before Crossing Location Site Second Half of Street 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

100 

(n = 631) 

91 

(n = 198) 

-9 >0.05

Las Vegas Lake Mead: Belmont 

to McCarran

92 

(n = 61) 

100 

(n = 123) 

+8 <0.05 

At both locations the percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway fell significantly, particularly 

at the Lake Mead site with a 57 percent decrease (Table 75). The large percentage of pedestrians 

trapped at the Lake Mead site in the before condition is likely caused by the absence of a 

crosswalk. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 75 

Table 75. Trapped Pedestrians 

% of Pedestrians 

Location Site Trapped in the Roadway 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

12 

(n = 631) 

4 

(n = 198) 

-8 <0.001 

Las Vegas Lake Mead: Belmont 

to McCarran

62 

(n = 61) 

5 

(n = 123) 

-57 <0.001 

The Las Vegas study team measured large, significant increases in driver yielding at both sites 

(Table 76). There was a 37 percent increase in driver yielding at the Lake Mead site, but the 

resulting prevalence in yielding was still relatively low at just 40 percent. 

The increase in yielding was larger at the Maryland Parkway & Dumont location and resulted in 

a higher frequency of driver yielding in the after condition at 76 percent. 

Table 76. Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians 

% of Drivers Yielding to 

Location Site Pedestrians 

Before After 

% Change p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

32 

(n = 432) 

76 

(n = 246) 

+44 <0.001 

Las Vegas Lake Mead: Belmont 

to McCarran

3 

(n = 296) 

40 

(n = 117) 

+37 <0.001 

The Las Vegas team also measured the change in yielding distances at the Lake Mead location. 

The team examined the percent of drivers that yielded less than 10 feet away from the crossing 

pedestrian, between 10 and 20 feet from the pedestrian, and more than 20 feet away. The before 

and after distributions of driver yielding distances are shown in Figure 42. There appears to have 

been a shift from yielding in the mid-range distance category to either the short range yielding or 

long range yielding. Because the sample size is so small (n = 8) in the baseline condition, it is 

difficult to make any conclusions based on the data. Yielding in the baseline condition was not 

measured for the Maryland and Dumont site so results are not available for that site for this 

MOE. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 76 

Driver Yielding Distances Lake Mead: Belmont to McCarran

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 10ft 10 - 20 ft >20 ft

Yielding Distance

% of Drivers Yielding

% Yielding in Baseline (n = 8)

% Yielding After Treatment (n = 46)

Figure 42. Driver Yielding Distances on Lake Mead: Belmont to McCarran 

Average pedestrian delay at Maryland and Dumont increased, while delay measured at Lake 

Mead decreased by 11.9 percent, a statistically significant difference (Table 77). 

Table 77. Average Pedestrian Delay 

Average Pedestrian 

Location Site Delay (sec) 

Before After 

Change 

(sec) p-value 

Las Vegas Maryland Pkwy & 

Dumont 

3.82 

(n = 631) 

7.46 

(n = 198) 

+3.64 >0.05

Las Vegas Lake Mead: Belmont 

to McCarran

21.4 

(n = 61) 

9.5 

(n = 84) 

-11.9 0.001 

There was not a statistically significant change in average vehicle delay at the Lake Mead 

location. A change in delay was not assessed at the Maryland and Dumont location. 

Discussion 

In summary, the Danish offset and supporting countermeasures appear to have led to an increase 

in safe pedestrian and driver behaviors. The Las Vegas team measured significant increases in 

driver yielding and diverted pedestrians as well as significant decreases in trapped pedestrians. 

Pedestrian looking behavior was high in the baseline and so the lack of increase there may be 

due to the ceiling effect. Yielding distance measurements were inconclusive and this was likely 

caused by the very low number of measurements made in the before condition. Pedestrian delay 

was significantly reduced at the Lake Mead location where a designated crossing area had not 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 77 

previously existed while it rose slightly at Maryland and Dumont. Vehicle delay at Lake Mead 

rose likely due to an increase in yielding and more cautious driving allowing pedestrians to have 

the right of way. The yielding only rose to 40 percent at Lake Mead whereas it reached 76 

percent at Maryland and Dumont. This may be due to the difference in speed limits along the 

two roads. Lake Mead has a 45 mph speed limit while Maryland and Dumont is at 30 mph. 

With such a high speed limit, drivers on Lake Mead are possibly less likely to slow down or stop 

for pedestrians. In general, though, the suite of countermeasures appears to have made 

pedestrian crossings safer. 

LIGHTING

Only one type of lighting, dynamic lighting, was installed to test its impact on pedestrian safety; 

however, the application of the dynamic lighting was different in each deployment location. The 

findings from the site-specific evaluations are discussed below. 

Dynamic Lighting 

Dynamic lighting is the increased illumination of the crosswalk while a pedestrian is present. 

The implementation of this countermeasure was slightly different in the two locations where it 

was installed. 

In Miami, dynamic lighting consisted of an LED white lighting pad that illuminated the 

departure portion of the curb face and the first 4 feet of the crosswalk. This dynamic pad lighting 

consisted of four 2.5 by 1.25 inch housings each containing 3 LEDs. The lighting was deployed 

in Miami at a location where rectangular LED rapid flashing beacons had been previously 

installed. The Miami study team was interested in finding out if additional dynamic lighting 

increased pedestrian safety. When a pedestrian pressed the call button to activate the beacon at 

night, the rapid flashing beacon and LED white lighting was activated. 

In Las Vegas, increased lighting of the crosswalk came from one or more lights attached to the 

top of poles on the side of the road, as shown in Figure 43. Automatic pedestrian detection was 

installed along with the lighting to detect pedestrians crossing and trigger an increase in the 

intensity of the lighting at the crosswalk. The high intensity lighting was in effect only when 

pedestrians were present in the crosswalk. 

. 

Figure 43. Dynamic Lighting on Pole in Las Vegas 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 78 

Deployment Locations 

The deployment locations are presented in Table 78. The Las Vegas team deployed the dynamic 

lighting countermeasure along Charleston Boulevard at a mid-block location between Spencer 

Street and 17th Street. Land use in that area is mixed and includes office complexes, several 

small commercial activity units, restaurants, and apartments. The posted speed limit is 35 mph 

and the ADT is 37,500. A review of pedestrian safety issues in the area shows a high proportion 

of nighttime crashes involving pedestrians. The dynamic lighting was installed in conjunction 

with automatic pedestrian detection in the last phase of a two-phase effort to install pedestrian 

safety countermeasures at the mid-block location. During the first phase a high-visibility 

crosswalk was installed. 

Dynamic lighting in Miami was installed at a crosswalk that traversed four lanes on South 

Bayshore Drive at Darwin. The crosswalk has a median refuge island for pedestrians between the 

two directions of travel. The average daily traffic on South Bayshore Drive was 38,996 and the 

speed limit was 35 mph. 

Table 78. Dynamic Lighting Study Sites 

Location Study Sites Site Descriptions 

Miami South Bayshore Drive & Darwin Crosswalk over a 4-lane road with pedestrian 

refuge island cut in the median. At intersection 

of South Bayshore and Darwin. The ADT for 

South Bayshore was 38,996 with speed limit of 

35 mph. Deployed at location containing rapid 

flash beacon. 

