San Francisco PedSafe Phase II 

FINAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND EXECUTIVE 

SUMMARY 

Prepared for 

US Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Prepared by 

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 

Pedestrian Program 

and 

University of California Traffic Safety Center 

University of California 

February 25, 2008 
ii
February 25, 2008 

San Francisco PedSafe 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 

Prepared for 

US Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Cooperative Agreement 

DTFH61-02-X-00017 

Prepared by 

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 

Pedestrian Program 

City and County of San Francisco 

1 South Van Ness Ave. (7th Floor) 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Tel: (415) 701-4500 

Fax: (415) 701-4343 

and 

University of California Traffic Safety Center 

University of California 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Tel: (510) 642-0655 

Fax: (510) 643-9922 

iii
iv
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

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

Agreement DTFH61-02-X-00017, which is gratefully acknowledged. Additional funding was 

provided by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the UC Berkeley, Traffic 

Safety Center. 

FHWA Project Guidance was provided by: 

Dr. Morris Oliver, Office of Safety 

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 jointly by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 

(SFMTA) and the University of California, Berkeley Traffic Safety Center (TSC), with the 

following project oversight and management staff: 

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) 

Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Executive Director/CEO 

Jack Lucero Fleck, P.E., City Traffic Engineer 

Bridget Smith, P.E., Livable Streets Section Manager 

Frank Markowitz, Project Manager 

Sam Fielding, Transportation Planner 

UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center (TSC) 

Dr. David Ragland, Director 

Jenna Hua, Research Associate 

Nicolas Gutierrez, Research Associate 

Kara MacLeod, Research Associate 

Barrett Shaver, Research Associate 

Thomas M. Rice, Research Epidemiologist 

John B. Bigham, Graduate Student Researcher 

Student Assistants: 

Kin Chung 

Jayson Huertas 

Melody Lao 

Nora Oulad 

Acknowledgement is also made of the contributions of Dave Candey, Technical Support 

Manager for Econolite, and Tod Eidson of Fourth Dimension Traffic for assistance with the 

video detection technology. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

ii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

1.1. Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................... 1 

1.1.1. Purpose.................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1.2. Key Work Products................................................................................................. 1 

1.2. San Francisco’s Setting................................................................................................... 2 

1.3. Project Overview and Schedule...................................................................................... 5 

1.4. Countermeasure Overview.............................................................................................. 6 

1.5. Deployment..................................................................................................................... 7 

1.5.1. Deployment Steps ................................................................................................... 7 

1.5.2. Comparison of Countermeasures: Cost .................................................................. 7 

1.5.3. Comparison of Countermeasures: Availability and Standard Use ........................ 8 

1.5.4. Comparison of Countermeasures: Installation Complexity.................................... 9 

1.6. Devices Not Deployed .................................................................................................... 9 

1.6.1. Smart Lighting and Other Roadway Lighting Improvements ................................ 9 

1.6.2. Upgrade of In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights............................................................ 9 

1.6.3. Pedestrian Scramble (Exclusive Pedestrian Phase) .............................................. 10 

1.6.4. Animated Eyes Signals ......................................................................................... 10 

1.7. Data Collection and Analysis Methods for PedSafe Countermeasures....................... 10 

1.8. Summary of Results for PedSafe Countermeasures ..................................................... 10 

1.9. Summary of Results for Non-PedSafe Countermeasures ............................................. 14 

1.9.1. Pedestrian Scramble (Exclusive Pedestrian Phase) .............................................. 14 

1.9.2. Pedestrian Countdown Signals ............................................................................. 15 

1.9.3. In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights............................................................................. 15 

1.9.4. Accessible (Audible) Pedestrian Signals .............................................................. 16 

1.10. Education and Outreach............................................................................................ 16 

1.11. Phase II Conclusions................................................................................................. 17 

1.11.1. Lessons Learned: overall project success and Countermeasures......................... 17 

1.11.2. Lessons Learned: Outreach................................................................................... 18 

1.11.3. Lessons Learned: Implementation ........................................................................ 19 

1.11.4. Lessons Learned: Data Collection and Analysis .................................................. 19 

1.11.5. Comparison with Other Cities .............................................................................. 19 

1.11.6. Next Steps and Further Research.......................................................................... 20 

2. COUNTERMEASURE IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................... 21

2.1. Overview of Installation Challenges............................................................................. 21 

2.2. Comparison of Countermeasures: Ease of Implementation......................................... 22 

2.3. Comparison of Countermeasures: Costs....................................................................... 23 

2.4. Comparison of Countermeasures: Availability and Standard Use .............................. 27 

3. DEPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURES ...................................... 29

3.1. In-Street Pedestrian Signs............................................................................................. 29 

3.2. “TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Signs.......................... 31 

3.3. “LOOK” Pavement Stencils ......................................................................................... 33 

3.4. Modify Signal Timing................................................................................................... 36 

3.5. Pedestrian Head Start.................................................................................................... 38 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

iv

3.6. Advanced Stop Lines and Red Visibility Curb Zones.................................................. 39 

3.7. Flashing Beacons .......................................................................................................... 43 

3.8. Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign ......................................................... 48 

3.9. Americans With Disabilities (ADA) Curb Ramps........................................................ 51 

3.10. Median Refuge Islands ............................................................................................. 52 

3.11. Automated Video Detection of Pedestrians to Adjust Signal Timing ..................... 54 

3.12. Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign.................................................................... 56 

3.13. Retro-Reflective Materials........................................................................................ 59 

3.14. Education .................................................................................................................. 60 

3.15. Devices Not Deployed .............................................................................................. 62 

3.15.1. Smart Lighting and Other Lighting Improvements .............................................. 62 

3.15.2. Upgrade of In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights.......................................................... 62 

3.15.3. Pedestrian Scramble (Exclusive Pedestrian Phase) .............................................. 63 

3.15.4. Animated Eyes Signals ......................................................................................... 63 

4. DATA ANALYSIS OF COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................ 65

4.1. Data Analysis Report (By Reference)........................................................................... 65 

4.2. Pedestrian Detector Performance.................................................................................. 65 

4.2.1. Pedestrian Detector Overview .............................................................................. 65 

4.2.2. Video Detection: Data Collection Methods.......................................................... 67 

4.2.3. Video Detection: Manual Data Collection Results............................................... 67 

4.2.4. Video Detection: Automated Data Collection Results ......................................... 68 

4.3. Analysis of Non-pedsafe countermeasures................................................................... 69 

4.3.1. Pedestrian Scramble.............................................................................................. 69 

4.3.2. Pedestrian Countdown Signals ............................................................................. 72 

4.3.3. In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights............................................................................. 74 

4.3.4. Accessible (Audible) Pedestrian Signals .............................................................. 76 

5. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION .................................................................................... 77

6. PHASE II CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................... 79

6.1. Lessons Learned............................................................................................................ 79 

6.1.1. Lessons Learned: overall project success and Countermeasures.......................... 79 

6.1.2. Lessons Learned: Outreach................................................................................... 81 

6.1.3. Lessons Learned: Implementation ........................................................................ 81 

6.1.4. Lessons Learned: Data Collection and Analysis .................................................. 82 

6.2. Comparison With Other Cities...................................................................................... 83 

