August 25, 2008

Miami­Dade Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase II

FINAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pedestrian Safety Engineering and Intelligent Transportation 

System‐Based Countermeasures Program for Reduced Pedestrian Fatalities, 

Injuries, Conflicts and Other Surrogate Measures: Miami‐Dade Site 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Cooperative Agreement

DTFH61­01­X­00018

Prepared by 

Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611­6588

Tel: (352) 392­9537

In Cooperation With 

Florida Department of Transportation

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida

Miami­Dade County Public Works Department

Miami­Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

ii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) grant under 

Cooperative  Agreement  DTFH61‐01‐X‐00018,  which  is  gratefully  acknowledged. 

Additional  funding  was  provided  by  the  Florida  DOT  and  the  Miami‐Dade  County 

Department of Public Works. 

` 

FHWA Project Guidance was provided by:

Tamara Redmon, Office of Safety 

Dr. Gabriel Rousseau, Office of Safety 

Jocelyn Bauer and Kelley Pecheux, SAIC 

Leverson Boodlal, KLS Engineering 

The  project  was  managed  by  the  University  of  Florida,  Department  of  Civil  and 

Costal Engineering, and  the Miami‐Dade County Department of Public Works, with 

the following project oversight and management staff:  

University of Florida Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering (UF)

Dr. Ralph Ellis, Overall Principal Investigator 

Dr. Ron Van Houten, Technical Principal Investigator 

Miami­Dade Department of Public Works

Mohamed Hussan, Chief of Traffic Eng Division 

David Henderson, Pedestrian Bicycle Coordinator 

Vishnu Rajkumar, Signal Design Administrator  

Bob Williams, Traffic Signal Engineer 

Private Consultants

Charles V. Zegeer, P.E. 

Richard Blomberg, Dunlap and Associates 

Student Assistants:

Jose Sanda, Graduate Student  

Jin Lee Kim, Graduate Student 

Acknowledgement is also made of  the contributions of Ed Rice, FHWA,  formerly of 

the  FDOT  Safety  Office,  and  Rory  Santana,  FDOT  District  6  Office,  who  were 

responsible for many of the countermeasures in phase two 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION ........................................1

1.1 PURPOSE, GOALS, AND SCOPE ............................................................................1

1.2 MIAMI‐DADE SETTING .........................................................................................2

1.2.1 Crash Demographics in Miami‐Dade County ............................................2

1.3 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND SCHEDULE ................................................................5

1.4 COUNTERMEASURE OVERVIEW .........................................................................5

1.4.1 Comparison of Countermeasures: Cost ....................................................7

1.4.2 Comparison of Countermeasures Availability and Standard Use: ..........7

1.4.3 Comparison of Countermeasures: Installation Complexity ....................7

1.6 DEVICES NOT INSTALLED ...................................................................................9

1.6.1 ITS Midblock Signals with Animated Eyes ................................................9

1.6.2 ITS Midblock Pedestrian Signal with Animated Eyes ..............................9

1.8 SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................10

1.10 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH .........................................................................13

1.11 PHASE II CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................13

1.11.1 Lessons Learned:  Overall Project Success and Countermeasures ....13

1.11.2 Utility of Crash Typing Tools in Selecting Treatments ........................13

CHAPTER 2 COUNTERMEASURE IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................15

2.1 OVERVIEW OF INSTALLATION CHALLENGES .................................................15

2.2 COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION ........16

2.3 COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: COSTS ..............................................16

2.4 COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: AVAILABILITY AND STANDARD 

USE ..........................................................................................................................18

CHAPTER 3 DEPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURES ............................20

3.1 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON THAT CONFIRMS PRESS ..................................20

3.2 DECREASE MINIMUM GREEN TIME ..................................................................22

3.3 VIDEO PEDESTRIAN DETECTION .....................................................................24

3.4 LEAD PEDESTRIAN PHASE ................................................................................25

3.5 “TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” SYMBOL SIGN ....................27

3.6 ELECTRONIC “NO RIGHT TURN ON RED” (NRTOR) SIGN...............................29

3.7 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS ..............................................................30

3.8 “IN‐STREET YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGNS” ..................................................32

3.9 PEDESTRIANS ZONE SIGNS ...............................................................................34

3.10 SPEED TRAILERS ..............................................................................................36

3.11 RECTANGULAR LED RAPID FLASHING BEACONS .........................................38

3.12 DYNAMIC LIGHTING .........................................................................................40

3.13 NO PERMISIVE LEFT TURN .............................................................................42

3.14 OFFSET STOP LINES .........................................................................................43
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

iv 

3.15 ADVANCE YIELD MARKINGS ...........................................................................44

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS FOR PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL 

COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................................................47

4.1 INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT RESULTS ................................................................47

4.1.1 Push Button That Confirms Press ...........................................................48

4.1.2 The Effects of Varying Minimum Green Time ........................................50

4.1.3 Video Pedestrian Detection .....................................................................50

4.1.4 Leading Pedestrian Phase ........................................................................52

4.1.5 “TURNING VEHICLE YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Symbol Sign ...............55

4.1.6 Electronic “NO TURN ON RED” Sign ........................................................56

4.1.7 Countdown Pedestrian Signals ................................................................57

4.1.8 In‐Street Pedestrian Sign .........................................................................58

4.1.10 Speed Trailers .........................................................................................60

4.1.11 Rectangular LED Stutter Flash ..............................................................61

4.1.12 Dynamic Lighting ....................................................................................64

4.1.13 Remove Permissive Left Turn Phase ....................................................64

4.2 CRASH ANALYSIS All TREATED CORRIDORS ...................................................66

4.3 INDIVDUAL CORRIDOR CRASH DATA ..............................................................67

4.3.1 41ST Street (Alton Rd. to Pine Tree Dr.) ..................................................67

4.3.2 NE6TH St. (NE 141ST St. to NE 151ST St.) ..................................................67

4.3.4 Collins Ave (5TH St. to 24TH St.) ................................................................69

4.3.5 Collins Ave‐Indian Creek (28TH St. to 43RD St.) .......................................70

CHAPTER 5 OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ....................................................................75

CHAPTER 6 PHASE II CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................78

6.1 LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................................................78

6.1.1 Lessons Learned:  Overall Project Success .............................................78

6.1.2 Crash Reductions ......................................................................................78

6.1.3 Lessons Learned from Experimentation ................................................79

6.1.4 Lessons Learned: Implementation ..........................................................79
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

v 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.1 Miami‐Dade High Pedestrian Crash Zones .....................................................4

Figure 1.2 South Beach High Pedestrian Crash Corridors ..............................................4

Figure 3.1 Picture of Pedestrian Push Button That Confirms Press ............................20

Figure 3.2 Picture of Midblock Crossing with Reduced Minimum Green Time ..........22

Figure 3.3 Picture of Device Used For Pedestrian Detection ........................................24

Figure 3.4 Picture of Leading Pedestrian Phase ............................................................26

Figure 3.5 Picture of “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians” Symbol Sign ...............27

Figure 3.6 Picture of Electronic No Turn on Red Sign ...................................................29

Figure 3.7 Picture of a Pedestrian Countdown Signal ...................................................31

Figure 3.8 Picture of In‐street “Yield to Pedestrians” Signs .........................................33

Figure 3.9 Picture of a Speed Trailer ..............................................................................37

Figure 3.10 Picture of Rectangular LED Rapid Flashing Beacons ................................39

Figure 3.11 Picture of Dynamic Lighting ........................................................................41

Figure 3.12 Picture of Offset Yield Lines ........................................................................43

Figure 3.13 Picture of Advance Yield Markings .............................................................45

Figure 4.1 Picture of Data Collectors ..............................................................................47

Figure 4.2 Crashes per Year for All Eight Crash Corridors from 1996‐2006 ..............66

Figure 4.3 Crashes per Year for 41st St.; Alton Rd. to Pine Tree Dr. 1996‐2006 .........67

Figure 4.4 Crashes per Year Along NE 6th St.  (NE 141st St. to NE 151st St.) from 

1996 to 2006 .............................................................................................................68

Figure 4.5 Crashes per Year NE 163rd  St.  (NE 2nd Ave to Biscayne Blvd.) from 

1996 to 2006 .............................................................................................................69

Figure 4.6 Crashes per Year Collins Ave.  (5th Street to 24th St.) from 1996 to 2006 ..70

Figure 4.7 Crashes per Year Collins Ave.  (Indian Creek 28th St. to 43rd St.) from 

1996 to 2006 .............................................................................................................71
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

vi 

Figure 4.8 Crashes per Year Collins Ave. and Harding Ave. (67th St. to 76th St.) 

from 1996 to 2006 ....................................................................................................72

Figure 4.9 Crashes per Year on Alton Rd. 5th St. to 17th St.) from 1996 to 2006 .........73

Figure 4.10 Crashes per Year on 5th St. Between Alton Rd. and Ocean Dr.) from 

1996 to 2006 .............................................................................................................74
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

vii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1.1 Results Obtained for Each Countermeasure ..................................................10

Table 1‐2 Numbers of Crashes per Year at Treated Sites .............................................12

Table 2.1 Capital Cost and Labor/Engineering Costs for Each Countermeasure .......17

Table 3.1 Push the Button Confirming Press: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor ......................................................................................................................21

Table 3.2 Decrease Minimum Green: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor ......23

Table 3.3 Video Pedestrian Detection: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor ....24

Table 3.4 Lead Pedestrian Phase: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor ............26

Table 3.5 “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians” Symbols Sign: Deployment 

Locations Listed by Corridor ....................................................................................28

Table 3.6 Electronic “No Turn on Red” Sign: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor ......................................................................................................................30

Table 3.7 Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor ......................................................................................................................32

Table 3.8 In‐street “Yield to Pedestrians” Signs: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor ......................................................................................................................33

Table 3.9 Pedestrian Zone Signs: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor .............35

Table 3.10 Speed Trailers: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor ........................37

Table 3.11 Rectangular LED Rapid Flashing Beacons: Deployment Locations 

Listed by Corridor .....................................................................................................39

Table 3.12 Dynamic lighting: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor ...................41

Table 3.13 Eliminate permissive Left Turn: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor ......................................................................................................................42

Table 3.14 Offset Stop Lines: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor ....................44

Table 3.15 Eliminate Permissive Left Turn: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor ......................................................................................................................45

Table 4.1 Results of Push Button Intervention ..............................................................49

Table 4.2 Results of Varying Minimum Green Time Intervention ...............................51
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

viii 

Table 4.4 Results of Leading Pedestrian Phase Intervention .......................................54

Table 4.5 Results of “TURNING VEHICLE YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Intervention ....55

Table 4.6 Results of Electronic “NO TURN ON RED” Sign Intervention .......................57

Table 4.8 Results of In‐Street Pedestrian Sign Study ....................................................59

Table 4.9 Results of Pedestrian Zone Signs Study .........................................................60

Table 4.10 Results of Speed Trailers Study ....................................................................61

Table 4.11 Results of Rectangular LED Stutter Flash Study .........................................63

Table 4.12 Results of Dynamic Lighting Study ..............................................................64

Table 4.13 Results of Remove Permissive Left Turn Phase Study ...............................65
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

1 

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE, GOALS, AND SCOPE

Purpose

This  report  presents  the  methods  and  key  findings  from  the  Miami‐Dade 

comprehensive pedestrian safety planning and engineering project. It is one of three 

such projects in the nation funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

to evaluate:  

In  Phase  I:  The  effectiveness  of  a  pedestrian  safety  plan  to  target  higher‐injury 

areas; 

In  Phase  II:  The  implementation  of  a  range  of  mostly  low‐to‐moderate‐cost, 

innovative engineering safety improvements. 

This  report  concentrates  on  the  Phase  II  countermeasure  implementation  efforts, 

minimizing  duplication  with  earlier  reports,  and  focusing  primarily  on  the 

implementation experience and overall lessons learned.  

Goals

This project had three primary goals:   

1.) The installation of pedestrian countermeasures;  

2.)  The  scientific  evaluation  of  the  countermeasures  in  order  to  determine  their    

efficacy; and  

3.) To produce a significant crash reduction along the treated high crash corridors. 

Key Work Products

The University of Florida, Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering and Miami‐ 

Dade County Department of Public Works proposed and conducted the project from 

planning  through  implementation.  A  separate  Phase  I  (Planning)  Final  Report, 

finalized Dec 5, 2002, covered: 

•  Problem Identification:  a  comprehensive  picture  of  pedestrian  injury 

collisions in high crash corridors in Miami‐Dade County.   

•  Countermeasure Selection Plan:  a  conceptual  blueprint,  describing 

proposed  countermeasures  for  Pedestrian  Safety  implementation,  and 

descriptions  of  countermeasures  selected  for  inclusion  in  the  Pedestrian 

Safety  study.  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

2 

•  Evaluation Plan:  a  conceptual  plan  for  assessing  the  impacts  of  the 

countermeasures.   

•  Outreach and Awareness Plan: a conceptual plan  for educating  the public 

about  countermeasures  to  be  implemented,  in  addition  to  promoting  safer 

driver and pedestrian behavior.   

The  June  25,  2004  Phase  II  Research  Implementation  Plan  clarified  the 

countermeasure plan, including cost estimates and, where appropriate, conceptual 

layout  plans.  It  also  presented  refined  outreach  and  data  collection/evaluation 

plans.  Due  to  engineering  and  institutional  challenges,  some  of  the  proposed 

countermeasures  could  not  be  implemented  while  additional  countermeasures 

were added. These challenges are described in this report. 

1.2 MIAMI­DADE SETTING

1.2.1 Crash Demographics in Miami­Dade County

This section of the executive summary provides a brief overview of the presentation 

in the Phase 1 Report, which is not repeated in the main portion of this report.  This 

section has been added to the executive summary to give the reader perspective on 

the  nature  of  the  crash  problem  in  Miami‐Dade  County,  how  treatment  corridors 

were  selected,  and  how  countermeasures  were  selected  and  matched  to  each 

selected  corridor.    Miami‐Dade  had  a  population  of  2,253,362  in  2000,  which  is 

about  14  percent  of  Florida’s  total  population.    The  population  is  diverse  and 

predominantly  Hispanic  (57.3  percent).    The  per  capita  pedestrian  fatality  and 

injury  crash  rates  are  very  high.  Among  the  82  pedestrian  deaths in  1999,  nearly 

half involved pedestrians age 55 or older. Total injuries are greatest in number for 

ages 25 through 54.  African Americans are over‐ represented in terms of population 

with  a  crash  rate  approximately  50  percent  higher  than  their  proportion  of  the 

population, and Hispanic Americans are under represented with a rate less than half 

their  proportion  of  the  population.  Alcohol  use  in  pedestrian  fatalities  is  under‐

represented in Miami‐Dade at only 16.8 percent, compared to 35 percent statewide.   

A little more than half of the pedestrian crashes in Miami‐Dade County occurred on 

state or county roads, while 46 percent of the remaining crashes occurred on local 

roads.  Because there are many more miles of local roads than state or county roads, 

the  pedestrian  crash  rate  per  mile  is  much  higher  for  this  type  of  roadway.    The 

number of pedestrian fatalities was approximately equal for local, state and county 

roads reflecting a much higher fatal crash rate per mile for state and county roads.  

In regard to lighting conditions, children and seniors are more likely to be struck in 

daylight  than  pedestrians  of  other  ages,  and  pedestrians  age  18  to  24  have  the 

highest incidence of nighttime collisions.   

The  major  pedestrian  safety  effort  completed  outside  of  the  pedestrians  safety 

project was a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) project that 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

3 

focused  on  enforcement  in  Miami  Beach  and  city  wide  public  education  aimed  at 

drivers and pedestrians (Zegeer et. al, 2008).  The NHTSA project was implemented 

between 2002 and 2004.  The Engineering components of  the FHWA  project were 

installed in 2005 and 2006.  This presence of the NHTSA effort provided an excellent 

opportunity  to  determine  the  effects  of  engineering  treatments  added  to  city  and 

community wide outreach and education efforts. 

The NHTSA effort included the following components: 

•  Pedestrian safety message mounted in bus and Metrorail train posters; 

•  Public  awareness  announcements  about  pedestrian  safety  broadcasted  on 

city  and  county  access  channels  in  Spanish  and  English  and  on  selected 

Spanish speaking radio stations; 

•  Walk  Safely  pedestrian  brochures  distributed  to  the  Miami‐Dade  School 

Board,  hospital and medical  department,  public library,  police departments 

and elected officials’ offices; 

•  Pedestrian safety workshops for older pedestrians. 

•  Walking  Through  the  Years:  Pedestrian  Safety  for  Older  Adults.    Booklets 

were  delivered  to  organizations  such  as  the  Miami‐Dade  school  Board, 

hospital  and  medical  departments,  retirement  homes,  public  libraries 

(similar materials were distributed in Spanish); 

•  Pedestrian  enforcement  of  driver  yielding  behavior  during  2002.    Police 

stopped 2006 drivers for failing to yield to pedestrians. 