Las Vegas Charleston: Spencer to 17th Crosswalk over approximately a 4-lane road in a 

mixed commercial/residential area. The speed 

limit on Charleston was 35 mph and the ADT 

was 37,500. Deployed at a location that had a 

high-visibility crosswalk. 

Measures of Effectiveness 

The Las Vegas and Miami study teams assessed the impact of dynamic lighting on pedestrian 

safety and mobility using a variety of measures of effectiveness. Two MOEs considered critical 

to evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic lighting were the percent of drivers yielding to 

pedestrians and the frequency of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Dynamic lighting was expected to 

increase driver yielding, decrease pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, reduce pedestrian delay, and not 

significantly impact driver delay. Table 79 contains a list of MOEs used by the Las Vegas and 

Miami teams. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 79 

Table 79. Measures of Effectiveness for Dynamic Lighting 

Location 

Measure of Effectiveness 

Miami LV 

% of drivers yielding to pedestrians √ √

% diverted pedestrians √

Distance drivers yielded to pedestrians √

Pedestrian-vehicle conflicts √ √

% of pedestrians trapped in the roadway √

Average pedestrian delay √

Average vehicle delay √

Summary/Analysis of Results 

There was a low instance of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts in Miami during both the before and 

after conditions. There was one recorded conflict for each condition. The low prevalence of 

conflicts may be due to the presence of the RRFD at that site, which was installed prior to the 

dynamic lighting. 

The Miami and Las Vegas study teams both measured the percent of drivers yielding to 

pedestrians with and without dynamic lighting, and the results are shown in Table 80. In Las 

Vegas, there was a 29 percent increase in yielding after dynamic lighting was installed, although 

the prevalence of yielding (35 percent) in the after condition was still small. In Miami, the 

introduction of dynamic lighting to a crosswalk with a RRFB did not have much impact on 

driver yielding. 

Table 80. Driver Yielding 

% of Drivers Yielding to 

Location Site Pedestrians 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Miami South Bayshore Drive & 

Darwin 

53.8 

(n = 238) 

55.1 

(n = 263) 

+1.3 0.73 

Las Vegas Charleston: Spencer to 17th 6 

(n = 50) 

35 

(n = 116) 

+29 < 0.05 

The Las Vegas team measured the percentage of pedestrians who diverted to use the crosswalk, 

and the results are shown in Table 81. The percent of pedestrians that walked out of their way to 

use the crosswalk significantly increased after the installation of dynamic lighting although only 

17 percent of pedestrians walked out of their way to use the crosswalk. This may be because a 

pedestrian would not realize that intense lighting would come on until the pedestrian was close 

enough to trigger the lighting. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 80 

Table 81. Diverted Pedestrians 

% of Diverted 

Location Site Pedestrians 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Las Vegas Charleston: Spencer to 17th 0 

(n = 44) 

17 

(n = 84) 

+17 <0.001 

The Las Vegas study team measured a 16 percent reduction in the portion of pedestrians trapped 

in the middle of the roadway or between lanes while attempting to cross (Table 82). 

Table 82. Pedestrians Trapped in the Roadway 

% Pedestrians Trapped 

Location Site in Roadway 

Before After 

% 

Change p-value 

Las Vegas Charleston: Spencer to 17th 30 

(n = 44) 

14 

(n = 84) 

-16 <0.05 

There were no significant impacts on average pedestrian delay or average vehicle delay 

measured in Las Vegas. 

Discussion 

The findings from the Las Vegas team that tested the impacts of dynamic lighting at a highvisibility crosswalk location suggest that dynamic lighting used with automatic pedestrian 

detection resulted in an increase in safe driver and pedestrian behaviors. Driver yielding and 

pedestrian diversion increased significantly while the percent of trapped pedestrians significantly 

decreased. While driver yielding increased, its prevalence was still low at 35 percent. In 

Miami, the addition of dynamic lighting to a crosswalk that had a RRFB did not appear to further 

improve driver yielding or pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. The Miami researchers suggested that 

this may have occurred because the dynamic lighting is not very noticeable in the presence of 

highly intense flashing beacons. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 81 

LESSONS LEARNED 

Implementation and evaluation of the Pedestrian Safety Engineering and ITS-Based 

Countermeasures Program was challenging. The major steps in the project included: 

• Establishing and maintaining a multi-agency pedestrian safety team to oversee and guide 

the project 

• Identifying pedestrian safety and mobility problems, including potential contributing 

factors to crashes 

• Selecting pedestrian safety countermeasures corresponding to the problems identified 

• Obtaining funding and support for pedestrian safety improvements 

• Procuring, deploying, and maintaining the countermeasures 

• Evaluating the effectiveness of the countermeasures 

Each step of the project offered new challenges to the project partners that are presented here as 

lessons learned. The lessons learned presented and discussed in this document include two 

primary types of lessons: 

• General lessons learned 

• Countermeasure-specific lessons learned 

The lessons learned are detailed in the following sections. 

GENERAL LESSONS LEARNED

General lessons learned include those relating to the major project steps, as listed above. Nine 

specific lessons learned are discussed in detail in this section of the report. 

Lesson #1—Assemble a Diverse Set of Project Partners to Address the Range of Issues 

That Might Arise During the Study 

As part of their contractual agreements, each of the field teams was to assemble a diverse group, 

consisting of traditional and non-traditional partners, which would support the project by 

providing financial support and/or “in-kind” support through staff time and unique support. This 

task was deemed an important one for the projects’ success. 

Each of the field teams did initially establish a diverse set of project partners. Traditional 

partners included representatives from metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), city and 

county departments of public works, State departments of transportation (DOTs), State 

departments of public safety, university research centers, and consultants. The teams were also 

able to include a wide range of non-traditional partners, including representatives from local 

police departments, local health districts, local school districts, community outreach programs, 

local advocacy groups, medical trauma centers, and local food and drug stores. 

While there were a range of partners included on the project teams, a number of issues arose 

during the course of the project that necessitated specific personnel. In some cases, the teams 

were prepared to address the issues, and in some cases, the needed personnel were not always 

available. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 82 

Below are specific lessons regarding project partners: 

• Recruit and actively engage a partner with experience facilitating public 

participation to ensure that the team is responsive to citizens’ needs. The Miami 

team included the region’s MPO, specifically the MPO’s bicycle/pedestrian coordinator 

as an active partner. One of the primary benefits of this inclusion was the MPO’s ability 

to handle public participation through its existing well-developed public involvement 

procedure. In this regard, the MPO was a natural fit and helped other team members 

focus on other project tasks. The MPO staff person also possessed a well-developed 

network of other individuals who could assist with public aspects of the project. The team 

cautions that this may not have been the case with a newer MPO staff member. A larger 

overarching agency, such as a MPO, is a useful partner in a pedestrian safety program in 

order to match needs with resources, gather input from citizens, and delegate concerns to 

proper personnel. 