6.3. Next Steps and Further Research.................................................................................. 83 

APPENDIX A: OUTREACH ASSEMBLY SUMMARY AND EVALUATION ................ 85

INDEX OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.2-1 San Francisco Pedestrian Injury Collisions: 1996-2005 ............................................ 4 

Figure 1.2-2 San Francisco Pedestrian Injury Locations and PedSafe Zones ................................ 4 

Figure 4.2-1 9th & Howard Intersection with Video Camera at Top of Streetlight Pole............. 66 

Figure 4.2-2 Northeast Crosswalk with Video Detection Zones at 9th & Howard ...................... 66 

Figure 4.2-3 Econolite Autoscope Pedestrian Detection Zones and Display .............................. 67 

Figure 4.2-4 Pattern of Cycle Lengths.......................................................................................... 68 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

v

INDEX OF TABLES 

Table 1.8-1 San Francisco FHWA PedSafe Project: Data Highlights.......................................... 11 

Table 3.1-1 In-Street Pedestrian Signs: Characteristics Of Intersections..................................... 29 

Table 3.2-1 “TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Signs: Characteristics 

Of Intersections..................................................................................................... 31 

Table 3.3-1 “LOOK” Pavement Stencils: Characteristics Of Intersections ................................. 34 

Table 3.4-1 Modify Signal Timing: Characteristics Of Intersections........................................... 36 

Table 3.5-1 Pedestrian Head Start: Characteristics Of Intersections............................................ 38 

Table 3.6-1 Advanced Stop and Red Visibility Curb Zone Lines: Characteristics Of Intersections

............................................................................................................................... 41 

Table 3.7-1 Push Button Activated Flashing Beacon: Characteristics Of Intersection ................ 44 

Table 3.7-2 Infrared Activated Flashing Beacons: Characteristics Of Intersection ..................... 46 

Table 3.8-1 Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign: Characteristics Of Intersections . 49 

Table 3.9-1 ADA Curb Ramps: Characteristics Of Intersection .................................................. 51 

Table 3.10-1 Median Refuge Islands: Characteristics Of Intersections ....................................... 53 

Table 3.11-1 Automated Video Detection of Pedestrians to Adjust Signal Timing: 

Characteristics Of Intersections ............................................................................ 54 

Table 3.12-1 Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs : Characteristics Of Intersections ........... 56 

Table 4.3-1 Impact of Pedestrian Scrambles on Pedestrian Safety and Convenience.................. 70 

Table 4.3-2 Impact of Pedestrian Scrambles on Through Vehicle Speeds on Stockton Street ... 70 

Table 4.3-3 Pedestrian Countdown Signals Pilot Project: Impacts on Behavior and Attitudes ... 74 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION 

1.1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 

1.1.1. PURPOSE 

This report presents the methods and key findings from San Francisco PedSafe, a 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 targeted to higher-injury areas; 

In Phase II: The implementation of a range of mostly low-to-moderate-cost, innovative 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. 

1.1.2. KEY WORK PRODUCTS 

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and the University of California, 

Berkeley Traffic Safety Center (TSC) proposed and conducted the project from planning through 

implementation. A separate Phase I (Planning) Final Report, finalized October 29, 2003, 

covered: 

• Problem Identification: a comprehensive picture of pedestrian injury collisions in San 

Francisco. 

• Countermeasure Selection Plan: a conceptual blueprint, describing proposed 

countermeasures for PedSafe implementation, countermeasures already committed for 

implementation outside of PedSafe, and descriptions of countermeasures selected for 

inclusion in the PedSafe study. 

• 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 February 28, 2005 Phase II Implementation Plan and Preliminary Engineering Report

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. These challenges are described in this report. 

The January 2008 Phase II Data Analysis Report presented detailed findings from observations 

of video recordings of pedestrian and driver behavior, and from intercept surveys of pedestrians 

at countermeasure sites. This Data Analysis Report is briefly summarized here, but readers 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

2

 

interested in the safety effectiveness of the countermeasures should refer to the full Data 

Analysis Report. In addition, data findings are presented for several countermeasures (e.g., 

accessible/audible pedestrian signals) that were installed outside of the formal PedSafe project. 

These treatments were neither funded by the FHWA grant nor covered by the Evaluation Plan, 

and were therefore not evaluated in the same standardized manner. 

1.2. SAN FRANCISCO’S SETTING 

San Francisco’s unique physical and sociopolitical characteristics influenced the conduct and 

impacts of the PedSafe project. This setting and its pedestrian injury patterns were described in 

detail in the Phase I (Planning) Final Report. Among the most significant characteristics of the 

city are the following: 

• Compact, high density, hilly urban terrain with many six-leg intersections; 

• Very high reliance on public transit and walking as basic transportation modes, as compared 

to other major western U.S. cities; 

• Commitment to public transit, walking, and bicycling as priorities in the City Charter; 

• A combined city/county jurisdiction; and 

• Engineering, planning, and public health staff dedicated exclusively to pedestrian safety, 

with a record of implementing innovative measures, pre-dating the FHWA PedSafe project. 

San Francisco is a relatively compact, high-density city of 47 square miles with extensive public 

transit. Although the famous hills can be challenging, most residents and businesses are within a 

quarter-mile of a bus or rail line—and the weather is fairly mild most days. The street system and 

traffic signal hardware are older than those of most other major western U.S. cities. Along the 

“diagonal” arterial streets of Market Street and Columbus Avenue, there are five- and six-leg 

intersections. 

In 2000 in the San Francisco metro area, 9.5% of the workforce commuted by public transit and 

3.6% walked, while 68.3% drove alone. (Walking and transit use are higher in the more 

urbanized study area.) By comparison, in the Miami metro area, 4.2% commuted by public 

transit, only 2.3% walked, and 75.3% drove alone. In the Las Vegas metro area, 1.8% commuted 

by public transit, 3.7% walked, and 74.3% drove alone.1

 

The City Charter declares San Francisco to be a “transit first city,” which includes walking and 

bicycling as higher-priority modes. The SFMTA is unusual nationally, although not unique, in 

holding responsibility for both public transit and traffic engineering functions. Substantial 

funding has been allocated to pedestrian safety improvements. For example, a local 

transportation sales tax devotes over $800,000 annually to “pedestrian circulation and safety” 

improvements, and more than twice that level to “traffic calming.” 

As a combined city and county, the local government has a streamlined governing structure. 

However, numerous agencies are involved in pedestrian safety. In recent years, pedestrian safety 

1

 FHWA website on 2000 Census, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

3

 

plans and outreach efforts have been carried out by two different sections of the Public Health 

Department, the Department of the Environment, the Police Department, the Public Works 

Department, the County Transportation Authority, and the SFMTA. Walk San Francisco, a 

citywide non-profit advocacy group, is joined by several other community organizations heavily 

involved in this area, as well as an official Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee. 