Miami‐Dade County has the highest incidence of pedestrian injuries and fatalities in 

the State of Florida, which ranked within the top two states in number of pedestrian 

crashes  as  well  as  per  capita  pedestrian  crashes  during  the  baseline  period.    In 

recent  years  the pedestrian crash  rate had  remained  relatively  steady prior  to  the 

implementation of the NHTSA and FHWA Pedestrian projects. During the nine years 

prior  to  the  FHWA  project  there  were  a  total  of  15,472  pedestrian  crashes  in  the 

DHSMV Miami‐Dade County, which included 670 fatal crashes (4.2 percent).  Figure 

1.1  shows  the  geographic  distribution  of  pedestrian  crashes  during  the  baseline 

period as a crash density map.  High crash zones are represented by darker colors.  

Figure 1.2 shows the Crash map for South Miami Beach.  South Miami Beach has the 

highest crash density in Miami‐Dade County.   

   
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

4 

  Figure 1.1 Miami‐Dade High Pedestrian Crash Zones 

Figure 1.2 South Beach High Pedestrian Crash Corridors 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

5 

1.3 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND SCHEDULE

The Phase 1 planning analysis and recommendations were developed in 2002 and 

the  plan  was  revised  in  2004.    A  zonal  approach  was  employed  to  identify  crash 

corridors  with  dense  clustering  of  serious  pedestrian  crashes.    Crash  data  over  a 

five‐year  period  were  first  mapped  using  GIS  software  to  determine  high  crash 

corridors that were associated with the majority of serious crashes.  The  following 

process was followed to identify these high crash corridors.  First, pedestrian crash 

data were extracted from Florida DMV records.  Second, these crashes were entered 

into  a  GIS  database  and  plotted.    Third,  crashes  were  weighted  for  severity  and  a 

crash  index  assigned.    Fourth,  the  Pedestrian  and  Bicycle  Crash  Analysis  Tool 

(PBCAT) was applied to all crashes and these data were merged back onto  the GIS 

database.    Fifth,  the  research  team  including  an  FDOT  and  Miami‐Dade  County 

representative visited each high crash corridor identified in steps one through four 

with a spreadsheet in hand documenting all pedestrian crash activity in that zone to 

examine local  features  contributing  to  crashes.    Sixth,  data  were  desegregated  for 

specific  aspects  of  the  crash.    Seventh,  surrogate  data  were  recorded  or  crash 

reports were studied where required to resolve ambiguities. 

The outreach plan proposed integrating selected countermeasure and outreach and 

awareness  into  ongoing  efforts,  as  well  as  working  with  agencies  responsible  for 

pedestrian  safety  (e.g.,  Police  and  Public  Health  departments)  and  working  with 

grassroots community groups committed to pedestrian safety projects. For the most 

part,  pedestrians  did  not  need  education  about  countermeasures  because  their 

meaning  was  intuitively  clear  (e.g.,  countdown  signals  and  push  buttons  that 

confirm a button press). The media plan employed in Miami‐Dade County involved a 

continuation  of  the  NHTSA  campaign  described  above  through  the  office  of  the 

Pedestrian Bicycle Coordinator.  

A  two‐day  site  visit  in  2003  by  FHWA  staff  and  consultants  included  a  detailed 

review of  the initial countermeasure plan.  In 2004  the project team  fine  tuned  the 

work  plan  and  proceeded  into  Phase  II  implementation.  Extensive  engineering 

efforts  began in  early in  2005  and  continued into  2006.    An  Implementation  Plan 

and  Preliminary  Engineering  Report  provided  a  detailed  blueprint  for  conducting 

Phase II.  The actual implementation was predominantly consistent with the Phase I 

report  and  the  Phase  II  implementation  plans,  although  some  modifications  were 

made in response to practical difficulties or changing exigencies.  

1.4 COUNTERMEASURE OVERVIEW

A  total of  fifteen countermeasures (nine general engineering countermeasures and 

six intelligent transportation systems [ITS] countermeasures) were implemented by 

the University of Florida team during this Phase II investigation: 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

6 

GENERAL ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES 

1.  Reducing  the minimum green  time at mid‐block  crosswalks  controlled  by a 

traffic signal.   

2.  Advance yield markings at crosswalks with an uncontrolled approach.  

3.  Recessed or offset stop lines for intersections with traffic signals.  

4.  Leading pedestrian intervals (LPI)  

5.  Pedestrian push buttons that confirm press 

6.  “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians” symbol signs for drivers 

7.  Eliminate permissive left turns at a signalized intersection.  

8.  In‐street pedestrian signs 

9.  Pedestrian zone signs 

10.   Midblock traffic signal 

   

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) COUNTERMEASURES 

1.  ITS video pedestrian detection  

2.  Rectangular LED rapid flash beacons for uncontrolled multilane  

crosswalks 

3.  ITS smart lighting at crosswalks with nighttime crashes   

4.  ITS "No Right Turn on Red" (NRTOR) Signs  

5.  Pedestrian countdown timers 

6.  Speed trailers.   

In addition, an outreach program was implemented by Miami‐Dade County through 

the  office  of  the  pedestrian  bicycle  coordinator.  This  outreach  effort  included 

distribution of a video public service announcement (PSA) to cable and small/ethnic 

local  TV  stations,  and  presentations  at  schools  and  senior  centers.  It  was  not 

possible to evaluate each of the outreach efforts separately.  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

7 

1.4.1 Comparison of Countermeasures: Cost

The  overall  cost  of  this  project  was  slightly  greater  than  $1,000,000  dollars, 

including  $870,540 in  federal  funding,  $140,000 in  state  funding, and  $186,771 in 

county funding.  The federal funding averaged roughly $ 217,635 per year.  

The  total  costs  of  the  nearly  seven‐year‐long  project  included  the  following  

estimated cost breakdown: 

PLANNING PHASE I:           $125,000 

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE II:                $1,010,540 

Including: 

Design of Countermeasures:        $133,933 

Installation/Deployment Labor:        $108,833 

Materials and Equipment:          $302,913 

Data Collection & Evaluation:        $282,172 

Other Program Management        $182,690 

(Including planning and design of countermeasures not installed) 

In general, the labor costs exceeded the equipment and materials costs. Overall, the 

engineering/administrative costs were quite substantial, largely due to the need for 

specialized  training,  mobilization,  and  approvals  for  new  devices.  These 

engineering/administrative costs often exceeded the material/equipment costs and 

the installation labor. 

The  least  expensive  countermeasures  in  total  per‐unit  costs  were  Pedestrian 

Warning  Signs.  The  most  expensive  countermeasure  was  the  Video  Detection 

System. 

1.4.2 Comparison of Countermeasures Availability and Standard Use:

All  but  two  countermeasures  were  compliant  with  the  Manual  of  Uniform  Traffic 

Control Devices.  The rectangular rapid flash beacon and the “turning vehicles yield 

to  pedestrians”  symbol  signs  were  granted  FHWA  permission  to  experiment.  

Several  of  the  treatments  that  were  considered  experimental  when  initially 

proposed by the University of Florida team were added to the MUTCD in  the 2003 

revision.   

1.4.3 Comparison of Countermeasures: Installation Complexity

Countermeasures that required the least effort to install were:
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

8 

•  Countdown Pedestrian Signals. The original incandescent signals were 

simply changed out.   

•  Pedestrian push buttons that confirmed the button press.  These were easily 

swapped for the standard push button. 

•  Advance  Stop/Yield  Lines.    These  were  easily  installed  along  the  corridor 

with new pavement.  They were no more difficult to install than lines at the 

minimum  distance.   Moving  stop lines involve  greater  cost  because  the  old 

markings need to be removed by grinding. 

•  Reducing Minimum Green Time at midblock traffic signals. These only 

required timing changes in the traffic signals computer. 

•  Leading Pedestrian Interval. These only required timing changes in the traffic 

computer. 

Countermeasures that required a moderate effort to install were: 

•  “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians” Symbol Signs. These signs needed to 

be mounted on the mast arm. 

•  In‐Street “Yield to Pedestrians” Signs.  These signs needed to be installed in 

the roadway and had to be frequently replaced. 

•  Rectangular LED Rapid Flashing Beacons.  These signs communicated by RF 

transmitters and were powered by a solar array.  Therefore they required no 

wiring. 

•  ITS Smart  Lighting.   This  treatment was  part  of  the Rectangular  LED Rapid 

Flashing Beacon treatment. 

•  Speed Trailer.  The major issue with  speed  trailers is labor  associated with 

attending to the trailer.  Newer solar power speed signs that can be affixed to 

poles would be easier to install. 

•  ITS “No Right Turn on Red” Signals.  These signs required installation on the 

mast arm. 

Countermeasures that required the most effort to install were: 

•  Eliminate Permissive Left Turns at Signals.  This treatment required 

replacing the traffic signal array. 

•  ITS Video Pedestrian Detection.  This treatment required installation and 

adjustments to get it to work correctly. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

9 

•  Installation of a midblock signal.  This is a relative high cost item including 

mast arm and wiring.  Originally installed to evaluate midblock animated 

eyes display later converted to a short minimum green midblock installation. 

1.6 DEVICES NOT INSTALLED

Several devices originally proposed in the Phase II work plan were not implemented 

for the reasons provided below. 

1.6.1 ITS Midblock Signals with Animated Eyes

The  animated  eyes  countdown  signals  were  not  installed  as  originally  planned, 

because  the  vendor,  Relume,  lost  interest  in  supporting  experimentation  with  the 

device,  apparently  after  assessing  the  market  potential  for  the  devices.    Ordinary 

Countdown timers were installed in their place. 

1.6.2 ITS Midblock Pedestrian Signal with Animated Eyes

The  midblock  crossing  with  animated  eyes  display  showing  the  direction  the 

pedestrian  was  crossing  was  not  installed  because  research  carried  out  under 

FHWA  permission  to  experiment  in  St.  Petersburg,  Florida  found  the  rectangular 

LED rapid flashing beacon to be more effective.  The rectangular LED rapid flashing 

beacon  was  subsequently  added  to  the  implementation  plan  and  the  original 

midblock  crossing  proposed  for  installation  of  the  animated  eyes  display  was 

converted to a standard midblock traffic signal.  

1.7 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FOR PEDESTRIAN

SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES

The most important measure was data on crashes because these best validated the 

safety  value  of  the  countermeasures  installed.    However,  because  multiple 

treatments  were installed in  all  corridors it  was impossible  to  attribute  the  crash 

reductions to any particular countermeasure.  We originally planned on employing a 

mix  of  video  recording  and  field  observation  to  record  surrogate  measures.   

Unfortunately  the  video  recording  systems  were  destroyed  by  a  major  hurricane. 

This forced the team to substitute field observation for video recording to assess the 

effects  of  each  treatment  on  surrogate measure  at  all  of  our  sites.    The  shift  from 

video to live data recording required the team to reduce the number of items scored 

from  those  originally  proposed  because  field  observation  does  not  allow  multiple 

viewing of events (a necessary condition to reliably score many aspects of a single 

event). 

The pedestrian/driver  observations employed a mixture  of design  features.   Some 

experiments  were  simple  before  and  after installation  evaluations.  In  other  cases, 

multiple baseline (staged introduction of the treatment at different sites to control 

for extraneous  variables) and  follow‐up  observations were  conducted  to ascertain 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

10 

the effects of the passage of time and novelty fading. In a few cases treatments were 

introduced, removed and reintroduced using replication logic to rule out the effects 

of uncontrolled variables.  Statistical  tests were employed  (generally z‐tests and  t‐

tests) to test for difference of proportions/means. 

1.8 SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

COUNTERMEASURES

Following  is  a  summary  of  results  obtained  for  each  countermeasure.  This  table 

indicates the purpose for installing each countermeasure, highlighted results, and a 

ranking  of  relative  cost.    Results  are  only  reported  in  this  table  if  they  are 

statistically significant (p<0.05). 

Table 1.1 Results Obtained for Each Countermeasure 

COUNTERMEASURE PURPOSE OBSERVATION HIGHLIGHTS RELATIVE 

COST 

Push 

buttons that 

confirm 

press 

To Confirm press 

so pedestrian waits 

for WALK 

The percentage of cycles that a pedestrian 

pressed the button increased from 33.8% to 

58.1% at the first site and from 40.3% to 

54.3% at the second site. The percentage 

of pedestrians who pressed the button that 

waited for the “WALK” increased from 

51.2% to 72.5% at the first site and from 

72.3% to 86% at the second site.

Low Cost 

Reduce 

Minimum 

Green Time 

To reduce 

pedestrian wait 

time to increase 

pedestrian 

compliance 

Reducing minimum green time reduced 

pedestrian wait time and significantly 

increased pedestrian compliance. At one 

site reducing minimum green time 

improved pedestrian compliance from 

64% to 98%. Vehicle delay also 

increased 

Low Cost 

Video 

Pedestrian 

Detection 

To place calls for 

pedestrian that 

don't press the call 

button 

The device was reliable but many 

pedestrians did not wait even when the 

device placed the call for them. This 

treatment needs to be used in 

conjunction with reduced minimum green 

time 

High Cost

Lead 

Pedestrian 

Phase 

To provide a head 

start for 

pedestrians. When 

RTOR is permitted, 

the maximum 

effect is obtained 

with left turning 

vehicles 

This treatment produced an increased 

yielding by drivers of left turning vehicles Low Cost 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

11 

“Turning 

Vehicle Yield 

to 

Pedestrians" 

symbol sign 

To increase 

yielding by drivers 

of turning vehicles 

Mixed results. This sign was not superior 

to the text only sign 

Moderate 

Cost 

Electronic 

NRTOR sign 

To restrict right 

turns on red during 

the WALK and 

yellow phase 

This sign statistically significantly 

reduced violations as compared to the 

static sign and produced a marked 

decrease in the percentage of drivers 

turning ROR who made no stop from 

40% to coming to 13%. 

Moderate 

Cost 

Countdown 

Pedestrian 

Signals 

Provides 

information to 

pedestrian on the 

time remaining to 

cross 

The installation of the countdown timers 

was associated with a statistically 

significant increase in the percentage of 

pedestrians that pressed the call button 

Low Cost 

In-Street 

"Yield to 

Pedestrian 

Signs" 

This sign marks 

crosswalks and 

reminds drivers of 

their obligation to 

yield right-of-way 

to pedestrians in 

crosswalks 

These signs increased the percentage of 

drivers yielding right-of-way to 

pedestrians from 19% to 71% but they 

were easily damaged 

Moderate 

Cost 

Pedestrian 

Zone Signs 

To warn drivers to 

expect pedestrians 

in the roadway 

This sign had no effect on driver speed Low Cost 

Speed 

Trailers 

To alert drivers to 

slow down 

The speed trailer increased braking for 

pedestrians but had no effect on speed 

which was already within the speed limit 

Moderate 

Cost 

Rectangular 

LED Rapid 

Flashing 

Beacons 

Alerts drivers that 

a pedestrian is in 

the crosswalk 

This sign increased the percentage of 

drivers yielding to pedestrians from 0% 

to 65% at one site and from 1% to 92% 

at the second site. Both test sites were 

high-speed multilane roads. 

Moderate 

Cost 

Dynamic 

Lighting 

Alerts driver that a 

pedestrian is 

crossing and 

makes the 

pedestrian more 

visible 

This device was used with the 

rectangular LED beacon. It was not 

effective but the level of illumination was 

not very great 

Moderate 

Cost 

Eliminate 

Permissive 

Left Turn 

Reduces conflicts 

between left 

turning vehicles 

and pedestrians 

This treatment reduced conflicts between 

left turning vehicles and pedestrians High Cost
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

12 

Advance 

Yield 

Markings 

This treatment can 

increase the 

visibility of 

pedestrians in 

crosswalks 

The wrong size sign was specified in the 

2003 MUTCD 

NOT EVALUATED IN THIS STUDY 

Low Cost 

Offset Stop 

Lines 

This treatment can 

increase the 

visibility of 

pedestrians in 

crosswalks 

NOT EVALUATED IN THIS STUDY Low Cost 

1.9 CRASH DATA ANALYSIS

The introduction of the NHTSA project was associated with a modest reduction in 

crashes. Adding the engineering countermeasure produced a further reduction in 

crashes at all sites.  Following is a summary table showing the mean number of 

crashes per year at each treated site and for all treated sites combined during each 

condition of the study. 

Table 1‐2 Numbers of Crashes per Year at Treated Sites 

SITE 

BASELINE 

PERIOD 

CRASHES 

PER YEAR 

NHTSA 

STUDY 

PERIOD 

CRASHES 

PER YEAR 

FHWA 

STUDY 

PERIOD 

CRASHES 

PER YEAR 

All sites combined 101 87 51 

 Alton Road: (5th St. to 17th St.) 13.8 10 8.5 

5 St: (Alton Rd. to Ocean Dr.) 6.5 4.6 4 

 Collins Ave: (5th St. to 24th St.) 18.8 20 13 

41 St: (Alton Rd to Pine Tree Dr.) 7 5.3 2 

Collins Ave & Harding Av 14.3 13 9.5 

NE 6th Ave. (NE 141 St. to NE 151 

St.) 7.7 8 3 

NE 163 St. (NW Ave. to Biscayne 

Blvd) 25.8 20.7 8 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

13 

1.10 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

All of the traffic control devices deployed in this study were intuitive in nature and 

required little outreach and awareness training.  Countdown pedestrian signals, 

offset stop lines, push buttons that confirm the button press, automatic pedestrian 

detectors (passive in nature), a leading pedestrian phase, "Turning Vehicles Yield to 

Pedestrian" signs, in roadway signs, elimination of permissive left turns, dynamic 

NTOR signs, the rectangular LED rapid flashing beacon, dynamic lighting (passive in 

nature), pedestrian zone warning signs, shorter minimum green waiting times, and 

advance yield markings are familiar to motorists and pedestrians.  Therefore 

outreach and awareness focused on continued enforcement along with a 

continuation of the educational countermeasures deployed as part of the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) Miami‐Dade Contract that begun 

prior to the FHWA Cooperative Agreement.   