• The Las Vegas team included Clark County Safe Communities, an ongoing outreach 

program of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) Transportation Research 

Center. The mission of Clark County Safe Communities is to reduce traffic crashes, and 

they regularly bring together a variety of agencies and other groups to address traffic 

safety needs. By involving this group, the Las Vegas team was able to reach the elderly 

and disadvantaged populations and to get public feedback on their countermeasures. 

• Maintain as an active member of the pedestrian safety project team a representative 

from the agency responsible for installing roadway countermeasures to facilitate 

procurement and deployment. The San Francisco team found it helpful to have a 

representative from the City of San Francisco traffic engineering department as a primary 

team member for communication with engineers who were responsible for 

implementation. In Las Vegas, regular communication with project partners enabled the 

City and Clark County to assist UNLV in acquiring supplies through vendors. At times, 

UNLV would receive little response from countermeasure vendors. By going through the 

City or County, the requests to vendors received greater attention perhaps because the 

City and County were larger customers. This helped the project to stay more on schedule 

and allowed the team to acquire the needed countermeasures. 

• Coordinate improvements with other agencies. The San Francisco team found that it 

was critical to coordinate improvements with agencies involved in roadway construction. 

• Be sure to include public safety officials, as they can be effective advocates for 

pedestrian safety. The Las Vegas team found the local sheriff to be a key supporter for 

the pedestrian safety program, and over time, this has become a mutually beneficial 

relationship. The sheriff enabled the Las Vegas team to obtain detailed crash data from a 

local police department to supplement data provided by the Nevada Department of 

Transportation (NDOT). With the support of the sheriff, UNLV has joined monthly 

meetings of public works, law enforcement, and departments of transportation to gain 

acceptance and support for countermeasure deployment. During the meetings, UNLV 

can give the region’s public safety agencies advance notice when and where collecting 

data will be taking place. This helps alleviate any suspicion when police spot the data 

collectors. In addition, the increased communication with public safety provides the team 

with external feedback on the effectiveness of the countermeasures. As an example, two 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 83 

to three weeks after the Danish offset was implemented, local police reported during a 

meeting that the countermeasure was having a noticeable improvement on safety. 

• Do not hesitate to include multiple members from the same organization who work 

in different divisions. The range of pedestrian safety countermeasures being deployed 

necessitated a range of expertise not usually housed within a single division at an agency. 

Required expertise included traffic engineering, roadway design, electrical power supply, 

lighting, and communications. In the City of San Francisco, street lighting is under the 

control of the Public Works Department, while Traffic Engineering is in the Municipal 

Transportation Agency. Including staff from various divisions within the same agency 

will help with countermeasure approval, procurement, and deployment. 

• Dedicate safety staff to the pedestrian program/project. Dedicated staff members are 

helpful in designing and implementing the program. The City of San Francisco 

Department of Parking and Traffic employs two full-time transportation engineers and 

one full-time planner in their program, and these staff members spent a considerable 

amount of time on the project. The Las Vegas team did not dedicate full-time staff to the 

program because they did not anticipate needing that level of effort. Looking back, they 

frequently wished that they had more staff help, particularly during the deployment and 

evaluation phases. They primarily needed more staff assistance with administering and 

coordinating tasks. Much time and attention was required to manage vendors and 

sequence deployments in multiple jurisdictions. 

Lesson #2—Implement Regular Communication and Participation Mechanisms for Project 

Partners from Project Kick-Off 

While there were a range of partners included on the project teams, in some cases there was 

active participation by particular partners, while in other cases there was lack of participation by 

the partners throughout the course of the project. 

Below are specific lessons regarding contact and communication with project partners: 

• Provide all partners with regular status reports and conduct regular team meetings 

and teleconferences to keep partners informed and engaged and to facilitate an 

efficient flow of communication. In Miami, agencies were busy and as the project 

moved into its later stages, did not want to schedule calls each week. Upon reflection, a 

web site or some other cost-effective means for keeping everyone up-to-date would have 

been helpful. This would have been perceived as a less intrusive way of keeping people 

involved and would have allowed for partner feedback to be elicited only on an as-needed 

basis. While this would be effective, some project budget would need to be reserved for 

initial setup of this forum. 

• Keep a written record of key inter-agency agreements and events in order to 

preserve progress made in the case of personnel changes. Support from partnering 

agencies significantly waned during staff turnover in Las Vegas. Often, there was no 

written record of the promises or intentions of the previous staff members who were 

supportive of pedestrian safety. Within one partner agency, the participating staff 

member changed three times. Bringing the new staff members up to speed and reestablishing agreement on details of the program caused a project delay of a month or 

two. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 84 

• Strive to keep key players actively involved throughout the project. The City of San 

Francisco formed a pedestrian safety interdepartmental working group, but in hindsight, 

this was insufficient. Even though there was participation through this working group, it 

was not extensive enough. The Department of Parking and Traffic needed better 

coordination with public works and transit. They needed key players from public works 

and transit to be more intensively involved in the project, as opposed to just participating 

in meetings every few months. The consequences were that the team got the Phase I 

report approved by the working group but ran into opposition during implementation. In 

the end, they were not able to implement smart lighting or the pedestrian scramble due to 

resistance from public works and transit, respectively. 

In Las Vegas, an executive advisory committee was formed of the primary project 

partners, the Regional Transportation Commission, the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety, 

the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, the Nevada Department of Transportation, and the 

City of Henderson. The coordination of these six invested parties was made possible 

through the monthly executive advisory committee meetings. The team was described as 

“incredibly useful,” particularly in the initial phase of the program. Because there were 

multiple partners representing multiple jurisdictions, the project schedule needed to 

accommodate extra time to gain agreement with each agency. 

Lesson #3—Use a Variety of Methods/Sources to Understand Problems and to Determine 

Causes of Crashes at Prominent Pedestrian Crash Locations 

As part of the project, teams were to identify and characterize pedestrian safety problem zones or 

areas through comprehensive data collection in the local jurisdiction, including traffic and 

pedestrian volumes, gap selection, vehicular speed, pedestrian behavior and crash type. 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) software was used to analyze crash 

patterns. 

The teams found the best way to identify and characterize pedestrian safety problems was to use 

a variety of methods/sources: 

• Review police crash reports and crash diagrams. The Miami team reported that 

without reading the police reports, and specifically the crash diagrams, it was not clear 

whether the pedestrian was in the crosswalk, some distance from the crosswalk, and/or 

from what direction the pedestrian was coming, and specific information of this type can 

have a large bearing on the selection of countermeasures. The crash reports helped the 

team identify true causation of particular crashes. 

The Las Vegas team suggested using data from police to get pedestrian safety 

information that traffic engineers may not have. Because the data from NDOT were not 

available for a certain time period, the Las Vegas team turned to alternative sources for 

crash data. The team found much more detailed crash data and crash diagrams from a 

local police department. The DOT crash data had around 100 different attributes for each 

crash whereas the police data had approximately 750 attributes per crash. While, most of 

the attributes were not used in this study, Las Vegas did benefit from the crash diagrams 

and the elaborate road characteristics data. 