Major pedestrian safety efforts completed outside of this PedSafe project included: 

• Conversion of standard pedestrian signals to the countdown version at over 800 intersections 

[described in more detail in Chapter 4, Section 4.3-2]. 

• Conversion to the more prominent ladder-style striping of more than 2,000 crosswalks at 

over 900 locations. 

• Conversion of hundreds of pedestrian crossing warning signs to the more visible fluorescent 

yellow-green version. 

• Use of pedestrian scramble phasing (exclusive pedestrian phase) at about a dozen 

intersections [described in more detail in Chapter 4, Section 4.3-1]. 

San Francisco has one of the higher per-capita pedestrian fatality rates in the nation. However, 

when the estimated amount of walking (the level of exposure) is taken into account, the actual 

risk to the pedestrian stepping off the curb is lower than in many other cities.2 The level of 

pedestrian injuries has been steadily dropping over the last decade. Total pedestrian injury 

collisions fell 31.3% between 1996 and 2005.3

Figure 1.2-1 shows the general declining trend in pedestrian injuries since 1996. The annual 

number of pedestrian injuries at higher-injury locations has also decreased substantially. Figure 

1.2-2 shows the PedSafe zones and the geographic distribution of pedestrian injuries. Higherinjury intersections and blocks are clustered in several areas and along major arterial corridors. 

2

 Surface Transportation Policy Project, Pedestrian Safety in California: 

Five Years of Progress & Pitfalls, August 2002. http://www.transact.org/ca/ped_safety_report_2002.htm 3

 More details on San Francisco traffic-related injuries and fatalities are available from the San Francisco 

Department of Parking and Traffic, 2005 Traffic Collision Report.

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rtraffic/documents/Collision_report_2005.pdf
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

4

Figure 1.2-1 

San Francisco Pedestrian Injury Collisions: 1996-2005 

Figure 1.2-2 

San Francisco Pedestrian Injury Locations and PedSafe Zones 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

5

1.3. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND SCHEDULE 

The Phase I planning analysis and recommendations were developed in 2002. In addition to 

extensive technical analysis, 10 meetings were held with internal and external stakeholders 

between March and December 2002. 

In 2003, the Phase I Concept Plan was developed and revised, and arrangements made for 

implementation. The San Francisco Phase I concept plan and preliminary final report that is the 

basis for this implementation plan was approved by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation 

Agency (SFMTA) Board of Directors in April 2003. The SFMTA Board is the policymaking 

entity for traffic engineering functions previously managed by the Department of Parking and 

Traffic (DPT), now the Division of Parking and Traffic. 

The Phase I problem analysis was conducted on three different levels: (1) citywide, (2) within 

selected corridors and zones with higher levels of pedestrian injuries, and (3) at specific 

intersections within the study zones. Extensive collision analysis was conducted using the 

Pedestrian Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) and statistical software. This analysis was 

useful both in defining study zones and in assessing potential countermeasures for 

implementation at specific locations. 

Some 68 potential countermeasures were assessed based on criteria including: relative cost, 

presumed safety effectiveness, and ease of implementation. Nine general engineering 

countermeasures and 10 intelligent transportation systems (ITS) countermeasures were selected 

for consideration for specific locations. No conceptual engineering was possible in Phase I. 

The accompanying data collection/evaluation plan proposed assessment of the individual 

impacts of each countermeasure and a broader evaluation of its cumulative impact within study 

areas. Measures of effectiveness (MOEs) included both collisions and surrogate measures of 

pedestrian and driver behavior. However, it was not possible to conduct meaningful collision 

analysis within the Phase II timeframe, considering the additional time needed to design and 

implement the countermeasures and the typical delay in receiving collision tabulations. 

The outreach plan proposed integrating PedSafe countermeasure 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 

“LOOK” pavement stencils). The plan outlined a media campaign, which was later 

supplemented by educational presentations about pedestrian safety, including distribution of 

retro-reflective items (e.g., armbands) at elementary/middle schools and senior centers. 

In a Summer 2003 funding application, the San Francisco team proposed to move into Phase II 

implementation. The funding application schedule did not allow for thorough feasibility analysis 

prior to the deadline for submission of a detailed budget and implementation schedule for 

specific countermeasures. A two-day site visit in November 2003 included a detailed review of 

the initial countermeasure plan by FHWA staff and consultants. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

6

Extensive engineering efforts began in 2004, including additional feasibility research and design 

layouts for a broad range of innovative devices and interventions. An Implementation Plan and 

Preliminary Engineering Report (February 28, 2005) provided a detailed blueprint for 

conducting Phase II. 

Implementation of the countermeasures took place from Spring 2005 through Fall 2006, with 

final refinement of several devices in early 2007. The actual implementation was largely 

consistent with the Phase I report and the Phase II implementation plan, although some 

modifications were made in response to practical difficulties or changing circumstances. Some 

countermeasures were not feasible for implementation, as described in more detail in Chapter 4. 

1.4. COUNTERMEASURE OVERVIEW 

A total of thirteen countermeasures (nine general engineering countermeasures and four 

intelligent transportation systems [ITS] countermeasures) were implemented by the SFMTA and 

evaluated by the Traffic Safety Center during this Phase II investigation:

GENERAL ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES 

• In-Street Pedestrian Crossing (Impactable “Yield To Pedestrians”) Signs 

• TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS Signs 

• “LOOK” Pavement Stencils 

• Modified Signal Timing 

• “Pedestrian Head Start” 

• Advanced Stop Lines and Red Visibility Curb Zones 

• ADA Curb Ramps 

• Median Refuge Islands 

• Distribution of Retro-Reflective Materials 

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) COUNTERMEASURES

• Flashing Beacons (both automated detection and push button-actuated) 

• Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign 

• Automated (Video) Detection of Pedestrians to Extend Crossing Time 

• Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign (fixed) 

In addition, an outreach program was implemented. 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 (including distribution of retro-reflective items). It 

was not possible to evaluate each of the outreach efforts separately. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

7

1.5. DEPLOYMENT 

1.5.1. DEPLOYMENT STEPS 

The following steps were required for the implementation of each countermeasure:

1. Conceptual Engineering 

2. Feasibility Study 

3. Preliminary and Final Engineering 

4. Approvals (when necessary) 

5. Procurement 

6. Coordination with Data Collection Schedule 

7. Installation 

8. Monitoring 

9. Maintenance and Refinement 

1.5.2. COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: COST 

The overall cost of this project was slightly greater than $1.1 million, including $681,000 in 

federal funding. The federal funding averaged roughly $120,000 per year. 