1.11 PHASE II CONCLUSIONS

1.11.1 Lessons Learned:  Overall Project Success and Countermeasures

In terms of the project goals the project was successful.  Many treatments were 

implemented in the high crash areas.  Miami‐Dade County was impressed with some 

of the countermeasures and is presently in the process of deploying more of them in 

other areas.  Some examples are countdown pedestrian signals and rectangular LED 

rapid flashing beacons. We also were successful in learning a good deal about some 

of the countermeasures including how to use them most effectively.  We have 

published four papers in Transportation Research Record on our findings to date.  

More papers will be submitted this year.  We also obtained a statistically significant 

reduction in crashes at the treatment sites. 

1.11.2 Utility of Crash Typing Tools in Selecting Treatments

The GIS crash mapping tools were particularly useful and were further enhanced by 

the MPO adding demographic information to the field, such as ages, PBCAT 

information, driver ages, time of day, weather conditions, etc.  Sorting this 

information by site and printing it in booklet form made this information 

immediately available during site visits.  However, there were times when only the 

crash reports could sort out the nature of a particular problem.  The crash diagram 

was one of the most useful components of the crash report in determining the type 

of crash.  On the other hand, the PBCAT tool that was available during baseline 

assessment had several limitations that reduced its utility.  In order of usefulness, 

the enhanced GIS crash maps were the most useful tool, followed by site visits 

conducted with the booklet that sorted crashes by sites and listed all of the 

information added to the GIS database, followed by the crash reports.  It is hoped 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

14 

that the most recent version of PBCAT will prove more useful to practitioners 

wishing to match countermeasures to crash sites. 

1.11.3 Problems That Needed to be Overcome

There is a good deal of coordination required to make a large project successful.  

One problem we had not anticipated was extreme weather.  Miami‐Dade County 

was struck by two major hurricanes while we were assessing the treatments we 

installed.  The storms destroyed camera placement sites, requiring us to shift to 

field observers for some of our evaluations.  Storm damage also required us to 

reinstall some treatment installations, and the extent of damage tied up 

contractors for long periods of time, resulting in delays in installing some of the 

equipment we needed to make evaluations. At other times other priorities, such 

as changing the signage for all school crossings in Miami‐Dade County, resulted in 

delays in implementing particular countermeasures. 

Anther issue was the sheer scope of such a project.  Agencies wishing to implement 

engineering countermeasures along high crash corridors might wish to prioritize 

the zones identified in their initial analysis and determine and implement 

treatments one zone at a time.  This would allow better coordination and use of 

resources without overburdening administration and infrastructure.  It would also 

allow the agency to assemble the contracting resources to implement the project 

more easily.   

One positive feature was the excellent level of cooperation from Miami‐Dade County 

and the Florida Department of Transportation District Office.  The professionals 

from these organizations provided constructive suggestions and did not present 

barriers to innovation. We also received excellent cooperation from the Miami‐Dade 

Metropolitan Planning Organization.  The bicycle pedestrian coordinator and the 

signals design engineer were particularly helpful in assisting the team with its 

mandate. 

  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

15 

CHAPTER 2 COUNTERMEASURE IMPLEMENTATION 

This  chapter  discusses  the  deployment  of  the  countermeasures  that  includes  an 

overview  of  each  countermeasure  along  with  any  problems  that  needed  to  be 

addressed  in  the  installation  process.  Also  presented  is  a  comparison  of  the 

countermeasures  in  terms  of  cost  and  device  availability.  A  description  of  each 

individual  countermeasure,  its  purpose,  the  setting  for  each  Miami‐Dade 

installation,  and  approval  status,  and  relative  cost  information,  are  presented  in 

Chapter 3.  

2.1 OVERVIEW OF INSTALLATION CHALLENGES  

Phase  II  involved  the  installation  and  evaluation  of  a  broad  range  of  pedestrian 

safety  measures,  from  nearly  routine  signal  timing  changes  to  customized  video 

detection equipment.  

However, there were several common challenges that the Miami‐Dade team faced:  

•  Selection  and  Confirmation  of  Countermeasures:    The  initial  process  of 

selecting  countermeasures  and  assigning  them  to  specific  locations  was 

described in  the Phase  I Final Report and  the Phase  II  Implementation Plan 

and  Preliminary  Engineering  Report.    This  involved  development  of  a 

comprehensive list of candidate countermeasures, which were then rated on 

several criteria, such as match to the crash type, cost, presumed efficacy, and 

ease of implementation.  These were matched to each location by meticulous 

analysis of the type of crash, causal factors and the physical characteristics of 

the roadway.   For example, if vehicles turning right on red injured a number 

of pedestrians at a particular location, a static NRTOR sign and an electronic 

NRTOR  sign  were  considered.    Because  a  “NO  TURN  ON  RED  WHEN 

PEDESTRIANS  ARE  PRESENT”  sign  was  already  present  we  decided  to

compare  the  standard  “NO  RIGHT  TURN  ON  RED”  sign  with  the  electronic 

NRTOR  sign.    We  also  placed  a  premium  on  low  cost  items  that  could  be 

installed in large numbers to increase the chance of producing a sufficiently 

large reduction in crashes to be detected. 

•  Scheduling of Countermeasures: We attempted to install countermeasures in 

a staged manner (multiple baseline design) in order to control for extraneous 

variables.   Although we were  usually  successful in  following  the  dictates  of 

the selected design protocol, there were times when treatments would not be 

introduced  or  removed  according  to  our  schedule  because  of  conflicting 

priorities of the Contractor or Miami‐Dade staff.  In these instances, we often 

needed  to  collect  fresh  baseline  data  to  allow  for a  valid  comparison.    This 

problem  arose  often  and  contributed  to  the  increased  cost  of  the  research 

component of this project. 

  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

16 

•  Extreme Weather  Events:  Two major  hurricanes  struck Miami‐Dade  during 

the  critical  period  when  countermeasures  were  being  installed  and 

evaluated.  These storms destroyed the video recording systems, forcing the 

team  to  employ  field  observation.    One  implication  of  this  change  was  the 

need  to  reduce  the  number  of  items  recorded  in  order  to  ensure  the 

collection of reliably data.  The storms also destroyed some countermeasure, 

which  had  to  be  reinstalled.    These  storms  added  additional  cost  to  the 

project.  

2.2 COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION  

Three countermeasures proved more challenging to deploy: 

•  The Electronic NRTOR sign;  

•  The Video Pedestrian Detector; 

•  In Street Yield to Pedestrian signs; and 

The  first  listed  two  devices  involved  procurement  or  deployment  of  electronic 

equipment  that  engineering  staff  and  electricians  were  not  highly  familiar  with.   

The  remaining  device  was  easily  deployed  but  would  not  stay  deployed  due  to 

frequent collisions with vehicles.  

The  manufacturer  installed  the  Rectangular  LED  Rapid  Flashing  Beacons  greatly 

reducing the scope for installation problems with this relatively new technology.  

2.3 COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: COSTS

The overall cost of this project was slightly greater than 1 million dollars, including 

$870,540  in  federal  funding,  $140,000  in  state  funding,  and  $186,771  in  county 

funding.  The federal funding averaged roughly $ 217,635 per year.  

The  total  costs  of  the  nearly  seven‐year‐long  project included  the  following  rough 

estimates: 

PLANNING PHASE I:           $125,000. 

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE II:                $1,010,540. 

Including: 

Design of Countermeasures:        $133,933. 

Installation/Deployment Labor:        $108,833. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

17 

Materials and Equipment:          $302,913 

Data Collection & Evaluation:        $282,172 

Other Program Management        $182,690 

(Including planning and design of countermeasures not installed) 

In general, the labor costs far exceeded the equipment and materials costs. Overall, 

the engineering/administrative costs were quite substantial, largely due to the need 

for  specialized  training,  mobilization,  and  approvals  for  new  devices.  These 

engineering/administrative costs often exceeded the material/equipment costs and 

the installation labor. 

The  least  expensive  countermeasures  in  total  per‐unit  costs  were  Pedestrian 

Warning  Signs.  The  most  expensive  countermeasure  was  the  Video  Detection 

System. 

If  this  project  is  replicated  by  a  community  with  a  strict  focus  on  improving 

pedestrian  safety  with  know  treatments  in  a  cost‐effective  manner,  the  data 

collection/evaluation and other program management costs could be substantially 

lower than the costs of the present study.  Cost estimates are provided for each item 

in Chapter 3. Table 2.1 shows an estimate of capital costs and labor plus engineering 

costs for each countermeasure. 

Table 2.1 Capital Cost and Labor/Engineering Costs for Each Countermeasure 

COUNTERMEASURE 

Estimated 

Cost Per 

Unit 

Estimated 

InstallationEngineering 

Cost/Unit 

Operations/Maintenance 

Needs and Other Notes 

Push buttons that 

confirm press $105 $535 Low level of maintenance required 

Video Pedestrian 

Detection $14,250 $8,500 

No information on long-term 

maintenance. Adjusted by 

manufacturer 

“Turning Vehicle Yield 

to Pedestrians" symbol 

sign 

$25 $55 Low level of maintenance 

required 

Electronic NRTOR sign $3000 $700 Seemed to work well. Use of this 

sign is increasing 

Countdown Pedestrian 

Signals $435 $45 

Easy to retrofit. Easy to 

maintain. We had no issues with 

this device 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

18 

In-Street "Yield to 

Pedestrian Signs" $225 $50 

High level of damage if not on 

raised island. We had no raised 

island locations 

Pedestrian Zone Signs $25 $45 Low level of maintenance 

required 

Speed Trailers $25/day $55 Worked well in Miami because of 

solar output 

Rectangular LED Rapid 

Flashing Beacons $9,000 

Included in 

Equipment 

Pricing 

Installed by contractor. 

Required some changes to 

battery box because of flooding. 

System redesigned. Handled by 

warranty. 

Dynamic Lighting $600 

 Included in 

Equipment 

Pricing 

Was not very bright. Difficulty 

aiming it where needed 

Eliminate Permissive 

Left Turn $2500 $1500 May require change in signal head 

Advance Yield 

Markings $50 $150 Material has a long lifetime. 

Offset Stop Lines $50 $150 

Material has a long lifetime. No 

grinding needed when installed 

on fresh pavement. 

In general, the labor and engineering costs often exceeded the materials/equipment 

costs.  As is  often  the case  the engineering/administrative costs  for products used 

for the first time, tend to be higher than for equipment that are routinely installed.  

As staff becomes more familiar with new technology there is a major savings in time 

and effort.  Additionally, installation cost were high because only a few devices could 

be installed at a time, rather than installing all devices in one operation.  

2.4 COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: AVAILABILITY AND STANDARD USE

All but  two countermeasures were compliant with  the Federal Manual on Uniform 

Traffic  Control  Devices  (MUTCD).  It  was  necessary  to  obtain  special  approval  to 

experiment  with  the  rectangular  LED  rapid  flashing  beacon  and  the  “Turning 

Vehicles  Yield  to  Pedestrians”  symbol  signs.  Several  countermeasures  considered 

experimental when initially  proposed  by  the Miami‐Dade  team were  added  to  the 

MUTCD  in  the  2003  revision.    One  other  countermeasure  requiring  approval  (in 

street  pedestrian  turning  vehicle  yield  signs  at  signalized  intersections)  was 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

19 

removed  after  engineering  studies  revealed  there  was  insufficient  room  to  install 

these signs at the Miami Beach intersections originally selected for evaluation.  

   

  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

20 

CHAPTER 3 DEPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURES 

This  chapter  discusses  the  full  deployment  of  countermeasures.    Because  of  the 

large  number  of  countermeasures  installed,  data  collection  and  evaluation  were 

only conducted at selected locations.   

3.1 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON THAT CONFIRMS PRESS

Purpose and Description

This  treatment  consists  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 mcd red light emitting diodes 

(LED)  for  0.1  s  (Momentary  LED  Model)  and  second,  a  2.6  kHz  tone  is  sounded 

simultaneously with the LED flash when the button was pressed and a 2.3kHz tone 

was sounded when  the button was  released. The device could also be modified  so 

the light remained on until the onset of the “WALK” indication. These buttons were 

installed at 17 intersections, typically with 2 buttons per intersection.   

Figure 3.1 Picture of Pedestrian Push Button That Confirms Press 

Notes:   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 of 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. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

21 

Table 3.1 Push the Button Confirming Press: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

Alton Rd. & 15th St. East-West Crosswalks 4 1

Alton Rd & 16th St. East-West Crosswalks 4 1

Alton Rd & 17th St. East-West South leg only 2 1

Alton Rd. & 6th St. East-West Crosswalks 4 1

Alton Rd. & 8th St. East-West Crosswalks 4 1

5th St. & Collins Ave. North-South on East leg only 2 2

5th St. & Meridian Ave. North-South Crosswalks 4 2

41st. St & Chase Ave. North-South Crosswalks 4 7

41st. St. & Royal Palm Ave. North-South Crosswalks 4 7

41st. St. & Pine Tree Drive North-South Crosswalks 4 7

NE 163rd St. & 8th Ave. North-South Crosswalks 4 10

NE 163rd St. & 12th Ave. North-South Crosswalks 4 10

900 N. Miami Beach Blvd 2 Midblock Crosswalks 4 10

NE 163rd St. & 15th Ave. North-South Crosswalks 4 10

NE 163rd St. & 19th Ave. North-South Crosswalks 4 10

NE 6th Ave. & 167th St. East-West Crosswalks 4 11

NE 6th Ave. & 149th St. East-West Crosswalks 4 11

64

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)

This pedestrian safety measure had federal approval status according to the Manual 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) when they were purchased. 

Cost

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.   

Availability

This product can be purchased off the shelf. 

How/Who Installed

This device was installed by changing out existing push buttons that did not provide 

feedback when pressed.  The project contractor installed this countermeasure.   

Utility/Environmental Issues

None 

Installation Challenges
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

22 

This device was easy to install.  There were no challenges. 

Maintenance Needs

These  devices  seem  reliable  and  durable  and  are  associated  with  minimal 

maintenance  needs.    Because  these  push  buttons  provide  feedback when  they are 

pressed  we  observed  fewer  multiple  presses,  which  could  extend  the  life  of  the 

buttons, reducing maintenance costs over conventional buttons. 

3.2 DECREASE MINIMUM GREEN TIME

Purpose and Description

This treatment was installed at mid‐block traffic signals. It required the signal to be 

operated in isolation mode (non synchronous timing). The minimum green time was 

reduced to decrease pedestrian wait time and increase compliance with the signal. 

Three of these treatments were installed as indicated in table nine. Prior to the start 

of  the study both signals were run in synchronous mode, and  the cycle length was 

130 s between 8 am and 8 pm at the Alton Road crosswalk and varied from 90 s to 

120 s at the crosswalk on SW 8th Street.  Minimum green time was evaluated at 30 

s,  1 minute  and  2 minutes  at  both  crosswalks.  The  speed limits  at  these locations 

were 35 mph on Alton Rd. and 30 mph on SW 8th St.  

Figure 3.2 Picture of Midblock Crossing with Reduced Minimum Green Time 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

23 

Table 3.2 Decrease Minimum Green: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

Alton Midblock between 14th 

St. and 14th Court

Minimum green time was 

reduced to 1 minute. 1 1

Midblock at 1300 8th

Minimum green time was 

reduced to 1 minute. 2

outside 

zones

Midblock Crosswalk at Barry 

College

Minimum green time was 

reduced to 30 s. 2

outside 

zones

NE 5th St. East of NE 1st 

Ave.*

North and South side of 

crosswalk 1

outside 

zones

6

* Note that city installed midblock crosswalk at this site.

Notes:    This  treatment  markedly  improved  pedestrian  compliance,  and  greatly 

reduced  pedestrian  wait  time;  however,  switching  from  synchronous  to  isolated 

mode with  a  short minimum  green  time increased motorist  delay.    Therefore  this 

treatment would be most likely to be installed in communities that value pedestrian 

flow  or at  sites where  the  trade‐off between pedestrian delay and  safety balanced 

the increase in vehicle delay. 

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)

The signal  timing changes made  to deploy  this  treatment were in compliance with 

the MUTCD.  

Cost

There  are  no  hard  costs  associated  with  the  deployment  of  this  countermeasure.  

However,  the installation  of  this countermeasure at NE 5th St.  East  of NE 1st Ave. 

includes the cost of installing the midblock signal. 

Availability

This only requires signal‐timing changes.  It is relatively easier to deploy if it can be 

done  on  a  central  traffic  signal  computer  rather  than  making  the  changes  at  the 

signal cabinet.  