• Review crash records from at least the previous five years. Looking at too few 

crashes might be misleading. The San Francisco team found a great deal of variability 

from year to year in the types of pedestrian collisions that occurred at the sites. For 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 85 

example, during a five-year period at one site a large majority of the pedestrian collisions 

occurred late at night. Comparing that five-year period to the next five years (or even a 

rolling five-year period), there was a dramatic change in the number of pedestrian injuries 

late at night that could not be otherwise explained. 

• Visit high crash locations with crash data in hand. The Miami team visited each of 

the corridors to observe drivers, pedestrians, and pedestrian facilities. The members used 

a book with the specifics of each crash at each location including information on 

demographics, temporal variables, crash severity, and crash type. Simultaneously 

looking at the data and the crash location was helpful in determining the causes of the 

crashes. Additionally, the Miami team found site visits helpful because they were able to 

roughly assess driver and pedestrian behavior and examine existing engineering devices. 

The Miami team reported that the visits allowed them to confirm or disprove hypotheses 

that had been generated about the cause of crashes in each corridor based on their initial 

use of the PBCAT. PBCAT is a crash typing software that can assist state and local 

pedestrian/bicycle coordinators, planners and engineers improve walking and bicycling 

safety through the development and analysis of a database containing details of crashes 

between motor vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. 

• Use surrogate measures when pedestrian volumes are not available. Surrogate 

indicators of pedestrian volume may include tourism data, bar or restaurant service 

volume, and others and can provide a more accurate picture of the number of pedestrians 

and related safety problems. 

• Seek input from the project’s advisory committee. UNLV presented their project’s 

executive advisory committee with data to review and the partners provided a valuable 

non-technical perspective regarding the placement of countermeasures. 

Lesson #4—Begin the Program by Implementing Low-cost Countermeasures for the 

Greatest Potential of Widespread Use 

As with many programs, starting off with “quick wins” builds momentum and support for the 

program overall. In the case of these pedestrian safety programs, the countermeasures varied 

greatly in terms of price, procurement difficulty, ability to receive approval, and ease of 

deployment. The Las Vegas team found it beneficial to implement several low-cost, easy-todeploy countermeasures early in their program, which allowed them to show results to their 

partners during the monthly executive advisory meetings. Countermeasures such as highvisibility crosswalk pavement treatments, in-street pedestrian signs, and pedestrian push buttons 

that confirm press were relatively easy to deploy because the local agencies could perform the 

labor without having to use a vendor. 

For the most potential success: 

• Promote wide-scale dissemination and adoption of the countermeasures. The 

strategy of initially deploying low-cost countermeasures has the greatest likelihood of 

wide scale dissemination and adoption, because countermeasures tend to be most 

effective when applied in multiple locations and in combination with other treatments. 

• Do not deploy initial countermeasures sparingly. Because most treatments work best 

when applied at multiple locations and in combination with other treatments, it is 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 86 

important that the initial treatments are not so expensive that they can only be used 

sparingly. 

• Help the program conserve its momentum. The high cost/effectiveness ratio of the 

low-cost initial applications will help ensure a series of “quick wins.” The San Francisco 

team found that low-cost but effective measures have the advantages of quick 

implementation and the potential to draw support and funding for further improvements. 

• Introduce more expensive interventions over time using a phased approach. Starting 

off with low-cost countermeasures allows the time required to budget for and procure 

more costly interventions, should they be required. 

Lesson #5—Pursue a Variety of Funding Sources for the Pedestrian Safety Program 

The local deployment teams were tasked with obtaining matching funds for their pedestrian 

safety projects. As pedestrian issues are not always the top priority of state and local 

transportation agencies, often falling behind roadway construction and maintenance projects, 

obtaining funding for pedestrian safety countermeasures can be challenging. Therefore, it is 

advantageous to pursue a variety of funding sources for pedestrian safety countermeasures: 

• Gain political support and funding through high-profile demonstrations. The Miami 

team gained the support of the mayor by involving him in a public demonstration of a 

rectangular rapid flashing beacon at a pedestrian crossing, which has led to him trying to 

get more of them installed in the city. In Las Vegas, the MPO was impressed by the 

RRFD and supports additional installations. 

• Bring together funding from several agencies. The Las Vegas team pieced together 

funding from five different partners, including NDOT, the Nevada Office of Traffic 

Safety, the City of Las Vegas, the local MPO, and Clark County Department of Public 

Works. In addition to funding, many of these agencies provided the labor necessary to 

install countermeasures, which conserved funds for other project needs. 

• Apply for grants. The San Francisco team received a grant for pedestrian countdown 

signals on two corridors through the Safe Routes to School program. 

• Consider funding from taxes. In San Francisco, there is funding available annually for 

“Pedestrian Circulation and Safety” projects from sales tax funds, and the San Francisco 

team was able to secure some of these funds for installing countermeasures. 

• Assure sufficient staff labor. For a major metropolitan city, the staff labor to implement 

innovative pedestrian safety countermeasures can be far greater than the cost of the 

equipment and materials. This time includes: 

 Planning and designing installations 

 Coordinating with other departments/agencies 

 Obtaining legal approvals 

 Coordinating shop work or contracts 

 Managing interdepartmental financial arrangements 

 Purchasing equipment 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 87 

 Installing countermeasures 

Lesson #6—Do Not Underestimate the Complexity of Procurement 

The procurement of innovative countermeasures presented several obstacles for the pedestrian 

safety teams. Lessons regarding procurement include: 

• Be aware of which vendors are approved by your department. For one of their 

relatively inexpensive countermeasures, the San Francisco team had to go through a 

distributor because the manufacturer was not an approved vendor. The use of a 

distributor added complications as well as costs to the project. 

• Establish policies and procedures for procurement as early as possible in the 

program. Because the Las Vegas team was working with multiple jurisdictions, the 

approval process was complex. It often took much more time than anticipated because 

the steps were not always clear from the onset. With regard to the rapid flash beacons, 

Las Vegas had to obtain a permit from NDOT to install the beacons on an experimental 

basis. This was necessary because the beacons were not yet in the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the partners did not want to be held liable if the 

countermeasure showed adverse effects. 

• Be prepared that vendors may have challenges producing new countermeasures. In 

Las Vegas, they were unable to find a vendor that was willing to produce enlarged 

pedestrian signal heads because of the expense and risk involved in creating a new 

design. If there does not appear to be a high demand for a product, a vendor may not be 

willing to risk a new design. In the case of pedestrian countdown signals with “animated 

eyes,” Las Vegas experienced substantial procurement delays. Although the vendor was 

very helpful, they had to ship the system back and forth to the vendor due to software 

issues. Las Vegas also experienced a delay in schedule while working to get permission 

from the patent holders of this countermeasure. 

Lesson #7—Budget Ample Time for Deployment and Coordinate with the Appropriate 

Jurisdictions 

Developing and implementing a comprehensive pedestrian safety program and plan requires a 

multi-year time frame. Deployment of a wide variety of countermeasures in numerous locations 

across an extended period of time presented a challenge to the field teams. The Las Vegas team 

faced additional challenges, as the deployments spanned three separate jurisdictions, including 

the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. Several 

ways to mitigate project delays due to deployment and coordination include: 

• Coordinate deployment activities with local intersection construction plans. The San 

Francisco team had to repair countermeasures damaged by major intersection 

construction that occurred just following countermeasure deployment.