The total costs of the nearly six-year-long project included the following rough estimates: 

PLANNING PHASE I: $215,000 

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE II: $920,000 

Including: 

Design of Countermeasures: $145,000 

Installation/Deployment Labor: $125,000 

Materials and Equipment: $ 95,000 

Data Collection & Evaluation: $225,000 

Other Program Management $330,000 

(including planning and design of countermeasures 

 not installed) 

It should be noted that San Francisco construction and labor costs are substantially higher than 

the national average. On an annual basis, the project cost was actually a relatively small share of 

the total San Francisco public expenditures for pedestrian safety planning, design, enforcement, 

and outreach/education. The federal funding was limited in comparison to the unit cost of 

higher-cost pedestrian safety countermeasures. This influenced the selection of 

countermeasures. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

8

 

Both the Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign and the outreach program carried 

substantial operating personnel costs. The other countermeasures, once installed, did not require 

personnel for operation, although modification and specific maintenance were required by many 

of the devices. 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 the “LOOK” pavement stencils 

and the roadside TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs ($800 and 

$300 per intersection respectively). The most expensive countermeasures were the video 

detection system to adjust signal timing ($17,300 out-of-pocket costs) and the flashing beacon 

with automated detection ($62,600). Although the listed project costs of other countermeasures 

exceeded those of the video detection system, the full video detection costs are significantly 

understated by the out-of-pocket figure above as the PedSafe project was not charged for the 

video detection camera equipment or its initial installation, and substantial technical assistance 

was provided free of charge by Econolite, the manufacturer of the equipment. 

1.5.3. COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: 

AVAILABILITY AND STANDARD USE 

All countermeasures were explicitly or implicitly compliant with the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD) and the California MUTCD State Supplement. It was not necessary 

to obtain special approval to experiment with any of the countermeasures from FHWA or the 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Several countermeasures that were 

considered experimental when initially proposed by the San Francisco team were added to the 

MUTCD in the 2003 revision. Formal local approvals were needed for red visibility curb zones 

(from the Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors and the County Board of 

Supervisors). 

The following countermeasures are in very limited use as “off the shelf” products, but are not 

considered experimental: 

• “LOOK” Pavement Stencils4

; 

• Flashing Beacons (push button-actuated); 

• Portable Radar Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs; 

• Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs; 

• Distribution of Retro-Reflective Materials; and 

• Video Public Service Announcements. 

4

 The LOOK pavement stencils included a Chinese-English stencil that was custom designed by SFMTA staff, 

working with the vendor. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

9

The following countermeasures were “custom-made” and involved innovative technologies, 

although they did not require approval as formal experiments: 

• Automated (Video) Detection of Pedestrians to Extend Crossing Time, and 

• Flashing Beacons (Automated Detection with Infrared Bollards). 

The other countermeasures were considered innovative at the time they were proposed, but were 

generally easily available “off the shelf.” 

1.5.4. COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: INSTALLATION COMPLEXITY 

The countermeasures requiring the most effort to install or use were: 

• Portable Radar Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs; 

• Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs; 

• Automated (Video) Detection of Pedestrians to Extend Crossing Time; and 

• Flashing Beacons (Automated Detection with Infrared Bollards) . 

These were more complicated to install because they involved procurement of specialized 

equipment and/or customized design. They all required intensive adjustments or fine tuning 

(usually by electricians). In the case of the radar Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit 

Sign, complex logistical and scheduling arrangements needed to be made with the Police 

Department. 

1.6. DEVICES NOT DEPLOYED 

Several countermeasures originally proposed in the Phase I Concept Plan were not implemented. 

The reasons are explained below. 

1.6.1. SMART LIGHTING AND OTHER ROADWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS 

“Smart lighting” is a promising concept of supplemental street corner and crosswalk lighting 

triggered by detection of pedestrians. The Phase I Concept Plan proposed this countermeasure 

for several intersections that had higher numbers of nighttime pedestrian injuries. More detailed 

research early in Phase II could not find a major U.S. city that had experimented with this 

technology, although it was proposed for use in Miami and Las Vegas. SFMTA management 

was concerned about the possible liability exposure from the use of such a device. Street lighting 

is not managed by that agency’s Division of Parking and Traffic in San Francisco, and the other 

two departments that operate street lights (Public Utilities Commission) and design lighting 

improvements (Public Works) were not interested in cooperating on street lighting 

improvements considering the funding available. 

1.6.2. UPGRADE OF IN-PAVEMENT CROSSWALK LIGHTS 

In the Phase I Concept Plan, DPT proposed repairing and upgrading the crosswalk pavement 

lights, then installed at the intersection of Mission and Santa Rosa, with a more visible 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

10

configuration of lights. The Mission & Santa Rosa installation had proven unreliable and had 

been turned off indefinitely, primarily due to water collecting in the cans below the lights 

(despite waterproofing efforts by electricians), and secondarily due to detection problems with 

the microwave pedestrian detection units. Pressure from policy makers and the news media 

convinced DPT that it was unacceptable to allow the lights to remain. DPT removed the lights 

and committed to replacing them with flashing beacons. Data were already collected at all four 

in-pavement crosswalk light locations. 

1.6.3. PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE (EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE) 

While exclusive pedestrian phases were installed prior to Phase II (and at local expense) at four 

intersections on Stockton Street, installation at a fifth adjacent intersection was deferred 

indefinitely due to concerns about impacts on Muni public transit schedule adherence. This 

improvement is still planned for the future after transit signal priority can be provided and other 

signal timing adjustments made to satisfy Muni management. 

1.6.4. ANIMATED EYES SIGNALS 

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

vendor, Relume, lost interest in supporting experimentation with the device, apparently after 

assessing the market potential for the devices. 

1.7. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

FOR PEDSAFE COUNTERMEASURES 

Because insufficient time had elapsed since installation of the countermeasures to analyze their 

long-term impacts on pedestrian injuries, surrogate evaluation measures were used. Two primary 

methods were employed to assess the impacts of the countermeasures: 

• Video recorded observations of pedestrian and driver behavior (e.g., pedestrian/vehicle 

conflicts and pedestrian crossing time) 

• Intercept (interview) surveys of pedestrians at countermeasure intersections (regarding 

knowledge of and support for countermeasures). 

The pedestrian/driver observations were generally completed before and after installation. In 

some cases, multiple baseline and follow-up observations were conducted to ascertain the effects 

of the passage of time and novelty fading. Statistical tests (generally chi-square for contingency 

tables and t-test for difference of means/proportions) were performed. 

1.8. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR PEDSAFE COUNTERMEASURES 

Following is a summary of results. Results for individual countermeasures and intersections are 

described in detail in the separate January 2008 Data Analysis Report. Generally, video recorded 

observation results are only reported in this table if they are statistically significant (p<0.05). 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

11

Table 1.8-1 

San Francisco FHWA PedSafe Project: Data Highlights 

NOTE: All countermeasures are considered standard devices (in federal traffic engineering manual, Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices, MUTCD), unless otherwise noted. “Low cost” typically is under $5,000 per 

installation, “medium" is $5,000 to $20,000.

COUNTERMEASURE PURPOSE

DATA 

COLLECTION/ 

ANALYSIS 

METHODS

OBSERVATION 

HIGHLIGHTS

RELATIVE 

COST COMMENTS

1. 

In-Street 

Pedestrian 

Signs

Used in median of 

uncontrolled crosswalks to encourage 

drivers to yield to 

pedestrians and to 

help delineate the 

crosswalk. Designed 

to be safe and visible 

next to moving 

traffic.