How/Who Installed

The Miami‐Dade signals engineer and his staff deployed this countermeasure.  

Utility/Environmental Issues

None 

Installation Challenges

This countermeasure was easy to deploy.  There were no challenges. 

Maintenance Needs
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

24 

There are no maintenance requirements associated with this countermeasure. 

3.3 VIDEO PEDESTRIAN DETECTION

Purpose and Description

This device uses video detection technology to detect the pedestrian and put in a call 

for  a  mid‐block  traffic  signal.  An  Autoscope  Solo  Pro  was  used  for  pedestrian 

detection in this study. The processor was included in the camera.  The camera sent 

compressed  video  via  twisted  pair.  Two  rectangular  zones  were  set  up  on  the 

sidewalk approaching the curb; the pedestrian 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.  This system was installed at one midblock traffic signal on 

Alton Road. 

Figure 3.3 Picture of Device Used For Pedestrian Detection 

Table 3.3 Video Pedestrian Detection: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

Alton Midblock between 14th 

St. and 14th Court East Side 1 1

Alton Midblock between 14th 

St. and 14th Court West Side 1 1

2

Notes:  This device was reasonably reliable in detecting pedestrians but it did not 

detect  joggers  that  ran  into  the  intersection  and  cyclists  that  rode  into  the 

intersection.  It did not put in false calls.   

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

25 

This pedestrian safety measure does not require special approval.  

Cost

The cost for the complete video detection system was $14,250.  The installation cost 

was $6252. to install the complete system.  

Availability

This product can be purchased off the shelf. 

How/Who Installed

Our  contractor  mounted  this  device  on  the  mast  arm  pole.    The  manufacture 

assisted us in defining the departure rectangles and ensuring that the device worked 

correctly. 

Utility/Environmental Issues

None 

Installation Challenges

It would have been more difficult to install the device without the assistance of the 

manufacturer. 

Maintenance Needs

They are unknown; however, it is likely that these devices should prove as reliable 

at similar devices currently used to detect vehicles.  

3.4 LEAD PEDESTRIAN PHASE

Purpose and Description

The purpose of this device was to give a head start for pedestrians over left and 

right turning vehicles at the start of the WALK.  Pedestrians crossing the main line 

receive a 4 second exclusive pedestrian phase while all vehicle signals remained in 

the all red phase. These vehicles lost 4 seconds of green time in order to give the 

pedestrians a 4 second exclusive pedestrian phase.  This treatment provides the 

best protection from vehicles turning left and provides less protection from vehicles 

turning right because they may still turn right on red.  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

26 

Figure 3.4 Picture of Leading Pedestrian Phase 

Notes:  This treatment was effective at increasing yielding by drivers turning left 

but was not effective at improving the behavior of drivers turning right.  Prohibiting 

right turn on red at the start of the WALK when a pedestrian pushed the call button 

should greatly improve the efficacy of this countermeasure. 

Table 3.4 Lead Pedestrian Phase: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

Alton Rd. & 16th St.

Applied to intersection 

phasing. North & South legs 1 1

Alton Rd. & 6th St.

Applied to intersection 

phasing. North & South legs 1 1

Alton Rd. & 8th St.

Applied to intersection 

phasing. North & South legs 1 1

Collins Ave. & 15th St.

Applied to intersection 

phasing. North & South legs 1 5

Collins Ave. & Lincoln Rd.

Applied to intersection 

phasing. North & South legs 1 5

5

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)

The signal  timing changes made  to deploy  this  treatment were in compliance with 

the MUTCD.  

Cost

There were no hard costs associated with the deployment of this countermeasure.  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

27 

Availability

This treatment only requires signal‐timing changes.  It is relatively easier to deploy 

if it can be done on a central traffic signal computer rather than making the changes 

at the signal cabinet.  

How/Who Installed

The Miami‐Dade signals engineer and his staff deployed this countermeasure.  

Utility/Environmental Issues

None 

Installation Challenges

This countermeasure was easy to deploy.  There were no challenges. 

Maintenance Needs

There are no maintenance requirements associated with this countermeasure. 

3.5 “TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” SYMBOL SIGN

Purpose and Description

This  treatment  was  a  symbol  version  of  the  “Turning  vehicles  must  yield  to 

pedestrians”  text sign.  This sign 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”.    The  purpose  of  using  this  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 recognition distance. 

Figure 3.5 Picture of “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians” Symbol Sign 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

28 

Table 3.5 “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians” Symbols Sign: Deployment 

Locations Listed by Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

Alton Rd. & 16th St.

Facing minor street, E & W 

approaches 2 1

5th St. & Collins Ave. All approaches 4 2

5th St. & Jefferson Ave.

Facing minor street, N & S 

approaches 2 2

5th St. & Meridian Ave. All approaches 4 2

5th St. & Michigan Ave.

Facing minor street, N & S 

approaches 2 2

5th St. & Washington Ave. All approaches 4 2

Collins Ave. & 11th St.

Facing minor street, E & W 

approaches 2 5

Collins Ave. & 14th St.

Facing minor street, E & W 

approaches 2 5

Collins Ave. & 16th St. All approaches 3 5

Collins Ave. & 17th St. W & N approaches only 2 5

Collins Ave. & 21st St. All approaches 4 5

Collins Ave. & 41st St W & N approaches only 2 6

Indian Creek & 41st St.

Facing minor street, E & W 

approaches 2 6

Collins Ave. & 75th St. On N & W approaches 2 8

Harding Ave. & 75th St. North-South on East leg only 2 8

Indian Creek & 65th St. On E & S approaches 2 8

Normandy Dr. & Bay Dr. On N & S approaches 2 8

NE 163rd St. & 19th Ave. On S & W approaches 2 10

NE 167th St, & NE 8th Ave. All approaches 4 10

49

Notes:  This treatment was effective at increasing yielding at one site but ineffective 

at the other site.   

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)

This sign was tested under FHWA permission to experiment.  

Cost

The cost  for each sign was $25.00.  The installation cost was $55.00 per sign  for a 

total cost of $80.00 per installed sign. 

Availability

Any sign shop can prepare this sign.  

How/Who Installed

Our contractor mounted this device on the mast arm pole. 

Utility/Environmental Issues
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

29 

None 

Installation Challenges

There were  no installation  challenges involved in installing  these  signs.   However 

deployment did require traffic control and the use of a truck with a mechanical arm 

to install the device on the mast arm.   

Maintenance Needs

There are no maintenance requirements associated with this countermeasure. 

3.6 ELECTRONIC “NO RIGHT TURN ON RED” (NRTOR) SIGN

Purpose and Description

This sign was illuminated when right turn on red was not permitted.  The sign was 

installed on the mast arm in the same location that the static “No turn on red when 

pedestrians  in  crosswalk”  sign  and  the  “No  turn  on  red”  sign  were  installed.  This 

allowed a direct comparison of all three signs. 

Figure 3.6 Picture of Electronic No Turn on Red Sign 

Notes:    The  electronic  NRTOR  sign  reduced  the  percentage  of  motorists  turning 

right‐on‐red when  a  pedestrian was  present  over  that  produced  by  the  two  static 

signs and reduced the percentage of conflicts between vehicles turning right on red 

and pedestrians crossing within the crosswalk over  the other  two signs.  However 

there  were  many  violators  during  all  conditions.  The  electronic  sign  had  an  even 

larger  effect  on  increasing  the  percentage  of  violators  coming  to  a  complete  stop 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

30 

before turning right‐on‐red and almost eliminated free flow right‐on‐red turns that 

are most dangerous to pedestrians.   

Table 3.6 Electronic “No Turn on Red” Sign: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

41st. St. & Pine Tree Dr. Facing North bound traffic 1 7

1

Cost

The cost for this sign was $3000.  

Availability

These signs are available off the shelf.  They need to be installed with a utility truck 

with  an  arm  and  bucket.    These  signs  also  have  to  be  wired  into  the  controller 

system.  

How/Who Installed

Miami‐Dade County installed this sign on the mast arm pole. 

Utility/Environmental Issues

None 

Installation Challenges

There  were  no  installation  challenges  involved  in  deploying  this  sign.    However 

deployment did require traffic control and the use of a truck with a mechanical arm 

to install the device on the mast arm.   

Maintenance Needs

There  were  no  maintenance  requirements  associated  with  this  countermeasure.  

However this sign will eventually need  to be replaced or serviced after  the service 

life of the lights has expired. 

3.7 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS

Purpose and Description

This treatment was a countdown pedestrian signal that displayed a walking person 

symbol  during  the  "WALK" indication,  counted  down  the  seconds in  the  clearance 

phase along with the flashing hand display, and displayed the solid hand during The 

"DON’T WALK" indication which began during the all red phase.  These signals were 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

31 

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. 

Figure 3.7 Picture of a Pedestrian Countdown Signal 

Notes:    The  countdown  displays  decreased  the  percentage  of  pedestrian  in  the 

crosswalk  during  the  all  red  phase  and  were  associated  with  an  increase  in  the 

percentage of pedestrians that pressed the call button as well as  the percentage of 

pedestrians that pressed the call button that then waited for the WALK indication. 

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)

This pedestrian safety measure has federal approval status according to the Manual 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 

Cost

The cost for each call button was $495.00.  The installation cost was $45.00 per call 

button for a total cost of $540.00 per installed button.   

Availability

This product can be purchased off the shelf. 

How/Who Installed

This device was installed by changing out existing incandescent pedestrian signals 

that  did  not  provide  a  countdown  feature.    The  project  contractor  installed  these 

devices.   

Utility/Environmental Issues

None 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

32 

Table 3.7 Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor 

` Installation Qty Corridor

Alton Rd. & 8th St. North & South legs 41

Alton Rd. & 15th St. All legs 8 1

Alton Rd. & Lincoln Rd. All legs 8 1

Alton Rd. & 16th St. All legs 8 1

Alton Rd. & 17th St. East, West & South legs 61

41st. St. & Alton Rd. All directions 8 7

41st. St. & Chase Ave. South, East & West legs 67

41st. St. & Royal Palm Ave. All directions 8 7

163rd St. & 12th Ave. East & West legs 410

163rd St. & 15th Ave. All legs 8 10

163rd St & 18th Ave. all legs 8 10

163rd St. & 19th Ave. East & West legs 410

163rd St. & West Dixie Hwy East & West legs 410

NE 167th St. & NE 2nd Ave. East & West legs 410

NE 167th St. & NE 6th Ave. All legs 8 10

NE 6th Ave & NE 145th St. North & South legs 411

NE 6th Ave & NE 149th St. North & South legs 411

104

Installation Challenges

These devices were easy to install.  There were no challenges. 

Maintenance Needs

These  devices  seem  reliable  and  durable  and  are  associated  with  minimal 

maintenance needs.  They will eventually be replaced at the end of the LEDs lifetime. 

3.8 “IN­STREET YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGNS”

Purpose and Description

In‐Street  Pedestrian  Signs  are  intended  for  use  at  uncontrolled  (not  signalized) 

crosswalks to remind drivers of laws regarding pedestrians’ right‐of‐way. They are 

more  noticeable  than  roadside  signs  and  may  also  exert  a  minor  traffic‐calming 

effect by effectively narrowing the inside lanes slightly. Dimensions and color: 12” x 

44”, fluorescent yellow green diamond sheeting with 10” x 24” white high intensity 

sheeting inserts. Overall height is 47 inches. The signs can be installed with either a 

portable or fixed base.   
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

33 

Figure 3.8 Picture of In‐street “Yield to Pedestrians” Signs 

Notes:  These signs were effective but had a very short lifespan.  The streets were 

narrow and did not have a median island to protect the signs.  We found that using 

three signs on each approach was no more effective than using one.   

Table 3.8 In‐street “Yield to Pedestrians” Signs: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

Collins Ave. @ 6th St. 

These signs were placed facing 

North and South approaches 2 5

Collins Ave. @ 9th St.

These signs were be placed 

facing North and South 

approaches 2 5

Collins Ave. @ NE 13th St.

These signs were be placed 

facing North and South 

approaches 2 5

6

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)

This pedestrian safety measure has federal approval status according to the Manual 

on  Uniform  Traffic  Control  Devices  (MUTCD)  Section  2B.12,  IN  STREET 

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN (R1‐6, R16a). The legend “State Law” may be shown 

at the top of the sign if applicable. The legends “Stop For” or “Yield To” may be used 

in conjunction with  the appropriate symbol.  If a median island is available,  the in‐

street pedestrian crossing sign, if used, should be placed on the island. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

34 

Cost

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.   

Availability

This product can be purchased off the shelf. 

How/Who Installed

Our contractor installed these devices.   

Utility/Environmental Issues

These  signs  were  not  durable  enough  to  use  on  narrow  roads  with  many  large 

trucks making turning movements. 

Installation Challenges

The primary challenge was maintaining the signs. 

Maintenance Needs

The  maintenance  cost  for  these  signs  was  excessive.    The  rectangular  rapid  flash 

beacon may be a more durable installation at these locations. 

3.9 PEDESTRIANS ZONE SIGNS

Purpose and Description

MUTCD  R1‐6  signs  may  be  used  along  with  a  plaque  indicating  the  distance  that 

pedestrians may be expected.  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

35 

Table 3.9 Pedestrian Zone Signs: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

Collins Ave. @ 75th St. 

Pedestrian Crossing warning 

signs installed 30 ft North of 

Northernmost crosswalk facing 

Northbound traffic 1 8

Harding Ave. @ 75th St.

Pedestrian Crossing warning 

signs installed 30 ft South of 

Southernmost crosswalk facing 

Southbound traffic 1 8

NE 6th Ave. @ NE 141st St.

Pedestrian Crossing warning 

signs installed 30 ft North of 

Northernmost crosswalk facing 

Northbound traffic and 30 ft 

South of Southernmost 

crosswalk facing Southbound 

traffic 2 11

NE 6th Ave. @ NE 142nd Ave.

Pedestrian Crossing warning 

signs installed 30 ft North of 

Northernmost crosswalk facing 

Northbound traffic and 30 ft 

South of Southernmost 

crosswalk facing Southbound 

traffic 2 11

NE 6th Ave. @ NE 145th St.

Pedestrian Crossing warning 

signs installed 30 ft North of 

Northernmost crosswalk facing 

Northbound traffic and 30 ft 

South of Southernmost 

crosswalk facing Southbound 

traffic 2 11

NE 6th Ave. @ NE 149th St.

Pedestrian Crossing warning

signs installed 30 ft South of 

crosswalk facing Southbound 

traffic 1 11

Collins Ave. & 16th St.

Pedestrian Crossing warning

signs installed 30 ft South of 

crosswalk facing Southbound 

traffic 1 5

Collins Ave. & 14th St.

Pedestrian Crossing warning 

signs installed 30 ft South of 

Southernmost crosswalk facing 

Southbound traffic 1 5

11
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

36 

Notes:    These  signs  had  no  effect  on  driver  speed.    It  is  unclear  whether  they 

contributed to the reduced level of crashes observed in this study.   

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)

This pedestrian safety measure has federal approval status according to the Manual 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 

Cost

The cost for each sign was $25. The installation cost was $45. per sign for a total cost 

of $70. per installed sign.   

Availability

This product can be purchased off the shelf. 

How/Who Installed

Our contractor installed these devices.   

Utility/Environmental Issues

There were no issues. 

Installation Challenges

There were no installation challenges. 

Maintenance Needs

Signs are durable with a long lifetime unless struck by a vehicle.   

3.10 SPEED TRAILERS

Purpose and Description

Portable  Changeable  Message  Speed  Limit  Signs,  also  known  as  “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 and can flash LEDs when the approaching vehicle is speeding. A speed limit 

sign is included on the trailer. Above a user‐selected maximum, the sign “blanks out” 

to  avoid  enticing  drivers  into  exhibitions  of  speed.  A  computer  within  the  device 

recorded speed data.  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

37 

Figure 3.9 Picture of a Speed Trailer 

Notes:  These signs reduced braking for pedestrians but had little effect on vehicle 

speed.  One reason why the sign was ineffective in reducing vehicle speed was most 

vehicles were already driving within the speed limit.  

Table 3.10 Speed Trailers: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

Collins Ave. @ 32nd St.

ITS Speed Trailer placed 

midblock before intersection 1 6

Collins Ave. @ 36th St.

ITS Speed Trailer placed 

midblock before intersection 1 6

Collins Ave. @ 72nd St.

ITS Speed Trailer placed 

midblock before intersection 1 8

3

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)

Changeable  speed  limit  signs  are  approved  in  MUTCD  Section  2B.13,  Speed  Limit 

Sign  (R2‐1):  “A  changeable  message  sign  that  displays  to  approaching  drivers  the 

speed at which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit 

sign.”  According  to  MUTCD  guidelines  “If  a  changeable  message  sign  displaying 

approach  speeds  is  installed,  the  legend  YOUR  SPEED  XX  km/h  (MPH)  or  such 

similar legend should be shown. The color of the changeable message legend should 

be a yellow legend on a black background or the reverse of these colors.”  

For  signs  typically  used  on  roadways  with  45  MPH  &  greater  speed  limits  the 

MUTCD specifies sign dimensions of 36 by 48 inch (18 inch high digits). 