• Budget additional time for implementation when deploying on roads owned by the 

State but operated and maintained by the city or county. The Las Vegas team needed 

to have designs approved by NDOT and then deployment scheduled with the city or 

county. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 88 

• Maintain persistence when obtaining permits to deploy pedestrian safety 

improvements. The Las Vegas team faced unexpected obstacles in obtaining a permit 

from NDOT for a pedestrian refuge island. The team had to address multiple objections 

but eventually received the permit after six months. The Las Vegas team was able to 

overcome the objections by contracting with a private engineering firm to produce the 

needed drawings. This increased the project cost and added four to five months to the 

schedule. 

• Consider the trade-offs of deploying in-house versus using an outside contractor. 

The Miami team had a hard time getting the local agencies to install various 

countermeasures when they were supposed to. The team thought that having its own 

contractor for deployment would be more effective, but it proved to have its own 

problems. As a result of these difficulties, schedule adherence suffered. 

The San Francisco team also considered some of the trade-offs. Overall, they felt it was 

better to handle the deployment in-house, but contracting would have had some 

advantages. There are many traffic engineering and public work projects going on in a 

city like San Francisco, and it can get very complicated. When a project like this is 

managed in-house, it is easy to get caught up with other priorities and project needs, and 

turn-over in staff can cause further complications and delays due to the time needed to 

replace staff. As they moved into implementation, the San Francisco team needed an 

engineer to manage the project. While getting a contract in place for an outside 

contractor offers complications and takes time, once a contract was in place, a consulting 

firm could have handled the deployment faster that the City was able to. 

Lesson #8—Consider How the Timing of Countermeasure Deployment May Impact the 

Experimental Design and Evaluation 

As part of the project, the field teams were required to conduct an evaluation of the 

countermeasures they deployed. To do so, the teams selected experimental designs for their 

evaluation. The Las Vegas team’s deployment plan involved implementing a variety of 

countermeasures at particular sites in a staged approach, and their evaluation plan involved 

evaluating the impacts of each deployment. The San Francisco and Miami teams’ deployment 

evaluation plans involved using a staggered approach to evaluation. This staggered approach 

made use of two deployment sites, each serving as a “control” site for the next at different points 

in the evaluation process. 

• Consider a quasi-experimental design if the installation of the countermeasure 

cannot be controlled. The San Francisco team had planned to use a staggered design but 

ended up using a before and after design. First, they found it was difficult to get an exact 

timing for the installation of countermeasures at the two deployment sites for each 

countermeasure. When the agency was putting in the countermeasure at one site, they 

generally wanted to put the countermeasure in at the other site at the same time. In 

effect, the team asked the agency to delay installation at one site for six weeks, which 

created an extra burden on them. Therefore, the team had difficulty controlling the 

amount of time that elapsed between when the before data were collected and the 

installation of the countermeasures. Perhaps more important, the San Francisco team 

suggests that even if they could have pulled off the staggered design, they are not sure 

how much it would have worked. Their experience was that the real “control” was what 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 89 

was going on in the city in general, not at an intersection across town that was selected as 

the control. A single intersection might not always help control for confounding factors. 

• The Las Vegas team’s deployment plan involved implementing a variety of 

countermeasure at a particular site in a staged approach, evaluating the impacts of each 

new deployment. The team was initially going to deploy in five different stages; 

however, much time and attention was required to manage vendors and sequence the 

staged deployments in multiple jurisdictions. As a result of the deployment delays, they 

had to combine countermeasure deployments, which impacted their ability to evaluate the 

individual countermeasures. If multiple countermeasures were inadvertently deployed 

within the same time period, the team had to scramble to meet the data collection needs. 

In the end, they were able to evaluate the individual countermeasures only because early 

in the project they had deployed some of the countermeasures separately. 

Lesson #9—Consider the Unique Aspects of Collecting and Reducing Pedestrian Safety 

Data 

When safety evaluations are conducted over time periods too short to rely on crash data, it is 

necessary to use surrogate measures of safety to determine the impacts of the deployments. In 

this study, the field teams used a variety of safety surrogates, including: pedestrian behaviors 

(e.g., violating the pedestrian signal, crossing against traffic, looking before crossing) and driver 

behaviors (e.g., blocking the crosswalk, yielding, coming to a complete stop). In addition to the 

safety surrogates, teams collected data related to pedestrian mobility (e.g., pedestrian volumes, 

traffic volumes, pedestrian delay), customer satisfaction, and demographic information 

associated with observed pedestrians. Collecting this amount of data, including behavioral data 

of both pedestrians and drivers, presents some unique challenges. Lessons learned during their 

data collection activities include: 

• Remember that vehicle and pedestrian peak periods do not necessarily coincide.

When planning data collection activities that involve observing both driver and 

pedestrian behaviors, it is important to consider the peak periods for both vehicular traffic 

and pedestrian traffic. Collecting data only during the peak periods for vehicular traffic 

may not result in the optimal observations of pedestrians. 

• Keep MOEs simple and repeatable. Clear, consistent definitions of MOEs are helpful, 

but difficult to achieve. In particular, there is no universal, accepted definition of 

“vehicle/pedestrian conflict.” When assessing the effectiveness of the countermeasures 

or pedestrian safety program, select MOEs that can be defined and for which data can be 

collected consistently across staff, locations, and time. Regardless of what MOEs are 

selected, a data collection protocol and corresponding training should be developed and 

implemented. 

• Provide field data collection personnel with a formal letter explaining their purpose 

and contact information. Collecting behavioral data in the field can require multiple 

personnel, video cameras, and other equipment. Police in Las Vegas received a call from 

a citizen concerned with the “suspicious” activities of several individuals with clipboards 

and video cameras on a street corner. When the police came to investigate, the Las 

Vegas team was able to produce a letter that instructed the officer to call a lead researcher 

at the university. The lead researchers confirmed the names of the individuals 

participating in the data collection, which relieved suspicion. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 90 

• Consider the advantages and disadvantages of using field data collection versus 

video data collection. Pedestrian safety data can be collected by observers in the field, 

or using video cameras, and there are advantages and disadvantages to both: 

 While video data may allow for greater accuracy by giving precise time stamps of 

events and allowing analysts repeated viewings, it requires substantially more 

time to analyze. The labor requirements for tabulating video recorded events 

were several times greater than for manual data collection. 

 The San Francisco team reported that while using video data complicated the 

project, it made it more interesting. 

 Video is very good in allowing for review and in obtaining precision, but is not as 

good at observing subtle details like gender and age and whether people are 

looking left or right. In addition, the video field of vision was often restricted. 

• Pre-plan and pilot test the location and angles of the video cameras. The San 

Francisco team had difficulty selecting locations that were well-suited for a particular 

countermeasure and getting the right camera angles. As a result, they recommend 

developing a protocol for pilot testing the video data at each location, including site 

review for optimal camera placement, obtaining video, and spending some time 

analyzing the pilot version to make sure the camera angles are appropriate for obtaining 

the MOEs for the countermeasure. While this process may add one to two days of work 

per location, in the long run it saves time and resources. 