Video recorded 

pedestrian/driver 

behavior at 4 

crosswalks (including marked and 

unmarked crosswalks at same intersection). Interviewed 

pedestrians at 1 intersection.

Very substantial increases in drivers 

yielding at all 4 

crosswalks (53% pre 

vs. 68% post 

overall). About 27% 

of respondents felt 

signs made them 

feel safer, but only 

18% of respondents 

correctly identified 

the recent safety 

change.

Low High rate of 

damage to 

signs unless 

they are placed 

on a raised 

island or are 

completely out 

of turn path.

2. 

“TURNING 

TRAFFIC 

MUST 

YIELD TO 

PEDESTRIANS” 

Signs

Mounted at street 

corners of intersections to encourage 

turning drivers to 

yield to peds. Usually 

used at signalized 

intersections

Video recorded 

pedestrian/driver 

behavior at 4 

crosswalks, 3 of 

them 4-leg, and 1 a 

3-leg. 3 of 4 were 

signalized. Focused 

on turning drivers 

who would see 

signs.

Small, but significant 

impact on drivers 

yielding at all 4 

corners. About 28% 

of respondents felt 

signs made them 

feel safer, but almost 

none correctly 

identified the recent 

safety change 

initially.

Low Standard 

MUTCD sign 

used, although 

more 

prominent 

versions have 

been used by 

other cities.

3. 

“LOOK” 

Pavement 

Stencils

Thermoplastic 

“LOOK” stencils applied on pavement in 

crosswalks (within 4 

feet of curb) to encourage pedestrians 

to look for conflicting 

vehicles. Tested at 

signalized intersections only, but could 

be used at unsignalized.

Video recorded 

pedestrian/driver 

behavior at 3 

intersections. 

Interviewed pedestrians at 1 intersection.

Mixed impacts on 

pedestrians looking, 

increased at 1 

intersection and 

decreased at 2. No 

significant change in 

vehicle/pedestrian 

conflicts. About 29% 

of respondents felt 

safer, but only about 

8% correctly 

identified the recent 

safety change. 

Low Stencils are 

highly susceptible to fading 

and blemishes. 

Used Chinese/ 

English at 1 

location. 

MUTCD 

compliant, but 

not explicitly included.
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

12

COUNTERMEASURE PURPOSE

DATA 

COLLECTION/ 

ANALYSIS 

METHODS

OBSERVATION 

HIGHLIGHTS

RELATIVE 

COST COMMENTS

4. 

Modified 

Signal 

Timing

All-red phase extensions at 3 intersections intended to reduce conflicts for 

pedestrians who are 

late crossing. (At 1 

intersection, accompanied by installation 

of pedestrian signals 

for crossing minor 

street, and at 

another, pedestrian 

clearance increased, 

but Walk shortened 

(due to area wide 

cycle change).) Also, 

longer cycle and 

longer pedestrian 

crossing time at 4th 

intersection.

Video recorded 2 allred intersections. 

Manual observations 

for 2 other 

intersections. 

Interview survey at 1 

all-red intersection.

Findings too 

complicated and 

generally minor to 

summarize. About 

60% of respondents 

felt the signal timing 

change made them 

“extremely safe” or 

“more safe.” However, virtually none 

realized initially that 

there had been a 

timing change. 

Low Not possible to 

isolate simple 

timing 

changes. 

Substantial 

difference in 

the changes 

tested at 

different 

intersections.

5. 

Pedestrian 

Head Start

4-second leading 

pedestrian interval 

added at 3 intersections with heavy left 

turns from one-way 

streets, and also at 1 

2-way intersection 

with more balanced 

turning movements. 

Intended to allow 

pedestrians to start 

crossing and establish right-of-way before heavy turn 

movements block 

them.

Video recorded 4 

intersections. 

Interview survey at 1 

intersection.

Significant reduction 

in vehicles turning in 

front of pedestrians 

at 3 intersections 

(6.2% pre vs. 4.0% 

post overall). About 

56% of respondents 

felt the signal timing 

change made them 

feel “extremely safe” 

or “more safe.” However, only 9% correctly identified the 

recent safety 

change.

Low Impact of 

pedestrian 

head start 

could possibly 

be enhanced 

with red turn 

arrow.

6. 

Advanced 

Stop Lines 

and Red 

Visibility 

Curb Zones

Line typically 4-10 

feet before crosswalk 

(controlled or uncontrolled) to discourage 

intrusion into crosswalk and to provide 

better visibility, 

reduce multiple 

threat problem. In 

some cases 

accompanied by red 

visibility curb zones

Video recorded 2 

intersections. Both 

had relatively small 

samples for some 

variables. Interviewed pedestrians 

at 1 intersection.

Generally inconclusive results for pedestrian/driver behavior. About 37% 

said change made 

them feel safer, 

however none correctly identified the 

change initially.

Low
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

13

COUNTERMEASURE PURPOSE

DATA 

COLLECTION/ 

ANALYSIS 

METHODS

OBSERVATION 

HIGHLIGHTS

RELATIVE 

COST COMMENTS

7A. 

Flashing 

Beacons – 

Push 

Button 

Actuated

Used at uncontrolled 

crosswalk to warn 

drivers to yield to 

pedestrians

Video recorded 1 

intersection. No 

interview survey.

Substantial reduction 

in vehicle/pedestrian 

conflicts (6.7% pre 

vs. 1.9% post), substantial increase 

in vehicle yielding 

(70% to 80%). Only 

17% used push 

button, although 

another 27% 

crossed while 

beacon was on.

Medium

7B. 

Flashing 

Beacons – 

Automated 

Detection

Used at uncontrolled 

crosswalk to warn 

drivers to yield to 

pedestrians. Automated (infrared) 

detection useful 

because substantial 

share of pedestrians 

typically do not push 

button.

Video recorded 1 

intersection. No 

pedestrian interview 

survey.

Substantial reduction 

in vehicle/pedestrian 

conflicts (6.1% pre 

vs. 2.9% post) and 

pedestrians trapped 

(4.1% to 0%), 

substantial increase 

in vehicle yielding 

(82% to 94%).

High 

(higher 

than push 

button 

type)

8. 

Portable 

Changeable 

Message 

Speed Limit 

Sign

Used mid-block to 

notify drivers they 

are speeding, 

displaying speed. 

Trailer typically 

moved daily, so 

duration of impacts 

may be limited, but 

drivers are less likely 

“tune it out.”

Video recorded 

pedestrian/driver 

behavior at 4 

intersections. 

Collected pre/post 

vehicle speed data. 

No interview survey 

because trailer only 

deployed for a day 

per location.

Inconclusive impacts 

on driver behavior at 

crosswalks. Should 

have no impacts on 

pedestrian behavior. 

Significant speed 

reductions (by 1- 6 

MPH).

Medium 

capital 

cost, but 

can have 

major operating 

costs for 

towing, 

storage, 

setup.

More a general 

speed control 

measure than 

pedestrianspecific measure.

9. 

Median 

Refuge 

Island

Raised islands used 

at controlled and 

uncontrolled 

crossings to provide 

a safer median refuge to encourage 

pedestrians to stop 

and defer crossing 

until safer. Also, may 

slow turns.