For  neighborhoods  and  school  zones,  the  MUTCD  specifies  that  the  absolute 

minimum  sign  size allowed is 24 x 30 inches  (12" high digits),  and it provides  for 

larger  dimensions  in  increments  of  six  inches  "where  speed,  volume,  or  other 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

38 

factors  result  in  conditions  where  increased  emphasis,  improved  recognition,  or 

increased legibility would be desirable" [2003 MUTCD 2B.03].  

Cost

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.  

Availability

This product can be purchased off the shelf. 

How/Who Installed

Speed trailers were loaned to the project by the City of Miami Beach. 

Utility/Environmental Issues

No significant issues. 

Installation Challenges

Speed trailers are common equipment items with municipal and law enforcement 

organizations. 

Maintenance Needs

The primary maintenance issue was moving the signs. There is sufficient sunlight in 

Miami to ensure the signs remained charged. 

3.11 RECTANGULAR LED RAPID FLASHING BEACONS

Purpose and Description

This  treatment  was  the  standard  pedestrian  warning  sign  with  two  LED  flashers 

attached (see Figure 1).   The LED flashers were each 6 inches wide and 2.5 inches 

high placed 9 inches apart.  Each unit was dual indicated (LED's on front and back).  

Each side of the LED beacon flashed in a wig‐wag flashing sequence (left, then right) 

the 2 large LED's in combination flashed 76 times in the wig‐wag flashing sequence 

during a 30 second cycle.  Of  the 2 large LED's,  the Left LED, flashed 2  times (in a 

slower type of a rapid flash) each time it was energized followed by the Right LED, 

which flashed in a very fast rapid 3 flash volley when energized.  The total number 

of flashes in this combination was 190 total flashes per 30 second cycle. Four signs 

along  with  beacons  were  installed  at  each  crosswalk.  The  devices  were  linked  by 

radio frequency transponders so a depression of any of the pedestrian call buttons 

immediately  activated  the  flashers  on  all  four  signs.   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 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

39 

crosswalk  on  the  southbound  approach.    A  LED  facing  the  pedestrian  flashed  to 

indicate  to pedestrians  that  the system was operating.  The system also presented 

an audible message instructing pedestrians  that  the light  flashing across  the street 

indicates that the device was operating, and instructing them to wait for cars to stop 

before crossing.  Signal duration was timed assuming a crossing speed of 3.5 feet per 

second. 

Figure 3.10 Picture of Rectangular LED Rapid Flashing Beacons 

Table 3.11 Rectangular LED Rapid Flashing Beacons: Deployment Locations Listed 

by Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

NW 67th St. @ Main Street

North and South Approaches 

on roadside and on median 4

Outside 

zones

South Bayshore Drive @ 

Darwin

North and South Approaches 

on roadside and on median 4

Outside 

zones

S.W. Avenue @ S.W. 163rd 

St.. Both Approaches 2

Outside 

zones

Ponce De Leon @ Soaraz 

Ave. Both Approaches 2

Outside 

zones

12

Notes:  These signs produced large increases in the percentage of motorists yielding 

to pedestrians on multilane roads.  

Federal Approval Status (MUTCD)

This device was installed in accordance with permission to experiment granted by 

FHWA to FDOT.  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

40 

Cost

The  cost  for  each  sign  installed  sign  unit  was  $15,000.    The  installation  cost  was 

included with the sign cost.   The overall cost was $150,000.00 for these units.    The 

cost was higher  for  the Miami‐Dade units  because  they  required  ornamental units 

that conformed with the surroundings. 

Availability

This product can be purchased off the shelf. 

How/Who Installed

The  vendor  installed  these  devices.  Because  the  vendor  installed  these  devices, 

there were no installation issues. 

Utility/Environmental Issues

No significant issues. 

Installation Challenges

Because the device relies upon radio  frequency communication to link the devices, 

there is  no  need  to install wiring  under  the  roadway.    Because the  device is  solar 

powered there is no need to connect power to the unit. 

  Maintenance Needs

These  devices  seem  very  reliable.    The  primary  maintenance  issue  would  be  the 

repair or replacement of a unit if a vehicle strikes it.    

3.12 DYNAMIC LIGHTING

Purpose and Description 

This treatment was used in conjunction with the rectangular LED rapid flashing 

beacons treatment described above. When a pedestrian pressed the call button to 

activate the beacon at night, the device was activated and LED white lighting 

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. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

41 

Figure 3.11 Picture of Dynamic Lighting 

Table 3.12 Dynamic lighting: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

NW 67th St. @ Main Street

North and South Approaches 

on roadside and on median 4

Outside 

zones

South Bayshore Drive @ 

Darwin

North and South Approaches 

on roadside and on median 4

Outside 

zones

S.W. Avenue @ S.W. 163rd 

St.. Both Approaches 2

Outside 

zones

Ponce De Leon @ Soaraz 

Ave. Both Approaches 2

Outside 

zones

12

Notes: The  LED lighting was not  very  bright compared with  the  rectangular  rapid 

flashing beacon.  There activation did not increase yielding above the level obtained 

with the beacons system alone. 

Cost

The cost for the lighting feature was included in the price of the beacons.  A switch 

was installed to allow researchers to turn the lighting feature on and off to evaluate 

its efficacy.  

Availability

These signs are available off the shelf.  However, they do require permission to 

experiment at this time. 

How/Who Installed

The vendor installed this device. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

42 

Utility/Environmental Issues

None were noted. 

Installation Challenges

Because geometric features influence the location of the beacon system, in some 

cases the lighting did not fully illuminate the departure area of the crosswalk. 

Maintenance Needs

There were no maintenance requirements associated with this countermeasure.  

However, the unit will eventually need to be replaced after the service life of the unit 

has expired. 

3.13 NO PERMISIVE LEFT TURN

Purpose and Description

This treatment involved reconfiguring the signal heads to eliminate permissive left 

turns.  

Notes:  This treatment reduced conflicts between pedestrians and left turning 

vehicles. However many drivers violated the red immediately following the end of 

the protected left turn phase.  It may be better to use a lagging left turn phase with 

this treatment. 

Table 3.13 Eliminate permissive Left Turn: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

41st St. & Pine Tree East and West Direction 2 7

2

Cost

The cost for the signal change was $4,000.  

Availability

The hardware needed to make this change is readily available. 

How/Who Installed

Miami‐Dade County made the changes to the signal head and made the signal phase 

changes. 

Utility/Environmental Issues

None 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

43 

Installation Challenges

There were no installation challenges involved in making this change.   

Maintenance Needs

This change does not have a significant impact on maintenance of the traffic signal. 

3.14 OFFSET STOP LINES

Purpose and Description

This treatment involved installing stop bars 20 feet in advance of the crosswalk 

rather than the minimum distance of 4 feet in advance of the crosswalk.  Studies 

have shown that offset and setback stop bars can reduce vehicle/pedestrian 

conflicts.  Setting back stop bars has also been shown to add .75 s to intersection 

clearance time and can reduce turning vehicle threats by increasing intersection 

visibility. 

Figure 3.12 Picture of Offset Yield Lines 

Notes:  This treatment is easier to install on fresh pavement.  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

44 

Table 3.14 Offset Stop Lines: Deployment Locations Listed by Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

167th St. & 2nd Ave. All approaches to intersection 4 10

168th St. & 6th Ave. All approaches to intersection 4 10

169th St. & 8th Ave. All approaches to intersection 4 10

170th St. & 12th Ave All approaches to intersection 4 10

171st. St. & 15th Ave All approaches to intersection 4 10

172nd St. & 16th Ave. All approaches to intersection 4 10

173rd St. & 17th Ave All approaches to intersection 4 10

174th St. & 19th Ave. All approaches to intersection 4 10

175th St. & W. Dixie Highway All approaches to intersection 4 10

36

Cost

The cost to put down thermoplastic lines was $200.  

Availability

This item is readily available. 

How/Who Installed

Florida Department of Transportation installed the advance stop lines. 

Utility/Environmental Issues

None 

Installation Challenges

There were no installation challenges involved in deploying this counter measure.   

Maintenance Needs

Moving the stop bar has do significant impact on maintenance of the markings. 

3.15 ADVANCE YIELD MARKINGS

Purpose and Description

Advance  yielding  markings  may  be  installed  in  advance  of  crosswalks  at 

uncontrolled  locations.    Previous  work  has  shown  that  advance  yield  markings 

placed 30 feet in advance of the crosswalk increases the distance that drivers yield 

in advance of the crosswalk.  Advance yield markings were only installed at one site 

because the sign size specified in the 2003 manual was much smaller than the sign 

used  in  the  research  that  supported  the  introduction  of  this  marking  into  the 

manual.   
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

45 

Figure 3.13 Picture of Advance Yield Markings 

Notes:  This treatment is designed to reduce multiple threat conflicts and therefore 

has  been  installed  at  the  two  multilane  locations  with  the  rectangular  LED  rapid 

flash beacon.  

Table 3.15 Eliminate Permissive Left Turn: Deployment Locations Listed by 

Corridor 

Location Installation Qty Corridor

Collins Ave @ 7th St.

These signs and markings 

were placed on he North and 

South Approaches 1 5

1

Cost

The cost for installing these markings was $200 each.  

Availability

This item is available off the shelf.  

How/Who Installed

Markings  were  installed  by  our  Contractor  on  Collins  @  7th  and  by  Miami‐Dade 

County at  the Miami Lakes and Coconut Grove rectangular LED rapid  flash beacon 

sites. 

Utility/Environmental Issues

None 

Installation Challenges
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

46 

It  was  not  possible  to  get  approval  for  the  correct  sign  size.    This  issue  will  be 

resolved in the next version of the MUTCD.   

Maintenance Needs

This marking does not have a significant impact on maintenance costs. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

47 

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS FOR PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURES 

Figure 4.1 Picture of Data Collectors 

4.1 INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT RESULTS

This chapter summarizes data collected  for each countermeasure.  Data were only 

collected at sample locations if a large number of a particular countermeasure was 

installed. When data were collected at multiple sites, care was taken to ensure that 

multiple treatments were not introduced at the same time.  When new information 

was  learned  about  a  specific  countermeasure,  the  study  was  submitted  for 

publication.  References are provided if the results of the study were published in a 

peer‐reviewed journal.  

Although  treatments  were  introduced  along  corridors,  we  decided  to  categorize 

treatments  results  by  treatment  rather  than  corridor  because  treatments  were 

frequently implemented across corridors to better control for generalization across 

sites. For example, one installation of push buttons that confirmed the press would 

be  installed  in  one  corridor  while  another  installation  of  push  buttons  that 

confirmed  the  press  would  be  installed  in  a  second  corridor.    This  would  require 

presenting  the study  twice or presenting half  the data in  the report  for one zone’s 

report and presenting the other half of the data in the report on the second zone’s 

report.    Instead we  thought it  best  to  keep  the  sites  together  for each experiment 

sorted by the type of application.  

We also  felt  that crash data should parallel  the zone headings because the  focus of 

the collective treatments in each corridor was to reduce crashes in that corridor and 

because  all  countermeasures in  each  corridor  work  together  to  reduce  crashes  in 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

48 

that corridor.  Therefore, we have treated crash data by corridor in the next section 

of this chapter. 

4.1.1 Push Button That Confirms Press

Many  pedestrian  crashes  involve  pedestrians  crossing  during  the  "DON'T  WALK" 

pedestrian  signal.    The  purpose  of  this  study  was  to  evaluate  the  effects  of  push 

buttons  that  provide  visual  and  audible  feedback  when  pressed  on:  1.)  The 

proportion of cycles that a pedestrian pressed the call button; and 2.) the proportion 

of pedestrians pressing the call button that waited for the "WALK" sign.  Data were 

collected at two busy intersections in Miami Beach with relatively high daily traffic 

flows.    The installation  of  push  buttons  that  provided  visual and audible  feedback 

when  pressed  was  associated  with  a  statistically  significant  increase  in  the 

percentage  of  cycles  that  pedestrians  pressed  the  button,  as  well  as  a  significant 

increase  in  the  percentage  of  pedestrians  pressing  the  button  that  waited  for  the 

"WALK"  sign  before  crossing.  Because  behavior  only  changed when  the  new  push 

buttons  were installed  and  the  push  buttons  were installed  at  a  different  point in 

time at each site, it was possible to rule out potential confounding variables such as 

weather,  traffic  flow  and  changes  in  the  demographic  characteristics  of  the 

pedestrian. The percentage of pedestrians crossing against the signal also decreased 

at both locations after the new push buttons were installed as did the percentage of 

pedestrians trapped in the middle of the road when crossing.  Because push buttons 

that emit a visible and audible cue when they are pressed are relatively inexpensive, 

this  treatment  is  a  relatively  cost  effective  way  to  increase  the  percentage  of 

pedestrians  who  press  the  button  and  wait  for  the  ‘Walk”  sign  before  crossing.  

Accessible push buttons also acknowledge when they have been pressed. These data 

show  that  accessible  buttons  may  benefit  all  pedestrians.    The  results  of  this 

intervention  are  summarized  in  Table  4.1.    (These  results  were  published  in 

Transportation Research Record No. 1982 (Van Houten, Ellis, Sanda and Kim, 2006). 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

49 

Table 4.1 Results of Push Button Intervention 

41st & Pine Tree Dr. Baseline Treatment Z score p-value

Number of Cycles When a

Pedestrian was present 

who could press the 

button 420 570

% of cycles button 

pressed 33.8 58.1 7.673 0.01

% pedestrian that 

pressed button waited for 

WALK 51.2 72.5 4.91 0.01

% cycles pedestrian 

trapped 3.8 3.1 0.56 NS

% cycles ped vehicle 

conflicts

Total of Pedestrians 

Crossing (includes those 

not pressing button 879 1044

% of all pedestrian 

violating signal 70.4 52.6 8.17 0.01

Alton & 16th St. Baseline Treatment Z score p-value

Number of Cycles When a

Pedestrian was present 

who could press the 

button 600 810

% of cycles button 

pressed 41.83 54.2 4.633 0.01

% pedestrian that 

pressed button waited for 

WALK 82.09 85.93 1.937 0.05

% cycles pedestrian 

trapped 4.7 2.4 2.293 0.025

% cycles ped vehicle 

conflicts

Total of Pedestrians 

Crossing (includes those 

not pressing button 1577 2490

% pedestrian violations 59.7 51.7 5.086 0.01

Very rare event

Very rare event
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

50 

4.1.2 The Effects of Varying Minimum Green Time

Pedestrians  often  do  not  wait  for  the  "WALK"  sign  at  signal‐controlled  mid‐block 

crossings.  Many factors may contribute to this phenomenon, but one variable could 

be wait time.  It is likely that the major reason people try to cross against the signal 

at mid‐block signal‐controlled crosswalks, when there are gaps in traffic in the first 

half of the roadway, is the length of the average wait time  for the WALK sign.  It is 

common  to  have  minimum  green  times  of  a  minute  or  more  on  a  main  line  at  a 

signal‐controlled mid‐block crosswalk.  If a pedestrian arrives early in the cycle they 

may become  frustrated and attempt  to cross a street in  the presence of  fast heavy 

traffic.    The  purpose  of  this  study  was  to  determine  the  effect  of  wait  time  on 

pedestrian  signal  compliance  at  two mid‐block  crosswalks in Miami‐Dade  County. 

One  crosswalk  traversed  an  arterial  multilane  road  with  two‐way  traffic  and  the 

second  crosswalk  traversed  a  multilane  road  with  one‐way  traffic.    At  both 

crosswalks minimum green time was varied between 30 seconds and 120 seconds. 

The results indicated that pedestrian compliance decreased as minimum green time 

was increased and  that compliance dropped more rapidly as minimum green  time 

was increased at the location with the lower Average Daily Traffic counts (ADT) and 

one‐way  traffic.  Data  also  showed  that  the  percent  of  pedestrians  trapped  at  the 

centerline  increased  with  increased  minimum  green  time.  The  results  of  this 

intervention  are  summarized  in  Table  4.2.  These  results  were  published  in 

Transportation Research Record No. 2002 (Van Houten, Ellis and Kim, 2007). 

4.1.3 Video Pedestrian Detection

Pedestrians  often  consistently  push  the  call  button  for  the  "WALK"  sign  at  signal‐

controlled mid‐block crossings.  Many  factors may contribute  to  this phenomenon, 

but one variable could be previous experience with long wait times. Another factor 

could  be  detection  of  a  gap  for  the  first  half  of  the  crosswalk  after  arrival  at  the 

crosswalk.  This practice could lead to the pedestrians being trapped in the center of 

the  roadway,  and  in  the  absence  of  a  median  a  trapped  pedestrian  may  select  an 

inadequate  gap  for  the  second  half  of  the  crossing in  their  haste  to  get  out  of  the 

roadway.  If  these  pedestrians  had  pressed  the  call  button,  the  signal  may  have 

changed  while  they  were  still  trapped  in  the  middle  of  the  crossing,  thereby 

affording some protection crossing the final half of the roadway. The purpose of this 

study  was  to  determine  whether  video  detection  increases  the  percentage  of 

pedestrian protected by the signal while crossing the second half of the crosswalk.  