The Miami team experienced similar difficulties with video data collection. Their initial 

test of the technology happened to be done at a location conducive to this type of data 

gathering, while most study locations proved much more difficult and complex. In 

retrospect, a more detailed field review would have been advisable and, given the 

difficulties experienced, using observers may have been preferable to using video. 

• Allot extra time for reducing video data. The San Francisco team estimated that they 

needed four to five hours to reduce one hour of video data. They further estimated that 

the decision to use video added 20 – 30 percent to the costs and time needed to complete 

the project, adding nearly one year to the schedule. 

The field teams had a large amount of data to collect at a variety of different sites. Each team 

considered live, on-site data collection, as well as the use of video cameras. There are a number 

of advantages and disadvantages associated with both data collection approaches. Each team 

used video to some extent to collect data, and they found a number of ways to expedite the 

reduction of the video data: 

• Develop a customized/automated video analysis software tool to extract data from 

video images. The San Francisco team developed a customized video analysis software 

tool. Users type F keys to mark different events, and the tool records the events with 

timestamps directly into a spreadsheet. The tool allows users to play the video at different 

speeds and to go frame by frame. The tool greatly improved the ability to extract data 

from the video images. The Las Vegas team found that one hour of video required 

analyzers to rewind the video 8 to 10 times. Automated templates offered a more 

efficient process for data analysis. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 91 

• Link signal cycles to video time stamps with automated methods. Linking the signal 

cycles to the video time stamps was necessary to record several of the measures of 

effectiveness. For a couple of reasons, the signal timing information was incorporated 

once the video data were collected, rather than have the data recorders observe both the 

signal and the pedestrian/driver behaviors. First, it was difficult to position the camera so 

as to see the signals and the roadway behaviors. Second, even when the cameras could 

be positioned to see the traffic signals, it was difficult for data recorders to judge who 

was where and during which signal phase. To link the signal cycle information to the 

video data time stamps, the San Francisco team developed a computer program which 

saved the team a lot of time. Once it was set up, which added about one week to the 

schedule, it allowed a good deal of precision and took burden off of the observer. 

COUNTERMEASURE-SPECIFIC LESSONS LEARNED

This section presents lessons learned regarding specific countermeasures. Lessons learned 

associated with two countermeasures in particular are highlighted below. 

Lesson #1—Strategically Place In-street Pedestrian Signs to Reduce the Chance of Them 

Being Hit by Vehicles and to Maximize Their Effectiveness 

In-street pedestrian signs are placed in the center of the roadway prior to or at the crosswalk. 

Their purpose is to alert drivers that they must yield to pedestrians. The placement of the signs 

in the roadway, close to drivers, was expected to increase yielding behaviors over the more 

traditional signs that are placed on the side of the roadway. 

All three field teams installed and evaluated in-street pedestrian signs, and all had issues with the 

signs being hit and destroyed in many locations. There are a number of ways to reduce the 

occurrence of the signs being destroyed by vehicles: 

• Place signs on medians to reduce damage by motorists. The Miami and San Francisco 

teams recommend placing the signs on raised medians, and the Miami team suggests 

using low-level foliage on the medians to reduce the percentage of motorists that strike 

them. Locations with a pedestrian median or refuge are likely to be most effective. 

• Place only one sign per approach and at the crosswalk. The Miami team conducted a 

parametric analysis of the relationship between sign location and yielding behavior to 

determine if placing multiple signs along an approach would lead to larger increases in 

driver yielding behavior. The team placed signs in multiple locations on the uncontrolled 

approaches to three two-way stop-controlled intersections. Based on the results, the 

Miami team recommends using only one sign per approach, as well as placing the sign at 

the crosswalk. Overall it appears that installing the signs at the crosswalk line is as 

effective as or more effective than any other location along the approach or than 

installing three signs on one approach. 

• Do not use signs in locations with high truck or bus traffic. At locations with high 

truck traffic in Las Vegas, the signs lasted between 48 hours and 2 weeks. For example, 

the Las Vegas team deployed a sign near a cement mixing plant where cement trucks 

were frequently turning. The lifespan of the signs at that location was less than 24 hours. 

At locations with fewer trucks, the signs remained intact. The San Francisco team 

recommends considering bus routes when determining where to install the signs. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 92 

• Carefully consider turning movements and lane width when determining locations 

for sign installation. The San Francisco team experienced high damage rates to signs 

located near left-turn paths at intersections. They recommend placing the signs carefully 

by taking into account car and truck turning movements as well as lane widths in order to 

reduce damage to the signs. 

Lesson #2—Consider the Technical Issues Surrounding the Use of Automated Pedestrian 

Detection 

Pedestrian detection technologies, including microwave and infrared detection devices, provide 

the means to automatically detect the presence of pedestrians in the targeted curbside area. 

Technologies may also be used to detect pedestrians moving in the crosswalk. When used at the 

curbside area, pedestrian detection may either replace or augment the standard push button used 

to activate the pedestrian call. When pedestrian detection is used to detect pedestrians in the 

crosswalk, the purpose is to detect the presence of individuals requiring additional time to cross 

and, accordingly, to extend the clearance interval and to provide more time to cross. 

Both the San Francisco and Las Vegas teams implemented pedestrian detection technologies in 

their studies and offer some lessons regarding the technology: 

• Consider In-Surface Activation Devices (ISADs) as an alternative to bollards for 

infrared pedestrian detection at busy street corners. San Francisco used ISADs 

instead of two waist-high bollards to activate flashing beacons at a corner where there 

were a lot of crossings. 

• Keep corners with automated pedestrian detection clear of parked cars to avoid 

false detections. In Las Vegas, parked cars were detected by the pedestrian detection 

device. To mitigate this issue, the team made the no parking zone near the detectors 

more obvious by painting the curbs red. 

• Ensure that the signal control logic and the detection device are configured for 

proper communication. San Francisco had significant issues to overcome in making the 

signal controller logic compatible with the notification to extend the green from the 

pedestrian detection device. 

• Consider building the detection equipment in-house. The Las Vegas team had 

difficulty getting responses from vendors for automated pedestrian detection systems. As 

a result, UNLV worked with its partner, the City of Las Vegas Department of Public 

Works, to build the detection equipment in-house. The sensors and radio transmitters 

were purchased. 

Additional lessons learned regarding other countermeasures are shown in Table 83. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 93 

Table 83. Countermeasure-specific Lessons Learned 

Countermeasure Lesson(s) Learned 

Public outreach and education Translate public service messages into multiple languages in order to 

conduct a successful outreach to non-English speaking populations. 

Electronic No Turn on Red 

(NTOR) signs 

Be prepared to demonstrate to concerned traffic engineers that the 

electronic NTOR sign will not significantly disrupt traffic progression 

along a corridor. 

Work with the local electrical department and vendors to make sure 

everything is in place for success. 

Automated detection of 

pedestrians to extend crossing 

time 

With the installation of an innovative use of the technology such as 

automated pedestrian detection comes the need for customization. The 

San Francisco team had to develop, test, and refine a customized 

detection zone scheme and logic for adjusting the signal timing. The 

detection software also needed to be coordinated with the traffic signal 

controller software. 