Video recorded 

pedestrian/driver 

behavior at 2 

intersections. 

Interviewed pedestrians at 1 intersection.

Inconclusive impacts 

on driver and pedestrian behavior. Only 

3% of pedestrians 

stayed on island 8+ 

seconds. However, 

70% felt safer and 

36% recognized the 

improvement.

Medium New islands 

were in 

“shadow” of 

existing long 

median 

islands, so 

impact may 

have been 

reduced. 

10. 

Automated 

Video 

Detection of 

Pedestrians 

to Adjust 

Signal 

Timing

Used to extend 

crossing time when 

pedestrians are detected as likely to 

finish on the red. 

Extension in SF is for 

maximum 3 seconds 

and shows solid Red 

Hand and green ball 

to pedestrian.

Video recorded 

pedestrian/driver 

behavior at 1 

intersection. Also 

collected data on 

extension frequency 

and duration. No 

interview survey 

since countermeasure is virtually 

invisible to 

pedestrians.

Reduction in 

pedestrians finishing 

crossing on solid red 

hand (14 to 12%). 

Device also 

successfully 

extended crossing 

time for late 

pedestrians.

High, both 

capital and 

labor to set 

up.

Vendor 

believes this is 

the only such 

video application in the 

US. Ideally, detection logic 

should be 

changed so vehicles encroaching on 

crosswalk don’t 

trigger extension.
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

14

COUNTERMEASURE PURPOSE

DATA 

COLLECTION/ 

ANALYSIS 

METHODS

OBSERVATION 

HIGHLIGHTS

RELATIVE 

COST COMMENTS

11. 

Fixed 

Changeable 

Message 

Speed Limit 

Sign

Used mid-block to 

notify drivers they 

are speeding and 

display speeds. As a 

permanent sign, effects at one location 

more likely to endure, but drivers may 

“tune out.”

Video recorded 

pedestrian/driver 

behavior at 3 

intersections. Also 

measured pre/post 

vehicle speeds, but 

results do not appear 

to be useful. Interviewed pedestrians 

at 1 intersection.

Inconclusive pedestrian/driver behavior 

impacts. No significant speed reduction 

on arterial streets. 

About 42% of 

pedestrians felt 

countermeasure 

made them feel 

safer, but none 

identified the change 

correctly initially 

(hardly visible from 

intersection).

Medium Signs were installed on arterial streets 

where it may 

be difficult to 

know if sign 

speed applies 

to them or 

others in 

platoon, although in some 

cities they are 

used only on 

neighborhood 

collector 

streets, often 

near schools.

12. 

ADA Curb 

Ramps

Used for safer, easier crosswalk entry 

by those in wheelchairs, with strollers, 

etc. The SF installation separated curb 

ramp from gas station driveway at 1 

corner to reduce 

potential for conflicts 

between gas station 

traffic and pedestrians, along with other 

curb ramp 

improvements.

No driver/pedestrian 

behavior analysis 

because curb ramps 

not expected to 

make observable 

change on measures 

of effectiveness. 

Interviewed 

pedestrians at 1 intersection, but 

results not 

considered reliable.

The primary safety 

benefit was to 

separate gas station 

traffic from 

pedestrians at one 

corner.

Medium

1.9. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR NON-PEDSAFE 

COUNTERMEASURES 

1.9.1. PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE (EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE) 

The raw number of pedestrian injury crashes before and after installation at the four existing 

Stockton Street scramble intersections increased (comparing equal 2.5-year periods) from 2 to 4. 

However, several factors suggested that this result should not imply a continuing negative 

impact: 

• Relatively low pre-installation numbers. 

• Injuries sustained by elderly only. 

• Two of four collisions could not be related to the pedestrian scramble, even indirectly. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

15

 

The impact of pedestrian scramble phasing on collision rates at other San Francisco intersections 

has been positive. Three other intersections outside of Chinatown experienced substantial 

reductions in pedestrian-involved collisions after the scramble phasing was introduced. 

The total number of vehicle/pedestrian conflicts observed at the Stockton Street pedestrian 

scramble intersections decreased from 7.0% to 1.1%. However, the proportion of pedestrians 

running or aborting their crossing increased at each intersection, in total from 5.3% to 11.2%. 

1.9.2. PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS 

San Francisco has been a national leader in the use of pedestrian countdown signals, converting 

virtually all of the pedestrian signals citywide (over 800 intersections) to the countdown version 

This was completed outside of the FHWA PedSafe project, and the results of the conversion 

were reported separately and in greater detail.5

During the 14-intersection pilot installation, there were statistically significant improvements in 

pedestrian behavior and attitudes. The number of pedestrians who finished crossing during the 

red phase decreased from 14% to 9%. The proportion of pedestrians who ran or aborted their 

crossing decreased from 13% to 8%. The proportion of pedestrians who reported the pedestrian 

signals to be “very helpful” increased from 34% to 76%. 

At 579 intersections converted from conventional to countdown pedestrian signals, the number 

of pedestrian injury collisions decreased by 22%. During the same period, at 204 other 

intersections without countdown signals, the decline was only 2%. The proportion of all traffic 

collisions attributed to running a red light decreased from 45% to 34%. While there were 

numerous factors affecting the decline in the number of drivers running red lights, it is likely that 

the countdown devices played a major role by providing warning to drivers approaching a “stale 

green” (a green light about to change). 

Pedestrian countdown signals have been proposed as the standard device for pedestrian signals 

for revisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices expected in 2009. 

1.9.3. IN-PAVEMENT CROSSWALK LIGHTS 

In-pavement crosswalk lights were installed at four locations in San Francisco: three by the city 

and county (DPT) in 2001, and the first by a private school (in Spring 2000). At the two infrared 

bollard locations, 91-94% of pedestrians were detected correctly, and only 2-9% of activations 

were false. By contrast, at one microwave pedestrian detection location, only 71-86% of 

pedestrians were detected correctly, and 24% of activations were false. 

For the combined microwave pedestrian detection data (at the two installations), the proportion 

of drivers stopping for pedestrians increased from 53% before installation to 72% after 

5

 Markowitz, F., Sciortino, S, Fleck, J. and B. Yee. “Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience with an Extensive 

Pilot Installation.” ITE Journal, vol. 76, no. 1 (January 2006): 43-48. Fielding, S. Pedestrian Countdown Signals: 

Evaluation of Citywide Installation in San Francisco. Pro Walk Pro Bike Presentation, Madison, WI, September 5, 

2006. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

16

installation. The percentage of pedestrians running to complete or aborting crossings actually 

increased from 2% to 5%. 

At the City Hall infrared bollard installation, the number of drivers stopping increased from 67% 

to 82%. The percentage of pedestrians running to complete or aborting crossings was reduced 

from 6% to 3%. At the same location, pedestrian intercept interviews were conducted. Of those 

aware of the lights, 50% believed they were “very helpful” in crossing safely. Also, 73% 

believed drivers were yielding more frequently. 