The  results indicated  the  treatment had a  small  but  significant positive effect. The 

results of the Video Pedestrian Detection treatment are provided in Table 4.3. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

51 

Table 4.2 Results of Varying Minimum Green Time Intervention 

Mid Block Alton Rd. 30 sec 1 min 2 min

Number of Cycles When 

a Pedestrian was 

present who could press 

the button 150 600 840

% pedestrian that 

pressed button waited 

for WALK 98 85 64

Z Score (p) Waited for 

WALK 7.78 (.01) 18.38 (.01)

% cycles ped vehicle 

conflicts

% cycles pedestrian 

trapped 0 19 23

Z Score (p) Pedestrians 

Trapped 11.86 (.01) 15.84 (.01)

Pedestrian Delay in s 15 37 47

Z Score (p) for 

Pedestrian Delay Z=6.25 (0.01) Z=12.287 (.01)

N (Vehicle Delay in 

seconds) 641 (15) 2094 (7.525) 5960 (5.062)

Z Score (p) value for 

Vehicle Delay 4.91 (0.01) 6.91 (0.01)

Mid Block 1300 SW 

18th St. 30 sec 1 min 2 min

Number of Cycles When 

a Pedestrian was 

present who could press 

the button 270 90 840

% pedestrian that 

pressed button waited 

for WALK 82% 65% 61%

Z Score (p) Waited for 

WALK 4.49 (.01) 5.92 (.01)

% cycles ped vehicle 

conflicts

% cycles pedestrian 

trapped

Pedestrian Delay 13.7 18 30

Z Score (p) for 

Pedestrian Delay Z-0.9333 (.05) Z-6.2148 (.01)

N (Vehicle Delay in 

seconds)

Z Score (p) value for 

Vehicle Delay

Data was not obtained

Data was not obtained

Not relevant (one-way traffic)

Very rare event

Very rare event
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

52 

Table 4.3 Results of Video Detection Intervention 

MOEs Before After Statistic

Total Number of pedestrians 

crossing 752 485

% pedestrians pressing call 

button 42.89 36.36

two sample t

test p = 

0.3554

% pedestrian crossing during 

WALK 49.48 47.58

two sample t

test p = 

0.957

% of times video detector 

places a false call 0

% of times Video detector fails 

to a call when ped present 0

% of pedestrians completing 

crossing entire crosswalk during 

WALK 43.8 50.5

z test for 

proportions 

1.625 not 

sig

% of peds crossing 2nd half of 

crosswalk during WALK 51.3 61.6

two sample t

test. p 

=0.625

% of peds crossing none of the 

crosswalk during WALK 48.7 38.4

two sample t

test p = 

0.1106

% of cycles with conflicts 0.94 0.25

p

test P = 

0.456 

% of cycles where a pedestrian 

is trapped 17 8

two sample t

test p = 

.0453

Latency between button press 

and WALK not collected not collected not collected

These findings are not 

significant because of the small 

sample size

4.1.4 Leading Pedestrian Phase

Motorists  often  fail  to  yield  to  pedestrians  crossing  in  marked  crosswalks  at 

controlled locations.  Several  studies,  have  documented  the  benefits  of  providing  a 

short  exclusive  pedestrian  phase  at  the  start  of  the  "WALK"  at  four‐legged 

intersections.    The  purpose  of  this  study  was  to  examine  the  effect  of  a  leading 

pedestrian signal phase (otherwise known as a lead pedestrian interval) at one four‐

legged  intersection  and  one  three‐legged  intersection  in  Miami  Beach.    The 

introduction of a brief leading pedestrian phase increased the percentage of drivers 

of  left  turning  vehicles  when  a  pedestrian  was  present  yielding  to  the  pedestrian 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

53 

starting  to  cross  within  four  seconds  of  the  start  of  the  "WALK"  which  replicated 

previous work; however the study did not detect a change in the percentage drivers 

turning right yielding when a pedestrian was present.  One reason for the absence of 

an effect for right turning vehicles was the high frequency of motorists making free 

flow  right  turns  on  red  in  Miami‐Dade  County.    Data  also  showed  that  button 

presses  increased  following  the  introduction  of  the  Leading  Pedestrian  Interval 

(LPI) condition.  It is possible that the increase in button pressing was related to the 

improvement  in  the  percentage  of  left  turning  drivers  yielding  to  pedestrians 

crossing  within  four  seconds  of  the  start  of  the  "WALK"  signal.  The  results  of  the 

Leading Pedestrian Phase Intervention are presented in Table 4.4. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

54 

Table 4.4 Results of Leading Pedestrian Phase Intervention 

Alton and Lincoln Rd. Baseline Treatment Z score p-value

Number of left turning

vehicles 46 194

Number of right turning

vehicles 15 45

% of left turning drivers 

yielding during WALK 40 58 3.933 0.01

% of right turning drivers 

yielding during WALK 15 15 NA NA

Number of cycles ped present 

who could have pressed 

button 169 431

% of cycles someone pushed 

call button 69 76 1.91 0.05

% cycles ped vehicle conflicts

Total number of pedestrians 

that crossed 858 1121

% of pedestrians crossing

during first 4 s of WALK 45.3 76.5 14.72 0.01

% of pedestrians in 

crosswalk at end of all red 2.1 2.4 0.45 >0.05

Collins & 16th St. Baseline Treatment Z score p-value

Number of left turning

vehicles 59 18

Number of right turning

vehicles

% of left turning drivers 

yielding during WALK 22 31 1.952 0.05

Number of cycles ped present 

who could have pressed 

button 781 185

% of cycles someone pushed 

call button 36 51 2.866 0.01

% cycles ped vehicle conflicts

Total number of pedestrians 

that crossed 300 109

% of pedestrians crossing

during first 4 s of WALK 38 59 3.916 0.01

Very rare event

Very rare event
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

55 

4.1.5 “TURNING VEHICLE YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Symbol Sign

Motorists  often  fail  to  yield  to  pedestrians  in  marked  crosswalks  at  controlled 

locations.  Several  studies  have  documented  the  benefits  of  text  signs  instructing 

drivers of turning vehicles to yield right‐of‐way to pedestrians.  The purpose of the 

present study was to compare a symbol sign with the standard text sign currently in 

the  Manual  of  Uniform  Traffic  Control  Devices  (MUTCD.    After  collecting  baseline 

data  on  the  percentage  of  drivers  yielding  right‐of‐way  to  pedestrians  crossing 

legally in the crosswalk at two sites with the text sign present, the symbol sign was 

installed  and  additional  data  were  collected.    In  order  to  control  for  possible 

confounding  variables  the  signs were  changed  at  a  different  point in  time  at  each 

site.  Data revealed a general decreasing trend in the percentage of drivers yielding 

to  pedestrians  over  the  course  of  the  study.    The  introduction  of  the  symbol  sign 

produced an increase in the percentage of drivers turning right and left that yielded 

to pedestrians at the second site but did not alter the downward trend in the data.  

At the first site changing the sign at two of the four legs of the intersection produced 

no level change and the downward trend continued.  One reason why the sign may 

have been less effective at the first site may be related to the fact that the sign only 

changed  to  the  symbol  sign  on  two  rather  than  all  four  legs.    These  results, 

presented in Table 4.5, show the importance of monitoring data collection over time 

and using a staggered introduction of the treatment in order to control for possible 

confounding variables when studies only compare treatments at a small number of 

sites. 

Table 4.5 Results of “TURNING VEHICLE YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Intervention 

Collins Ave & 17th St. Baseline Treatment Z score p-value

Number of crossing with 

turning veh present 330 570

Number of Left Turning 

Vehicles 188 370

% left turning vehicles 

yielding 59 51 neg 5.503 NS

Number of Right Turning 

Vehicles 217 432

% right turning vehicles 

yielding 71 50 neg 6.573 NS

% crossings with ped 

vehicle conflicts 3 2 0.409 NS

% crossings with 

pedestrians trapped 2 3 0.979 NS
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

56 

Collins Ave & 21st St. Baseline Treatment Z score p-value

Number of crossing with 

turning veh present 690 330

Number of Left Turning 

Vehicles 487 207

% left turning vehicles 

yielding 50 77 9.018 0.01

Number of Right Turning 

Vehicles 371 132

% right turning vehicles 

yielding 63 79 5.451 0.01

% crossings with ped 

vehicle conflicts

% crossings with 

pedestrians trapped 1 2 1.567 NS

No conflicts recorded

4.1.6 Electronic “NO TURN ON RED” Sign

Many  drivers  make  right  turns  on  red  without  stopping  and  some  do  so  without 

even slowing more  than  they would if  facing a green signal indication.  This study 

compared  the  efficacy  of  a  conditional  "No  Turn  on  Red  When  Pedestrians  in 

Crosswalk"  sign,  the  standard  metal  sign  "No  Turn  on  Red"  (NTOR)  sign  and  an 

electronic  NTOR  that  is  illuminated  when  a  right  turn  on  red  is  prohibited.    The 

results  of  the  experiment  indicated  34  percent  of  drivers  violated  the  NTOR 

prohibition with  the conditional sign, and 41 percent violated it with  the standard 

sign.    The  electronic  sign  reduced  violations  to  32  percent  and  they  recovered  to 

previous levels during a short return  to  the standard sign. Data also indicated  that 

the percentage of violators making a full stop before violating NTOR increased from 

29 percent and 31 percent  for  the conditional and standard NTOR sign during  the 

baseline condition, to 78 percent with the electronic sign and to 65 percent during 

the  short  return  to  the  standard  NTOR  sign  condition.    The  results  for  violators 

making rolling stops or no stop at all show that the improvement in compliance was 

the  result  of  equivalent  large  reductions  in  both  types  of  violations.    Data  also 

indicated  that  the  standard  NTOR  sign  was  associated  with  a  decline  in  the 

percentage  of  violations  when  pedestrians  were  in  the  crosswalk,  and  that  the 

electronic  sign  produced  further  declines  in  violations  of  pedestrian  right‐of‐way.  

The  results  further  documented  a  reduction  of  motor  vehicle‐pedestrian  conflicts 

with  the  electronic  sign  but  not  with  the  standard  NTOR  sign.    Increasing 

compliance  with  the  NTOR  prohibition  associated  with  the  electronic  NTOR  sign 

was  also  associated  with  an  increase  in  the  percentage  of  drivers  blocking  the 

crosswalk  and  a  smaller increase in  the  percentage  of  pedestrians  that  needed  to 

walk around vehicles when the crosswalk was blocked. The results of the Electronic 

No Right Turn on Red Sign intervention are presented in Table 4.6. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

57 

Table 4.6 Results of Electronic “NO TURN ON RED” Sign Intervention 

MOEs

Baseline 

(conditional 

static)

Measure 1 

(Static 

NRTOR)

Measure 2 

(Active 

NRTOR)

Measure 3 

(Static 

NRTOR) Statistic

% Violation of NRTOR 34 41 32 48 ANOVA p=0.0008

% violations when ped 

present in the crosswalk 34 11 6 8 ANOVA p=0.0001

% violations when ped 

present at curb 90 94 25 92 ANOVA p=0.0001

% driver violators who 

made full stop 29 31 78 65 ANOVA p=0.0001

% driver violators who 

made rolling stops 30 29 9 20 ANOVA p=0.0001

% driver violators who 

did not stop 41 40 13 15 ANOVA p=0.0001

% Conflicts 1 20.1 0 ANOVA p=0.0001

% drivers who blocked 

crosswalk 20.2 21.1

No data 

collected

No data 

collected No data collected

% pedestrians that 

walked veh blocking 

Xwalk 6.73 4.44

No data 

collected

No data 

collected No data collected

There is no push button on this leg (this is also the leg with the serious right turn on red crashes.

4.1.7 Countdown Pedestrian Signals

This study examined whether the installation of pedestrian countdown signals could 

increase  the percentage of pedestrians pressing  the pedestrian  call button.  At one 

site  there  was  a  long  delay  after  the  baseline  data  were  collected  and  before  the 

countdown  signals  were  installed.  At  the  other  site  push  buttons  that  provided 

feedback when  the button was pressed were installed  following the baseline study 

and then a countdown signal was installed. The installation of the countdown signal 

was associated with an increase in  the  percentage  of  pedestrians  that  pressed  the 

call button at both sites. The results of the Countdown Pedestrian Signal Study are 

presented in Table 4.7. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

58 

Table 4.7 Results of Countdown Pedestrian Signals Study 

MOEs

Alton and Lincoln Alton and 16th

Baseline

C

ountd

own

Statistic

Baseline

Button

After

Statistic

MOEs

Number of 

crossings 450 450 600 810 300

% Cycles the 

call button 

was pressed 35 95

31.13 

(p=0.01) 40.3 62.7 79.7

 19.5, 

p=0.01)

% peds in 

crosswalk at 

end of 

Flashing 

DON'T WALK 28 9

9.21 

(p=0.01) 46.7 55 20.33

6.32 

(p=0.01)

% Pedestrian 

violations 47.62 5.77

21.94 

(p=0.01) 53.93 38.1 29.38

7.38 

(p=0.01)

% conflicts 0.37 0.33 0.1 0.33 0 0.2

8.47 

(p=0.01)

4.1.8 In­Street Pedestrian Sign

Motorists  often  fail  to  yield  to  pedestrians  in  marked  crosswalks  at  uncontrolled 

locations.  Several  studies,  including  a  recent  NCHRP/TCRP  study  have 

demonstrated  that  the  use  of  in‐roadway  signs  can  significantly  increase  the 

percentage of motorists yielding to pedestrians at uncontrolled marked crosswalks. 

The 2003 Edition of the MUTCD includes two in‐street pedestrian signs that may be 

installed at uncontrolled locations but does not give precise directions as to where 

to  place  the  sign  in  relation  to  the  crosswalk.  The  purpose  of  the  present  FHWA 

study was  to compare  the effect of placing  these signs at  the crosswalk, 20  feet in 

advance of the crosswalk, 40 feet in advance of the crosswalk, and placing a sign at 

all  three  locations  on  driver  yielding  behavior.  A  counterbalanced  multi  element 

design was employed in this experiment.  This design involves installing the sign at 

several  different locations in  advance  of  the  crosswalk  to  determine if  there is  an 

optimum  location  to  place  the  sign.    After  collecting  baseline  data  at  all  three 

crosswalks on Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, Florida, the research team placed the 

sign  at  each  of  the  three  distances in  advance  of  the  crosswalk  at  each  crosswalk 

location as well as at all  three locations  together in  randomized  blocks  of  trials  to 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

59 

control for order effects.  The data showed that the sign produced a marked increase 

in  yielding  behavior  at  all  three  crosswalks  and  that  installing  the  signs  at  the 

crosswalk line was as effective as or more effective than installing it 20 or 40 feet in 

advance  of  the  crosswalk.    Data  also  indicated  that  placing  the  sign  at  all  three 

locations at once was no more effective than placing the sign at the crosswalk line.  

These  data  suggest  that  the  in‐roadway  sign  are  likely  effective  because  the  in‐

roadway  placement  is  particularly  salient  to  drivers.    Because  vehicles  frequently 

struck the signs on Collins Avenue it is recommended that these signs be placed on 

median islands wherever possible to extend  their useful life. The results of  the  In‐

Roadway  Yield  to  Pedestrians  Signs  are  presented  in  Table  4.8.  This  study  was 

published in Transportation Research Record No. 2002 (Ellis, Van Houten and Kim, 

2007).  

Table 4.8 Results of In‐Street Pedestrian Sign Study 

Number of 

peds 400 440 240 240 240

% Yielding 32 78 75 70 79

Z score 12.93 10.18 8.65 11.52

P value 0.01 0.01 0.01 ,01

Number of 

peds 400 240 240 240 240

% Yielding 21 65 63 54 56

Z score 10.39 9.93 7.87 8.23

P value 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Number of 

peds 1300 200 400 400 160

% Yielding 34 69 43 43 52

Z score 11.2 6.26 6.26 6.03

P value 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Collins & 6th

Significant increase; 0 and 

3 signs higher than 40

Collins & 9th

Significant increase

Collins & 13th

Significant increase; 0 and 

3 signs higher than 20 & 40
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

60 

Collins & 

16th

Collins & 

9th

Collins & 

13th

Collins & 

6th 0.05 0 0 0 0

Collins & 

9th 0 0 0 0.006 0

Collins & 

13th 0.0059 0 0.01 0.003 0

Driver Pedestrian Conflicts

Rare at all three locations and only 

occurred during baseline conditions

% Pedestrians trapped in roadway

these numbers are too low 

to test.

4.1.9 Pedestrian Zone Signs

Many urban areas associated with nighttime entertainment have a high proportion 

of  pedestrian  crashes.    In  these areas  drivers may  not attend  to  pedestrians using 

crosswalks.    One  way  to  address  this  problem  is  to  erect  a  W  11‐2  sign  in 

conjunction  with  a  supplemental  "Next  2 Miles"  plaque.    This  study  evaluated  the 

effect  of  this  sign  and  plaque  combination  on  motorist  speed  and  braking  for 

pedestrians  in  a  high  pedestrian  area  of  Collins  Avenue  in  Miami  Beach.    Vehicle 

speeds  were  measured  using  microwave  radar  and  observers  recorded  driver 

braking for pedestrians in the roadway.  Speed data showed that drivers slowed to 

12 mph when pedestrians were present, before and after  the signs were installed. 