Activated flashing beacons 

with infrared bollards 

The flashing beacons with infrared bollards required the most 

substantial construction of any countermeasure, and included 

installation of conduit and wiring the device across a four-lane arterial. 

This required investigation of possible conflicts with high-risk 

utilities. While individual components (the detection bollards and the 

beacons themselves) were commercially available, the combination 

had to be custom-designed. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 94 

CONCLUSIONS 

Overall, the implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive pedestrian safety program 

proved to be a very challenging undertaking for each of the three field teams involved. There 

were many lessons learned over the course of the 6-year project, ranging from assembling and 

maintaining communications with a diverse set of project partners, to countermeasure selection 

and procurement, to the details associated with the successful application of particular 

countermeasures. 

Considering the wide range of countermeasures installed, the various pedestrian safety problems 

at hand, the diverse locations and study sites at which the countermeasures were installed, and 

the somewhat different approaches to data collection and evaluation used by the three field 

teams, it is not surprising that the findings are fairly mixed and in some cases counterintuitive. 

These were studies conducted in the field with real-world variables that could not be controlled. 

Nonetheless, there were many notable and promising findings from the field tests and 

evaluations. 

For the purposes of this summary and cross-cutting analysis report, the 18 countermeasures have 

been classified according their effectiveness in producing measurable changes in driver and/or 

pedestrian behaviors, as hypothesized for the evaluations. While it is recognized that other 

factors can certainly impact overall countermeasure effectiveness, the classification of the 

countermeasures in this way was done in an attempt to give the reader an idea as to which 

countermeasures may have the most promise in ultimately impacting pedestrian safety and which 

others may not. Countermeasures were classified in one of the following four categories: high 

effectiveness, moderate effectiveness, low effectiveness, or effectiveness depends on application. 

HIGH EFFECTIVENESS

Seven of the countermeasures were classified as being highly effective in impacting behaviors 

related to pedestrian safety. These seven countermeasures cover a range of applications, 

including signal timing, active and in-street signs, call buttons that provide feedback, and 

roadway design elements. Each of the countermeasures offers something unique over traditional 

countermeasures, whether it provides additional information to pedestrians, is highly visible to 

pedestrians or motorists, or it gives an advantage to pedestrians when crossing. Therefore, it is 

not surprising that these countermeasures resulted in the most positive impacts. They include: 

Leading pedestrian interval. Installed at four sites in San Francisco and two sites in Miami, the 

findings indicate that this countermeasure was effective at increasing left-turn driver yielding to 

pedestrians in the crosswalk, although the magnitude of left-turn yielding was smaller in San 

Francisco than in Miami (likely because left-turn driver yielding was already very high in San 

Francisco and therefore there was less opportunity for improvement). This effect does not 

appear to apply to right-turn driver yielding possibly due to the high frequency of right-turners 

who do not stop at a red light before turning. The Miami team also measured significant 

increases in pedestrian call button pushes and the number of pedestrians that started crossing at 

the beginning of the cycle. 

Pedestrian countdown signals. The findings from the Miami sites strongly point to overall 

increases in safe pedestrian behavior as a result of the pedestrian countdown signals, with 

significant and consistent positive results for all three critical MOEs: call button pressing, 

pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of flashing DON’T WALK, and pedestrian signal 

violations. The results from the Las Vegas study team, however, were mixed possibly due to 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 95 

signal timing issues at the intersections. The Las Vegas team also found a large increase in the 

percent of pedestrians that looked before crossing the street, which may have resulted from the 

animated eyes display on the countdown signal. 

In-street pedestrian signs. Installed at nine sites across the three field deployment locations, instreet pedestrian crossings signs appear to be highly effective at increasing driver yielding to 

pedestrians. The location at the roadway centerline appears to capture drivers’ attention more 

effectively than roadside signs, as evidenced by large increases in driver yielding at all but one of 

the nine sites. However, all three study teams noted that while these signs were effective in 

changing behaviors, they had a very short lifespan that ultimately impacted their long-term 

effectiveness at many of the sites. These issues, however, can be overcome in a number of ways, 

including: 

• Placing the signs on raised medians as opposed to at street level 

• Placing only one sign at the crosswalk as opposed to using multiple signs on the approach 

• Avoiding use of the signs in locations with high truck or bus traffic 

• Carefully considering turning movements and lane width when determining locations for 

sign installation 

Activated flashing beacons. There were some clear increases in pedestrian safety in San 

Francisco. There was a significant increase in drivers yielding, corresponding decreases in 

pedestrian delay, and decreases in conflicts at both sites. There was an increase in yielding 

distance at 16th & Capp and a decrease in pedestrians trapped at Mission & Santa Rosa. Driver 

yielding did not change significantly at the Las Vegas site, but this could have been a result of 

driver yielding improvements due to the installation of other countermeasures in earlier stages. 

For those drivers who yielded, yielding distances increased. 

Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB). There were also clear safety benefits associated 

with the introduction of the pedestrian activated RRFB in Miami. After installation of the 

RRFBs, driver yielding to both staged pedestrians and local resident crossings increased at both 

deployment sites, the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the road decreased at 

one of the sites, and evasive conflicts decreased at both sites. At one of the sites, the number of 

conflicts decreased each time the RRFB treatment was introduced and increased each time it was 

removed. At the other site, the decrease in conflicts after the RRFB was introduced was 

maintained each time it was removed. 

Call buttons that confirm the press. Installed in both Miami and Las Vegas at a total of three 

intersections, this countermeasure showed a fairly strong and consistent impact on an increased 

use of call buttons and, in turn, a reduction in pedestrian violations and pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway. Call button presses increased significantly and to above 50 percent at both Miami 

sites, and pedestrian signal violations decreased at all three sites (however, overall pedestrian 

signal violations remained above 50 percent at both Miami sites). It could be difficult, however, 

to see the LED light in bright sunlight, making the auditory feedback more critical to the efficacy 

of the device. 

Danish offset combined with high-visibility crosswalk, advance yield markings, and YIELD 

HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs. Installed at two sites in Las Vegas, this combination of 

countermeasures appears to have led to an increase in safe pedestrian and driver behaviors. The 

Las Vegas team measured significant increases in driver yielding and diverted pedestrians as 

well as significant decreases in trapped pedestrians. Pedestrian delay was significantly reduced 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 96 

at the Lake Mead location where a designated crossing area had not previously existed, although 

pedestrian delay increased at Maryland and Dumont. There was no significant impact on vehicle 

delay at Lake Mead even though there was an increase in yielding. While driver yielding did 

increase significantly at the two locations, only 40 percent of drivers on Lake Mead Boulevard 

(mid-block location) yielded after installation of the countermeasures, while 76 percent of 

drivers on Maryland Parkway (signalized intersection) yielded after installation of the 

countermeasures. This could be a result of the location of the Danish offset, the type of Danish 

offset, and/or whether or not a crosswalk existed in the baseline condition. At the signalized 

intersection location at Maryland Parkway and Dumont, the Danish offset was made more visible 

with the use of bright yellow bollards and there was a crosswalk in the baseline condition. At the 

mid-block location along Lake Mead Boulevard, the Danish offset was perhaps less visible and 

was located where there was not previously a crosswalk. In addition, vehicle speed could also 

play a role in the results. Lake Mead Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 45 mph, while the 

posted speed limit on Maryland Parkway is 30 mph. Drivers may be more willing and able to 

yield on the lower speed roadway. In general, though, this suite of countermeasures appears to 

have made pedestrian crossings safer. 