1.9.4. ACCESSIBLE (AUDIBLE) PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS 

Modern accessible pedestrian signals (APS) provide an audible and vibrotactile indication of the 

Walk signal to the blind and visually impaired. They also can provide audible and Braille 

information about the intersection name and crosswalk orientation. San Francisco has installed 

APS devices at 52 intersections. This installation was funded and implemented separately from 

the PedSafe project. 

While primarily intended to serve visually impaired pedestrians, the devices also appear to 

benefit sighted pedestrians. The proportion of sighted pedestrians finishing on the solid Red 

Hand phase at five pilot intersections decreased from 27% to 17%, while the proportion starting 

on the Walk phase increased from 59% to 70%. 

1.10. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH 

The education and outreach program consisted of three tracks: (1) development/distribution of 

video public service announcements (PSAs) to cable and small/ethnic local TV stations, (2) 

presentations to schools and senior citizen facilities, and (3) distribution of retro-reflective 

materials at the presentations and through organizations such as the YMCA. 

The video PSAs were included initially in the FHWA Pedestrian Safety Campaign Planner. 

SFMTA staff arranged for Spanish, Russian, Chinese/Cantonese, and Chinese/Mandarin voiceover versions. 

The direct outreach program was presented at five senior centers and six public elementary and 

middle schools in or near study zones (see Appendix A). The presentations included general 

safety tips and information about the PedSafe project and other related projects. Retro-reflective 

items, such as armbands, were distributed at the presentations, and to other schools and senior 

centers in the study area. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

17

1.11. PHASE II CONCLUSIONS 

1.11.1. LESSONS LEARNED: OVERALL PROJECT SUCCESS AND 

COUNTERMEASURES 

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 project catalyzed San Francisco’s consideration and 

use of a number of innovative, generally lower-cost countermeasures. It also provided an 

opportunity for the San Francisco team to learn more about best practices in pedestrian safety 

from FHWA and other grantees. There are numerous off-the-shelf materials and references that 

are directly useful (much of it FHWA-produced, such as the Pedestrian Safety Campaign 

Planner, the Walkable Community brochure, and numerous research reports). 

Because San Francisco had such a extensive pedestrian safety program even before PedSafe was 

initiated, there was limited room for the project to catalyze major citywide changes or to achieve 

high visibility, especially considering the project budget. The federal funding (about $680,000 

or $120,000 per year) was extremely helpful and appreciated. However, on a per-year or perintersection basis it was fairly limited, even compared to some other funding sources used for 

pedestrian and traffic safety. 

The primary lessons learned from the project about the countermeasures include the following: 

• A wide range of pedestrian safety countermeasures is available and can be tailored to 

specific location characteristics. A package of such measures can reduce vehicle/pedestrian 

conflicts, increase driver yielding, and make other changes in driver and pedestrian behavior 

that should over the long term decrease pedestrian injuries. 

• It was not feasible to analyze the actual impacts of the countermeasures on pedestrian 

injuries due to the short time after device installation and the lag in receiving crash data. Of 

course, pedestrian safety is heavily affected by a wide range of factors beyond the control of 

a project such as PedSafe. The ability of a project with the budget the size of this PedSafe 

effort to have a major citywide impact is limited, although it can certainly catalyze 

significant changes 

• Particularly cost-effective countermeasures appeared to be in-street pedestrian crossing 

(“Yield To Pedestrians”) signs and pedestrian countdown signals. The pedestrian countdown 

signals, installed citywide in San Francisco, not only appear effective in aiding pedestrians in 

safer crossing, but also have some value in warning drivers of approach on a “stale green.” 

The In-Street Pedestrian signs were effective and relatively inexpensive, but susceptible to 

damage when not installed on a raised island. 

• By contrast, the “LOOK” pavement stencils appeared to have negligible value. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

18

• Low-cost but effective measures have the advantages of quick implementation and the 

potential to draw support and funding for further improvements. 

• Flashing beacons and in-pavement crosswalk lights both appeared effective at inducing 

drivers to yield to pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks. However, the flashing beacons at 

Mission & Santa Rosa are considered insufficient at this location by the Traffic Engineering 

Division, and will be replaced by a conventional traffic/pedestrian signal 

• The Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign was more effective than the fixed speed 

display sign at reducing driver speeds. 

• Pedestrian Scramble phasing is potentially quite effective for certain situations (e.g., smaller 

intersections with heavy volumes of turning vehicles and pedestrians), but can be difficult to 

use in some situations (e.g., wide intersections with heavy through traffic volumes). 

• Pedestrian Head Starts had mixed results. There were significant reductions in the number of 

vehicles turning in front of pedestrians at three of four intersections. However, these changes 

did not lead to a significant reduction in vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. 

• Video detection of pedestrians to extend crossing time appeared to be a promising 

technology, but needs further testing and refinement. 

• Infrared detection of pedestrians to trigger beacons or in-pavement lights has been more 

effective in San Francisco than overhead microwave detection. 

• Accessible (Audible) Pedestrian Signals (APS) were helpful to sighted pedestrians as well as 

visually impaired pedestrians. 

• Pedestrians appeared to appreciate most countermeasures, but showed minimal awareness of 

which devices had been installed. Among pedestrians surveyed about improving intersection 

safety, comments varied widely and there were essentially no common suggestions. 

• It was not possible to make conclusions about how the overall effectiveness of the 

countermeasures varied by neighborhood or pedestrian characteristics (e.g., age group). This 

was primarily because the number of installations for each countermeasure was limited. 

1.11.2. LESSONS LEARNED: OUTREACH 

• Device-specific safety instruction was typically not necessary, as most devices were intuitive 

or even invisible to pedestrians. 

• To reach the maximum audience, translate outreach messages into multiple languages. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

19

1.11.3. LESSONS LEARNED: IMPLEMENTATION 

• Coordinating improvements with other agencies, especially those involved in street 

construction, is critical. 

• Developing and implementing a comprehensive pedestrian safety plan requires a time frame 

of several years or more. 

• It is advantageous to have full-time, dedicated pedestrian safety planning and engineering 

staff. 

• Institutional issues proved challenging, especially dealing with other departments regarding 

public transit and street lighting issues. 

1.11.4. LESSONS LEARNED: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

• Video data collection had the advantage of allowing repeated viewings and precise time 

stamping of events (such as pedestrian wait time duration). However, the labor requirements 

for tabulating video recorded events were several times greater than for manual data 

collection. In addition, the video field of vision was often restricted. 

• Clear, consistent definitions of measures of effectiveness (MOEs) are helpful, but difficult to 

achieve. In particular, there is no universal, accepted definition of “vehicle/pedestrian 

conflict.” 

• The earlier Version 1 of PBCAT (Pedestrian/Bicycle Collision Analysis Tool) used for 

Phase I analysis proved difficult to use. Statistical software and CrossroadsTM software 

proved more flexible and helpful. Often, the actual police collision reports had to be 

reviewed to understand the problems specific to an intersection (such as precise vehicle 

movements involved prior to collisions). 