Braking  data  showed  similar  results.  These  data  were  recorded  during  daytime 

hours and it is possible  that better results would be obtained  at night or if speeds 

were higher. The results of the Pedestrian Zone Signs are presented in Table 4.9. 

Table 4.9 Results of Pedestrian Zone Signs Study 

MOEs Before After Statistic 

Number of pedestrians 240 270 

Vehicle speed (kph) 19.5 19.7 p=1.79 

% Driver braking 57 63 p=1.36 

% Conflicts 0 0 N/A 

% Pedestrians trapped 0.0042 0.0111 

Z = 0.912 (P > 

0.05) 

4.1.10 Speed Trailers

Speed  trailers have been documented  to be effective at decreasing speeds in work 

zones by as much as 10 mph (Fontaine, Carlson and Hawkins, 2000) and by four to 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

61 

five mph in a second study  (McCoy, Bonneson and Kollbaum, 1995).  Studies have 

also documented  that speed  trailers are effective in reducing speeds on low‐speed 

urban  roadways  (Perillo,  1997),  but  the  effects  do  not  persist  after  the  trailer  is 

removed (Perillo, 1997) if  there is no enforcement, but may persist if  the  trailer is 

associated with speed enforcement (Bloch, 1998).  The purpose of this study was to 

examine  whether  speed  trailers  reduced  speeds  and  increased  braking  when 

pedestrians  were  present.  Participants  were  motorists  driving  on  or  pedestrians 

crossing Collins Avenue between 38th and 39th Streets.  Although the speed trailer 

increased braking it failed to reduce speed.  Because mean speed was 25 mph, which 

is below the posted limit, motorists may not have perceived a need to reduce their 

speed further.  These data were recorded during daytime hours because at this time 

the  number  of  pedestrians  was  highest  although  it  is  possible  that  better  results 

would be  obtained at night  or at sites where  speeds are higher. The  results  of  the 

Speed Trailer study are presented in Table 4.10. 

Table 4.10 Results of Speed Trailers Study 

MOEs Before After Statistic

Number of Peds 344 300

Number of Vehicles 644 549

Vehicle speed (mph) 26 26 Z=1.43

% Driver braking 44 53

Z=2.288 

(p=0.05)

% Conflicts 0 0N/A

% Pedestrians trapped 0 0N/A

4.1.11 Rectangular LED Stutter Flash  

Motorists  often  fail  to  yield  to  pedestrians  in  marked  multilane  crosswalks  at 

uncontrolled locations. Several studies have demonstrated  that the use of advance 

yield markings along with a  yield here  to pedestrian  sign  can  reduce  the  threat  of 

multiple  threat  crashes  but  only  have  a  small  effect  on  overall  driver  yielding 

behavior.    Several  studies,  including  a  recent  NCHRP/TCRP  study  have 

demonstrated  that  the  use  of  the  HAWK  signal  can  significantly  increase  the 

percentage of motorists yielding to pedestrians at uncontrolled marked crosswalks.  

This device has high compliance because it includes a red phase and a flashing red 

phase  similar  to  the  signals  used  at  fire  stations.    Although  this  signal  is  highly 

effective its  high  cost limits its  use  to  particularly  risky  crosswalks.    A lower  cost 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

62 

alternative  to  the  HAWK  signal  is  the  use  of  rectangular  LED  rapid  flash  amber 

beacons with an irregular wig wag flash pattern installed on the pedestrian warning 

sign.    We  evaluated  the  rectangular  LED  rapid  flash  beacon  at  two  multilane 

crosswalks in Miami Beach, Florida under FHWA permission to experiment as part 

of an FHWA Cooperative Agreement to evaluate ITS treatments to increase yielding 

behavior.    A  reversal  design  was  employed  in  this  experiment  to  demonstrate 

experimental  control  at  each  site.    This  design involves alternating  sessions when 

the  signals  were  activated  with  sessions  when  the  device  was  not  activated.  The 

results  showed  that  the  rectangular  LED  rapid  flash  beacons  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.  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. This paper will appear in a future Transportation Research Record. 1

 

1 Shurbutt, J., Van Houten, R. & Turner, S. (in press). An Analysis of the Effects of Stutter

Flash LED Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians Using Multilane Crosswalks.  

Transportation Research Record.
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

63 

Table 4.11 Results of Rectangular LED Stutter Flash Study 

Analysis of Variance comparing flasher and no flasher conditions on vehicle yielding to 

staged crossings at N.W. 67th & Main St. 

Source SS df F p

Between Groups 30047.58 1 256.12 3.4057E-20*

Within Groups 5279.39 45 

Total 35326.97 46 

Analysis of Variance comparing flasher and no flasher on vehicle yielding to local 

resident crossings at N.W. 67th & Main St. 

Source SS df F p

Between Groups 29666.11 1 53.18 2.7388E-08*

Within Groups 17849.71 32 

Total 47515.82 33 

Analysis of Variance comparing flasher and no flasher conditions on vehicles yielding to 

staged crossings at S. Bayshore Dr. & Darwin.

Source SS df F p

Between Groups 31518.61 1 467.9 2.51E-23*

Within Groups 2627.11 39 

Total 34145.72 40 

Analysis of Variance comparing flasher and no flasher conditions on vehicle yielding to 

local residents on S. Bayshore Dr. & Darwin.

Source SS df F p

Between Groups 46885.34 1 148.85 3.6849E-13

Within Groups 9449.52 30 

Total 56334.87 31 

Analysis of Variance comparing flasher and no flasher conditions on the percent of evasive 

conflicts at N.W. 67th & Main St.

Source SS df F p

Between Groups 159.02 1 6.63 0.01329

Within Groups 1102.96 46 

Total 1261.98 47 

Analysis of Variance comparing flasher and no flasher conditions on the percent of 

evasive conflicts at S. Bayshore Dr. & Darwin.

Source SS df F p

Between Groups 105.14 1 13.85 0.0006

Within Groups 280.75 37 

Total 385.89 38 

Analysis of Variance comparing flasher and no flasher conditions on pedestrians trapped 

between in the center of the road.

Source SS df F p

Between Groups 13222.24 1 82.47 1.8382E-11

Within Groups 6734.10 42 

Total 19956.34 43 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

64 

4.1.12 Dynamic Lighting  

A second experiment evaluated  the effects of illuminating  the departure area with 

LED lighting when the rectangular LED rapid flasher beacon was activated at night.  

This  treatment  did  not  produce a  further increase in  yielding.    It is likely  that  the 

salience of the LED stutter flash beacons overshadowed the effect of departure pad 

lighting. The results of the Dynamic Lighting study are presented in Table 4.12. 

Table 4.12 Results of Dynamic Lighting Study 

Source SS df F p

Between Groups 113.79 3 0.43 0.7335

Within Groups 1762.83 20

Total 1876.62 23

Analysis of Variance compariing total vehicle yielding and non-yielding 

during auxiliary pedestrian light on and off conditions at S. Bayshore Dr. 

at Darwin

4.1.13 Remove Permissive Left Turn Phase

Studies  have  consistently  found  higher  crash  rates  for  left  turning  movements  at 

intersections over right turning movements. The use of a leading protected left turn 

phase  reduces  driver  workload  by  eliminating  the  need  to  search  for  a  gap  in 

opposing  traffic.    Pedestrians  are  held  during  this  condition  to  further  improve 

safety. However, many pedestrians violate the pedestrian signal crossing during the 

protected left turn phase and drivers may not search for pedestrians assuming none 

will be crossing.  If a permissive left turn phase follows the protected left turn phase 

pedestrians may fail to benefit from the introduction of a leading protected left turn 

phase. However, if  permissive left  turns are  not  permitted  pedestrians  should  not 

encounter  conflicts  with  turning  vehicles  unless  drivers  violate  the  signal.    The 

purpose  of  this  study  is  to  compare  pedestrian  and  vehicle  violations  and  motor‐

vehicle/pedestrian  conflicts  during  a  leading  protected/permissive  left  turn 

condition vs. a leading protected without permissive left turn condition. Participants 

were  pedestrians  crossing  the  South  leg  of  Pine  Tree  Drive  at  the  intersection  of 

41st Street and West bound drivers on 41st. Street turning left onto Pine Tree Drive. 

Data were collected during daylight hours Monday through Saturday. The results of 

this study indicated changing  from leading protected/permissive left turn phasing; 

to  a  leading  protective/prohibited  left  turn  phasing  decreased  motor 

vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.  However, many pedestrians continued  to cross when 

the cross  traffic stopped at  the start of the protected left turn phase in violation of 

the DON’T WALK signal even though there was a slight improvement in compliance.  

The improvement in  compliance  by  pedestrians was more  than  offset  by  the  high 

violation rate of drivers early during  the prohibited left  turn phase.  These drivers 

were  waiting  in  queue  and  attempted  to  squeeze  through  the  beginning  of  the 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

65 

prohibited  turn  phase.   A  better way  to increase  the  safety  of  pedestrians at  busy 

intersections may be to use a lagging protected left turn phase rather than a leading 

protected phase.  A lagging protected left turn phase would give pedestrians priority 

increasing pedestrian compliance.  Furthermore, most pedestrians would clear  the 

intersection  before  left  turning  vehicles  are  released.    The  results  of  the  Remove 

Permissive Left Turn Phase study are presented in Table 4.13. 

Table 4.13 Results of Remove Permissive Left Turn Phase Study 

MOEs Statistic

Veh 

Protect

Veh 

Perm

Veh 

Protect

Veh 

Proh

Number of Left Turning

Vehicles 3084 1560 1373 252

Number of Pedestrians 

Crossing 359 1807 105 684

Number of Conflicts 32 22 12 4

% of Conflicts

t=2.50 

p=0.014

 % pedestrians crossing

during WALK

t=-6.31 

p=0.00

% Pedestrians crossing

during the protected LT 

phase

% vehicles turning left 

during permissive LT 

phase NA

% vehicles turning

during protected LT 

phase

t=-20.22 

p=0.00

% turning during

prohibited LT phase NA 15

16 13.3

34

66 85

Protected 

Permitted

Protected 

Prohibited

7.219 2

84 86.69

4.1.14   ADVANCE YIELD MARKINGS

This countermeasure was not evaluated. 

4.1.15   OFFSET STOP LINES

This countermeasure was not evaluated. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

66 

4.2 CRASH ANALYSIS All TREATED CORRIDORS

Data were collected for each corridor for 6 years prior to the introduction of the 

NHTSA project, for the 3 years that the NHTSA project was implemented, and for an 

additional 2 years that the FHWA project was implemented.  This provides a total of 

11 years of crash data along these high crash corridors.  Figure 4.2.1 shows the 

crash rate for all eight treated corridors remained reasonably stable with a slight 

downward trend during the 6 years prior to the introduction of the NHTSA project.  

The introduction of the NHTSA project appeared to lead to a small decrease in 

pedestrian crashes form a mean of 101 during the baseline period to a mean of 87 (a 

decrease of 11.5%) during the three years that the NHTSA project was in effect.  The 

installation of the engineering countermeasures on top of the NHTSA education and 

enforcement efforts lead to a further reduction to an average of 51 crashes per year.  

This represents a 50% reduction over the baseline level and a 41% reduction from 

the NHTSA project levels.  It is interesting to note that during the 9 years prior to the 

FHWA project there were 15,472 pedestrian crashes in Miami‐Dade County.  Of 

these 46% occurred on State and County Roads for a total of 7,117 crashes or 791 

crashes per year.  Around 100 per year or nearly 13% of these crashes occurred 

along the treated corridors.   

Figure 4.2 Crashes per Year for All Eight Crash Corridors from 1996‐2006 

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

67 

4.3 INDIVDUAL CORRIDOR CRASH DATA

4.3.1 41ST Street (Alton Rd. to Pine Tree Dr.)

It is interesting to note that crashes declined in each of the eight crash corridors.  

Data from each corridor is presented below.  One corridor that was not particularly 

responsive to the NHTSA treatment but very responsive to the FHWA engineering 

treatments was 41st Street; Alton Road to Pine Tree Drive.  This corridor had the 

highest percentage of daytime pedestrian crashes of all eight corridors (81%).  The 

results for this location are presented in Figure 4.2.2.  Crashes averaged 7 per year 

during baseline, 5.3 per year during the NHTSA program, and 2 per year during the 

FHWA program.  This corridor received a large number of countdown timers, push 

buttons that confirmed the press, the no right turn on red electronic sign, and the 

prohibited permissive left turn treatment.  Data for this corridor are presented in 

Figure 4.3. 

Figure 4.3 Crashes per Year for 41st St.; Alton Rd. to Pine Tree Dr. 1996‐2006

4.3.2 NE6TH St. (NE 141ST St. to NE 151ST St.)

Another corridor that responded well to the engineering treatments was  

NE 6th St.  (NE 141st St. to NE 151st St.).  Many of the pedestrians struck in this 

corridor were children who were hit in crosswalks near the school.  This corridor 

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

68 

had the highest percentage of crashes involving children and youth (34%) and the 

highest percentage of crashes involving African American pedestrians (73%).   

During baseline crashes averaged 7.7 per year at this site and maintained at 8.0 

during the three years of the NHTSA project.   The FHWA project was associated 

with at reduction in crashes to 3 per year.  This site also received countdown timers 

and push buttons that confirmed the press at high crash intersections and a large 

number of pedestrian zone signs. Data from this site are presented in Figure 4.4.   

Figure 4.4 Crashes per Year Along NE 6th St.  (NE 141st St. to NE 151st St.) from 1996 

to 2006 

4.3.3 NE 163RD St. (NW 2ND Ave. to Biscayne Blvd)

The corridor that showed the largest improvement also had the highest number of 

crashes per year during baseline, the second highest percentage of African American 

pedestrians struck during baseline (41%), and the second highest percentage of 

senior pedestrians struck during baseline (28%).  Baseline data show a downward 

trend during the baseline period.  This corridor had the second highest percentage 

of pedestrian crashes involving turning vehicles (60%). This large corridor along NE 

163rd St. had 25.8 crashes per year during baseline, crashes declined to 20.7 crashes 

per year during the NHTSA project and declined further to 8 per year during the 

FHWA project. This corridor also received the largest number of countermeasures.  

This corridor had a large number of countdown pedestrian signals and push buttons 

that confirmed the press installed.  This site also received ‘Turning Vehicles Yield To 

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

69 

Pedestrians” symbol signs, and a large number of offset stop lines.  Data for this 

corridor are presented in Figure 4.5. 

Figure 4.5 Crashes per Year NE 163rd  St.  (NE 2nd Ave to Biscayne Blvd.) from 1996 

to 2006 

4.3.4 Collins Ave (5TH St. to 24TH St.)

This corridor on Collins Ave. between 5th St. and 24th St. was in the middle of the 

South Beach recreational area.  Therefore it is not surprising that this corridor had 

the highest percentage of nighttime crashes of all eight corridors (55%).  During 

baseline there were 18.8 pedestrian crashes per year along this corridor.  During the 

NHTSA project there were 20 crashes per year.   The introduction of the FHWA 

project was associated with a decline in crashes to 13 per year.  One of the 

treatments that was effective along this corridor was the in street pedestrian signs.  

Unfortunately these signs did not stand the test of time and were only in effect for a 

relatively short period of time.  This corridor also received a couple of lead 

pedestrian intervals, a large number of “Turning vehicles yield to pedestrians” 

symbol signs, some pedestrian zone signs, and one advance yield marking.  Crash 

data are presented in Figure 4.6. 

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

70 

Figure 4.6 Crashes per Year Collins Ave.  (5th Street to 24th St.) from 1996 to 2006 

4.3.5 Collins Ave­Indian Creek (28TH St. to 43RD St.)

This corridor is immediately adjacent to the Collins Ave (5th to 24th St.) corridor.  

Treatments installed along this corridor included “TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO 

PEDESTRIANS” symbol signs, and the use of the speed trailer, Crashes averaged 7 

per year during the baseline period along this corridor, 5.3 per year during the 

NHTSA project and 3 per year during the FHWA project.  The graph of the yearly 

crash data is shown in Figure 4.6.   Although the average number of crashes is lower 

during the FHWA study there are too few crashes and too much overlap to conclude 

much about the efficacy of the treatment at this location.   

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

71 

Figure 4.7 Crashes per Year Collins Ave.  (Indian Creek 28th St. to 43rd St.) from 1996 

to 2006 

4.3.6 Collins Ave & Harding Ave. (65TH St. to 75TH St.)

This crash corridor had the highest percentage of crashes involving turning vehicles 

during baseline of all of the selected corridors averaging 80% and the highest 

percentage of pedestrians struck over the age of 65 years (49%).   Treatments 

installed along this corridor included “Turning vehicles yield to pedestrians” symbol 

signs, pedestrian zone signs, and the speed trailer.  During the baseline condition the 

number of crashes per year averaged 14.3, during the NHTSA project crashes 

averaged 13 per year and during the FHWA project they averaged 9.5 per year.  

Overall it appeared the treatments were only moderately effective at this site.  A 

graph of the yearly crash data is shown in Figure 4.8. 