MEDIUM EFFECTIVENESS

Four of the countermeasures were classified as being of medium effectiveness in impacting 

behaviors related to pedestrian safety. These countermeasures were the most difficult to classify 

in that there were positive findings, yet the findings were either mixed, inconsistent, or 

inconclusive either within or across the field locations. They include: 

Electronic No Turn on Red (NTOR) sign. Tested in Miami, and compared with both the static 

NTOR and the static conditional NTOR, the effectiveness of the electronic NTOR sign was 

assessed by observing driver violations of the NTOR restriction, right-turn drivers making 

complete stops, and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Use of the electronic NTOR sign resulted in 

the fewest turning violations overall (32 percent) of the three signs tested and markedly fewer 

turning violations when a pedestrian was present at the curb (only 25 percent as compared to 

over 90 percent with the static signs). Following installation of the electronic sign, there was 

also a large increase in the percentage of violators who came to a complete stop before violating 

the turn restriction. 

Prohibition of permissive left turns. Installed at one site in Miami, the data indicate that this 

countermeasure may be an effective way to improve pedestrian safety at intersections by 

reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts; however, the findings also indicate that there was a 

substantial portion of left-turners that violated the red signal. While this countermeasure has 

potential for increasing pedestrian safety, the signal configuration should be taken into 

consideration in order to mitigate left-turners violating the signal. 

Portable speed trailers. Installed in all three field locations, the primary MOE for assessing the 

effectiveness of speed trailers was average vehicles speed and driver yielding. The San 

Francisco team measured significant reductions in speed at their two test sites, while the Miami 

team did not. Significant increases in driver yielding at the San Francisco sites translated into 

decreases in pedestrian delays. There was an increase in driver braking mid-block in Miami, but 

no significant increase in driver yielding in Las Vegas. Based on these findings, it appears that 

the speed trailers can impact drivers’ speeds and possibly increase their awareness of the 

presence of pedestrians at these locations, but it is unlikely that these impacts will remain once 

the signs are removed. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 97 

Automated pedestrian detection (to activate or extend pedestrian crossing phase). Installed 

in both San Francisco and Miami, the only significant finding was a 9 percent reduction in the 

percentage of pedestrians trapped in the roadway at the Miami site (where the automated 

pedestrian detection was used to initiate the pedestrian crossing phase). While these results 

suggest that pedestrians may have been making safer crossings, there were no measurable 

impacts of the pedestrian detection systems on pedestrian clearance (those clearing before the 

end of the WALK or clearance phases) or conflicts with motor vehicles (which were generally 

low to begin with). In San Francisco, where the automated pedestrian detection was used to 

extend the pedestrian crossing phase, the team noted promise for the technology, but 

recommends further testing and refinement. 

LOW EFFECTIVENESS

Five of the countermeasures were classified as having low effectiveness in impacting behaviors 

related to pedestrian safety. Three of these countermeasures were pavement markings and two 

were static signs. These five countermeasures are relatively static and it is not surprising that 

they did not produce more significant results. The low effectiveness countermeasures include: 

High visibility crosswalks. Tested at three locations in Las Vegas, there were no significant 

increases in driver yielding at any of the sites, and yielding distance results were inconsistent 

across the sites. There were significant reductions in drivers blocking the crosswalk at one of the 

sites. The results showed that high visibility crosswalks do not appear to be effective in 

changing driver behaviors in the vicinity of the crosswalks. This result could be due in part to 

the fact that the crosswalk markings deteriorated in a matter of weeks as a result of the heat 

causing a release of oils in the pavement. 

Advance yield markings. Installed at two locations in San Francisco, there were no significant 

changes in driver yielding, vehicle stop position, or pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at either site 

after installation of the advance stop lines. Based on these results, it appears that advance stop 

lines had no impacts on driver behavior or pedestrian safety. 

LOOK pavement stencils. Installed at four sites in San Francisco, there were few impacts on 

pedestrian looking behaviors and no impact on pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Although the 

LOOK stencil markings are one of the least expensive countermeasures tested, the results 

indicate that this is not an effective countermeasure. Additionally, the San Francisco team noted 

that they were highly susceptible to fading and blemishes (similar to the high visibility crosswalk 

treatments in Las Vegas). 

TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs. Installed at eight sites across the 

three field test locations, driver yielding behavior was the primary MOE for assessing the 

effectiveness of these signs. While there were a few significant changes found across the eight 

sites, there were inconsistencies in what changes were found and at which sites. These findings 

limit the conclusions that can be made regarding the effectiveness of these signs. 

Pedestrian zone signs. Installed at one site in Miami, the results indicate that the 

countermeasure was not effective in reducing speed or increasing driver yielding / braking in the 

presence of pedestrians. The researchers have suggested that this ineffectiveness may be related 

to the low speeds observed prior to deployment, and therefore there was not much margin for 

improvement. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 98 

EFFECTIVENESS DEPENDS ON APPLICATION

The effectiveness of two of the countermeasures seemed to depend mostly on the application, 

with positive impacts in one application and less positive impacts in another application. These 

countermeasures include: 

Median refuge island. Based on the results, it appears that the installation of a median refuge 

island at a mid-block location was effective in increasing driver yielding to pedestrians and 

reducing pedestrian delay, while the median refuge islands at the signalized intersections in San 

Francisco appear to be less effective at altering driver and pedestrian behaviors. 

Dynamic lighting. The findings from the Las Vegas team that tested the impacts of dynamic 

lighting at a high-visibility crosswalk location suggest that dynamic lighting used with automatic 

pedestrian detection increases safe driver and pedestrian behaviors. Driver yielding and 

pedestrian diversion increased significantly while the percent of trapped pedestrians significantly 

decreased. While driver yielding increased, its prevalence was still low at 35 percent. In 

Miami, the addition of dynamic lighting to a crosswalk that had a RRFB did not appear to further 

improve driver yielding or pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. The Miami researchers suggested that 

this may have occurred because the dynamic lighting is not very noticeable in the presence of 

highly intense flashing beacons. 
Final System Impact Report January 2009 

 99 

REFERENCES 

1. San Francisco PedSafe Phase II Data Analysis Report, Federal Highway Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, January 31, 2008. 

2. Working Draft, San Francisco PedSafe Phase II, Final Report and Executive Summary, 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped/ped_scdproj/sf/pedsafety_sf.pdf, Federal Highway 

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, January 11, 2008. 

3. Miami-Dade Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase II FINAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT 

AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped/ped_scdproj/miami/pedsafety_miami.pdf, Federal 

Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, August 25, 

2008. 

4. Pedestrian Safety Engineering and Intelligent Transportation System-Based Countermeasures 

Program For Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injuries, Conflicts, and Other Surrogate 

Measures, Las Vegas Phase II Final Technical Report, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, September 2, 2008.