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

72 

Figure 4.8 Crashes per Year Collins Ave. and Harding Ave. (67th St. to 76th St.) from 

1996 to 2006 

4.3.7 Alton Road (5TH St. to 17TH St.)

The corridor along Alton Road between 5th St. and 17th St. averaged 13.8 crashes per 

week during baseline.  This corridor had the second highest percentage of daytime 

crashes (74%) and 42% of crashes occurred at intersections.  Alton Rd. received a 

number of treatments.  A large number of push buttons that confirmed the press 

and countdown pedestrian signals were installed along this corridor.  The video 

detection system was installed at a midblock signalized crosswalk.  Three 

intersections received a leading pedestrian interval, and one intersection received 

the “Turning vehicles yield to pedestrians” symbol sign treatment.  The introduction 

of the NHTSA project was associated with a decline in crashes to 10 per year and the 

FHWA project was associated with a further small decline to 8.5% crashes per year.  

A graph of these data is shown in Figure 4.9. 

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

73 

Figure 4.9 Crashes per Year on Alton Rd. 5th St. to 17th St.) from 1996 to 2006 

4.3.8 5TH St. (Alton Rd. to Ocean Dr.)

The final graph shows the number of crashes occurring on 5th St. between Alton Rd. 

and Ocean Drive.  More than half the crashes along this corridor occurred at night 

and only 23% involved turning vehicles.   Treatments installed along this corridor 

included push buttons that confirmed the button press, and “Turning vehicles yield 

to pedestrians” symbol signs.  During the baseline condition pedestrian crashes 

averaged 6.5 per year.  After the NHTSA program was introduced these crashes 

declined to 4.7 per year and following the introduction of the FHWA project crashes 

declined to 4 per year.  Figure 4.10 shows crashes at this site.  Overall there were 

not a large number of crashes along this corridor and it is difficult to determine 

whether the treatments had an effect.   

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

74 

Figure 4.10 Crashes per Year on 5th St. Between Alton Rd. and Ocean Dr.) from 1996 

to 2006 

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

75 

CHAPTER 5 OUTREACH AND EDUCATION 

All of the traffic control devices deployed in this study were intuitive or passive in 

nature and therefore required little outreach and awareness training.  Countdown 

pedestrian signals, offset stop lines, push buttons that confirm the button press, 

automatic pedestrian detectors (passive in nature), a leading pedestrian phase, 

"Turning vehicles yield to pedestrians" signs, in roadway signs, elimination of 

permissive left turns, dynamic NTOR signs, the rectangular LED stutter flash, 

dynamic lighting (passive in nature), pedestrian zone warning signs, shorter 

minimum green waiting times, and advance yield markings are familiar to motorists 

and pedestrians.  Therefore outreach and awareness focused on continued 

enforcement along with a continuation of the general educational countermeasures 

deployed as part of the NHSTA Miami Dade Contract that begun prior to the FHWA 

Cooperative Agreement.  On of the team members on the Cooperative Agreement 

(David Henderson of the Miami‐Dade MPO) coordinated these efforts.  These 

ongoing outreach and awareness measures are summarized below:  

1.  Pedestrian safety message posters mounted in bus and Metrorail trains.  

These included six different messages aimed at increasing pedestrian safety 

practices and were written in English, and Spanish. 

2.  WalkSafe Program and Ryder Trauma Center Classroom Education—

program aimed at reducing the incidence of children struck by vehicles by 

educating elementary school‐aged children, teachers, parents and their 

communities about traffic safety.  The program used an educational training 

intervention, appropriate engineering countermeasures, and an enforcement 

component to help achieve its goal. An evaluation of the program can be 

found in Hotz and colleagues (2004).     

3.  Walk to School Day Sponsored by SAFE KIDS Walk This Way—Thousands of 

students from 8 schools participated in Walk to School Day.  The National 

SAFE KIDS Campaign provided banners, signs, pedestrian safety pamphlets, 

and safe walking surveys.  

4.  Pedestrian Education by the Community Affairs Bureau of the Miami‐Dade 

Police Department—The Pedestrian Safety Section of the Miami‐Dade Police 

Department’s Community Affairs Bureau made numerous traffic safety 

presentations in schools, distributed several safety booklets and materials, 

and helped establish the WalkSafe Miami program. 

5.  Haitian Creole Elementary School and Older Pedestrian Safety Education 

Programs—the elementary school program consisted of four 45‐minute 

workshops conducted at three elementary schools, reaching 389 children. 

Both programs were supported by radio advertisements, Haitian web sites, a 

brochure in Haitian Creole, and Haitian Creole trading cards.  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

76 

6.  Brochure: Safety Tips for Pedestrians in Haitian Creole—pamphlet that 

provides pedestrian safety advice to adults. 

7.  Heroes of Haitian Independence Trading Cards—four cards that each depict 

a hero of Haitian independence on one side and provide pedestrian safety 

tips on the other. 

8.  Walk Safely Brochures in English and Spanish were delivered to the Miami‐

Dade school board, hospitals, public libraries, and police departments. 

9.  Workshops provided by the Miami‐Dade MPO pedestrian‐bicycle coordinator 

to older pedestrian groups on pedestrian safety.   

10.  More than 400 posters on nighttime conspicuity were delivered to 

organizations to display in public buildings. 

11.  Public Service Announcements (PSAs)—PSAs about pedestrian safety were 

distributed and broadcasted on city and county access channels in Spanish 

and English and on selected Spanish speaking radio stations. 

12.  Brochure: Pedestrian, Walk Safely—brochure providing families with the 

pedestrian safety advice in both English and Spanish.  Brochures were 

delivered to organizations such as the Miami‐Dade School Board, hospital, 

public library, police departments, and elected officials’ offices. 

13.  Walking Through the Years: Pedestrian Safety for the Older Adult—booklet 

prepared for older (65+) adults and implementers of programs for older 

adults.  Brochures were delivered to organizations such as the Miami‐Dade 

School Board, hospital and medical departments, retirement homes, public 

library, police departments, elder affairs, and elected officials’ offices.    

14.  Caminando a Traves de los Anos: Seguridad para Peatones de Tercera Edad 

(65+)—booklet in Spanish prepared for implementers of pedestrian 

programs for the older (65+) adult.  Brochures were delivered to 

organizations such as the Miami‐Dade School Board, police departments and 

elected officials’ offices.  

15.  Enforcement of Driver Yielding Behavior Study, Two Police Pedestrian Safety 

Training Programs, and Enforcement—Van Houten and Malenfant (2003) 

conducted a study of driver yielding behavior at four crosswalks in each of 

two—an east and west—high crash corridors in the City of Miami Beach.  In 

one year, police stopped 2,006 motorists for failing to yield to pedestrians, 

with 1,218 of these stopped during the first two weeks of the program.  

Three hundred thirty nine citations were issued, of which 188 were given 

during the first two weeks of the program. For enforcement results, review 

Van Houten and Malenfant (2003).  Additionally, police officers in Miami 

Beach and Miami Springs received training on pedestrian safety and 

enforcement activities that have been used to address a variety of violations 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

77 

and behaviors that often lead to collisions between pedestrians and motor 

vehicles.  

16.  Walking Through the Years: Pedestrian Safety for Your Child brochures (in 

English and Spanish) were distributed to the Miami‐Dade School Board, 

hospital and medical departments, public libraries, and police departments.  

These brochures provided safety guidelines to parents and caregivers to help 

protect children from pedestrian crashes. 

  
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

78 

CHAPTER 6 PHASE II CONCLUSIONS

6.1 LESSONS LEARNED

6.1.1 Lessons Learned:  Overall Project Success

The project was successful in demonstrating the ability of a local 

government/university team to develop a data based plan to improve pedestrian 

safety, focusing on higher‐injury areas, and then to implement and evaluate this 

plan.  The positive aspect of the program was the focus on low cost innovative 

engineering improvements to address pedestrian crashes in each corridor. It also 

provided an opportunity for the Miami‐Dade team to take a cooperative approach 

with FHWA and the other two teams to identify best practices in pedestrian safety.   

Because Miami‐Dade had the previous experience with the NHTSA project that 

emphasized education and engineering countermeasures, the Miami‐Dade team was 

well positioned to continue these extensive measures and to build on them to 

implement a complete multifaceted triple E program with heavy emphasis on 

Engineering, Education and Enforcement.   

The focus on low cost engineering provides a model of what is possible in the 

absence of a large corridor wide engineering project.  The Florida Department of 

Transportation often implements corridor wide safety projects that involve large 

scale improvements.  These projects typically produce large benefits for all road 

users.  In this project rather meager resources were utilized to produce large 

changes in 8 corridors that lead to significant crash reductions. 

The federal funding was extremely helpful and appreciated as was the 

enhancements provided by FDOT and Miami‐Dade County that assisted us in 

demonstrating the effectiveness of targeted low cost improvements.    

6.1.2 Crash Reductions

The most important lesson learned was that inexpensive pedestrian safety 

engineering measures could produce a very significant reduction in crashes when 

introduced on top of an existing public education and enforcement program 

focusing on pedestrian safety. The installation of the engineering countermeasures 

on top of the NHTSA education and enforcement efforts lead to a reduction of 51 

crashes per year for all sites.  This represents a 50% reduction over the baseline 

condition and a 41% reduction from the NHTSA project levels.  Because we selected 

high crash corridors and the crash reduction was so large, the overall reduction in 

our 8 corridors represented a 6.5% reduction in all crashes on State and County 

roads in Miami‐Dade County. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

79 

6.1.3 Lessons Learned from Experimentation

A number of lessons were learned from the experimentation conducted as part of 

this study and the results have been published in four papers in Transportation

Research Record.  Additional papers will be submitted for publication this year. 

Highlights of Research Results

• That the probability of a pedestrian violation at midblock signals is a joint 

function of perceived risk and wait time.  Reducing wait time leads to very 

high levels of compliance. 

• That the in street pedestrian sign is best placed close to the crosswalk, and 

that no advantage is gained by installing multiple signs. 

• That pedestrian push buttons that confirm the press lead to more 

pedestrians pressing the button and more pedestrians that press the button 

waiting for the WALK indication. 

• That the rectangular LED rapid flash beacon is associated with high levels of 

yielding on multilane high volume roads during the day and night. 

• That the electronic NRTOR signs lead to fewer pedestrian conflicts with 

vehicles turning right‐on‐red and that more drivers who violated first came 

to a full stop, while many during baseline initiated free flow right turns on 

red. 

• That eliminating permissive left turns reduces conflicts between pedestrians 

and left turning vehicles.  It was also learned that many pedestrians attempt 

to cross during the vehicle protected phase before and after the no 

permissive left turn treatment was introduced and some drivers violate the 

no left turn signal just after the end of the protected left turn phase.  It is 

recommended that a lagging protected left turn condition be considered 

instead of leading protected left turn condition. 

• That the “Turning vehicles yield to pedestrians “ symbol sign appeared no 

more effective than the conventional test message sign. 

6.1.4 Lessons Learned: Implementation

•  Coordinating improvements with other agencies, especially FDOT was of 

critical importance to the success of this project.   We were fortunate to have 

the full involvement of FDOT District 6 and Miami‐Dade County senior staff. 

•  Developing and implementing a comprehensive pedestrian safety plan 

requires a long time frame.  This project took over six years, including almost 

two years for planning, two years for design/procurement/approvals, and 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

80 

two years for implementation and evaluation.  However, this time frame was 

partly the result of several hurricanes that damaged equipment and lead to a 

long‐term backlog in installation schedules because of the extent of the 

damage to the traffic infrastructure that needed to be repaired.  We were also 

delayed getting as‐built plans because of new Homeland Security

requirements. 

•  It was critical having a dedicated and highly competent pedestrian bicycle 

coordinator who had good relationships with all members of the team and 

was able to serve as a catalyst in getting things done.  This project would 

have been difficult to achieve without his support. 

•  There are a wide range of pedestrian safety countermeasures available that 

can be tailored to specific location characteristics. A package of such 

measures can reduce vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, increase driver yielding, 

and bring about other changes in driver and pedestrian behavior that were 

associated with crash reductions.  

•  Particularly cost‐effective countermeasures appear to be: countdown 

pedestrian signals; push buttons that confirm the press; rectangular LED 

rapid flashing beacons; reducing minimum green time; advance stop lines; 

and the use of a lead pedestrian phase.   

•  Low‐cost but effective measures have the advantages of quick 

implementation and the potential to draw support and funding for further 

improvements. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

81 

REFERENCES 

This section will be completed and included in the Final Report. 

Abdulsattar, H. N. , M.S. Tarawneh, P.T. McCoy, and S.D. Kachman. Effect on VehiclePedestrian Conflicts of “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Sign. In 

Transportation Research Record 1553, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, 

D.C., 1996, pp.38-45.

Bechtel, A.K., K.E. MacLeod, and D.R. Ragland. Pedestrian Scramble Signal in 

Chinatown Neighborhood of Oakland, California, An Evaluation. In Transportation 

Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1878, TRB, 

National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 19-26.

Bloch, S.A. A Comparitive Study of the Speed Reduction Effects of Photo-Radar and 

Speed Display Boards. Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, D.C. January 1998. 

Braun, R. and M. Roddin. NCHRP Report 189: Quantifying the Benefits of Separating 

Pedestrians and Vehicles. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978. 

Ellis,  R.,  Van  Houten,  R.  and  Kim,  J.L.  (2007).  In‐Roadway  “Yield  to  Pedestrians 

Signs”: Placement Distance and Motorist Yielding.  Transportation Research Record. 

No. 2002, 84‐89. 

Michael D. Fontaine, Paul J. Carlson, and H. Gene Hawkins, Jr. Evaluation of Traffic 

Control Devices for Rural High-Speed Maintenance work zones, second year activities 

and final recommendations. October 2000. 

Huang, H., and Zegeer, C. Effects of Innovative Pedestrian Signs at Unsignalized 

Locations. Transportation Research Record 1705. pp. 43-52, 2000. 

Hubbard, S.M.L., D.M. Wetervelt, D.B. Bryant, and D.M. Bullock, Expected Right Turn 

Traffic Characteristics Associated with Leading Pedestrian Phases. Paper presented at 

the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. 

Hyden, C. The Landås project - A before project regarding environmental and safety 

issues in a residential area in the city of Bergen, Norway. Statens Vegvesen, 

Distriktskontoret i Bergen, 2003 

King, M.R., Calming New York City Intersections. Presented at the Urban Street 

Symposuim, Dallas, Texas, 1999. 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

82 

McCoy, P.T., J.A. Bonneson, J.A. Kollbaum. Speed Reduction Effects of Speed 

Monitoring Displays with Radar in Work Zones on Interstate Highways. Maintenance 

Management and Safety, 1995, no 1509, pp. 65-72. 

Perillo, K.V. Effectiveness of Speed Trailers on Low-Speed Urban Roadways. Master’s 

Thesis, Texas A & M University, 1997. 

Turner, S., Fitzpatrick, K., Brewer, M., and Park, E.S. Motorist Yielding to Pedestrians 

at Unsignalized Intersections: Findings form a National Study on Improving Pedestrian 

Safety. Paper presented at the 85th Annual meeting of the Transportation Research 

Board, Jan 2006, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Cooperative 

Agreement DTFH61-01-X-00018, Pedestrian Safety Engineering and Intelligent 

Transportation System-Based Countermeasures Program for Reduced Pedestrian 

Fatalities, Injuries, Conflicts and Other Surrogate Measures: Miami-Dade Site, Phase 1 

Final Report, 2002. 

Van Houten, R., R. Ellis, J. Sanda, & J. Kim. Pedestrian Push Button Confirmation 

Increases Call Button Usage and Compliance. In press Transportation Research Record. 

Van Houten, R., R.A. Retting, C.M. Farmer, and J. Van Houten. Field Evaluation of a 

Leading Pedestrian Interval Signal Phase at Three Urban Intersections. In Transportation 

Research Record,: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1734, TRB, 

National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp 86-92. 

Van Houten, R., Nau, P.A., and Merrigan, M. Reducing elevator energy use: A 

comparison of posted feedback and reduced elevator convenience. Journal of Applied 

Behavior Analysis, 1981, 14, 377-387. 

Van Houten, R., Ellis, Sanda, J. & Kim, J.L (2006). Pedestrian push button confirmation 

increases call button usage and compliance. Transportation Research Record. No. 1982, 

99-103. 

Van Houten, R., Ellis, R. and Kim, J.L. (2007). The Effects of Varying Minimum Green 

on the Percentage of Pedestrians Waiting to Cross with the WALK Signal at Midblock 

Crosswalks.  Transportation Research Record. No. 2002, 78‐83.

Virkler, M.R. Pedestrian Compliance Effects on Signal Delay. Transportation Research 

Record, 1636, p. 88-91, 1998. 

Zegeer, C.V. Synthesis of Pedestrian Safety Research. Report SA-91-034. FHWA, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1991. 

Zegeer, C.V., K.S./ Opiela, and M.J. Cynecki. Effects of Pedestrian Signals and Signal 

Timing on Pedestrian Accidents. IN Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 
 Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety Project 

    Final Report and Executive Summary  

83 

Transportation Research Board, No. 874, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, 

D.C., 1982, pp 62-72