• While analysis of crash patterns is quite helpful in selecting the proper treatment, several 

years of crash data are needed, and even then, patterns at the same intersection may vary 

significantly year-to-year. Site visits are therefore essential. 

• Crash analysis should consider the pedestrian and/or vehicle volumes as a measure of 

exposure, rather than using only the absolute number of injuries or crashes. 

1.11.5. COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES 

Similar projects were carried out in the Las Vegas and Miami metropolitan areas. A preliminary 

final report was available for Miami, but not for Las Vegas as of publication time. The Miami 

findings were consistent with San Francisco’s for the In-Street Pedestrian signs and Pedestrian 

Head Starts (leading pedestrian interval.) 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

20

1.11.6. NEXT STEPS AND FURTHER RESEARCH 

The primary opportunity for additional research would be an evaluation of actual pedestrian 

injury impacts of the countermeasures. This would require follow up observations 3-6 years after 

device installation. SFMTA participated in a proposal by the San Francisco Injury Center 

(affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco) to the federal Centers for Disease 

Control for funding to perform this analysis, but the application was turned down due to limited 

funding. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

21

2. COUNTERMEASURE IMPLEMENTATION 

This chapter discusses the deployment of the countermeasures. It first presents an overview of 

the countermeasures and the installation challenges. 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 San Francisco installation, device availability 

and approval status, cost information, and key issues 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 infrared and video detection equipment. 

However, there were several common challenges that the San Francisco 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 cost, presumed effectiveness, ease of implementation, 

and ability to attract additional funding. These were matched to particular study 

intersections by careful analysis of the pedestrian safety problem at each intersection and the 

physical characteristics of the intersection. ( For example, if a high number of pedestrian 

injuries were attributed to vehicles failing to yield to pedestrians while turning left, the 

TURNING VEHICLES MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS sign and median refuge islands 

were considered. The median refuge islands required sufficient median space, so were not 

useful at most locations.) 

This effort had to balance the desire (for both safety and research reasons) to spread 

deployment to a large number of sites with the limited project budget. The initial 

countermeasure plan was also modified during Phase II conceptual engineering. This step 

included intensive research on other installations nationally and preliminary design. Local 

conditions could affect the feasibility of countermeasures significantly. (For example, 

installing video detection cameras at a location with trolley wires could be complicated by 

potential camera blockages.) 

While SFMTA staff proposed and finally decided on the selection of countermeasures, 

FHWA and SAIC staff (and other stakeholders) were actively involved. The preliminary 

countermeasure plan was reviewed by an External Stakeholder Advisory Group, comprised 

primarily of the existing Pedestrian Safety Advisory Council, and by the Pedestrian Safety 

Interdepartmental Working Group. The plan was also approved by the San Francisco 

Municipal Transportation Agency Board (effectively the “transportation commission” for the 

City and County of San Francisco). This was followed by a two-day site visit in November 

2004 with FHWA and SAIC, including extensive field work and follow-up communications. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

22

• Scheduling of Countermeasures: A complex, phased installation schedule was established 

for each pedestrian safety measure at specific intersections. This was intended to 

accommodate the evaluation plan, as designed by the University of California at Berkeley 

Traffic Safety Center (TSC). This phased installation was implemented to facilitate data 

collection with limited field crew staffing over a wide geographic area of the city, and to 

conduct video recording for analysis of pedestrian/driver behavior. It was intended that at 

some locations two or more countermeasures would be installed, but at separate times to 

allow for separate evaluation. It was also intended that multiple baseline observations would 

be made to allow for statistical controls. This phased installation schedule had to be 

coordinated with San Francisco DPT sign, paint and signal shops, which process dozens of 

work order requests on a monthly basis. Typically the shops prioritize work orders, but do 

not schedule work tasks for specific days weeks ahead. 

• Internal and Inter-Agency Coordination: The signal timing changes for All Red phases, 

increased Walk phase time, and Pedestrian Head Starts required coordination with the DPT 

signal shop’s high priority signal upgrade projects and other signal timing changes. 

Installation of fixed radar speed signs and flashing beacons required prior determination of 

whether electrical power was available in the field, requiring notification and permission of 

utility agencies. Installation of median refuge islands involved planning and design 

coordination with the Department of Public Works for construction of the islands. The 

Department of Telecommunications and Information Services installed flashing beacons, but 

needed to work closely with the DPT Signal Shop. The video detection installation required 

close coordination with Econolite (the manufacturer of the video camera and detection 

system), the developer of the D4 customized signal controller software, the DPT Signal 

Shop, and SFgo (citywide integrated traffic management system) engineers. In general, any 

pedestrian safety measure that touched the street pavement required checking with street 

repaving and construction project schedules so that installation would not be scheduled 

before a major repaving or construction project on the street. 

• Public Hearing Process: Some pedestrian safety measures such as red visibility curbs, and 

construction of median refuge islands required a public hearing. Parking changes related to 

the red visibility curbs also required City and County Board of Supervisor approval.

• Weather: Heavy, continual rains during the winter months caused delays in installation of 

several of the pedestrian safety measures that involved painting of surface pavement such as 

red visibility curb zones, advanced limit lines, “LOOK” stencils and painted islands for 

installation of “Yield to Pedestrians” signs. 

2.2. COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: 

EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION 

Four countermeasures proved especially challenging to deploy: 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

23

• Portable Radar Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs; 

• Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs; 

• Video Detection Of Pedestrians to Extend Crossing Time; and 

• Flashing Beacons With Infrared Bollards. 

All involved procurement or deployment of sophisticated electronic equipment that engineering 

staff and electricians were not highly familiar with. All required customized design layouts. 

The portable radar Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign required extensive staff 

support for several reasons. First, comprehensive testing and adjustment were necessary after 

delivery to ensure that the device worked properly. Second, it required a formal Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between the SFMTA and the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), 

as the latter stored, maintained, transported, and set up the device. Third, it required continuing 

coordination between SFMTA and the SFPD, including scheduling deployment to coincide with 

data collection. Finally, to avoid vandalism and to heighten the novelty impact of the device, it 

was moved to different sites on a daily basis, requiring extensive labor. 

The primary challenge with the Changeable Message Speed Limit signs was to locate them on 

poles where they could both utilize existing electrical power and also be effective and visible. 

Additionally, the devices required extensive fine-tuning by SFMTA electricians, primarily to 

adjust the detection zone. 

The video detection of pedestrians to extend crossing time was a completely innovative use of 

the technology, which Econolite believes is the only U.S. application of this type. A customized 

detection zone scheme and logic for adjusting the signal timing had to be developed, tested, and 

refined, and the Econolite Autoscope detection software needed to be coordinated with the D4 

traffic signal controller software. 

The flashing beacons with infrared bollards required the most substantial construction of any 

countermeasure, and included installation of conduit and wiring the device across a four-lane 

arterial street. This required investigation of possible conflicts with high-risk utilities (including 

contacting numerous utility providers). While individual components (the detection bollards and 

the beacons themselves) were commercially available, the combination was custom-designed. 

The detection bollards included an in-surface activation device (ISAD), which was not widely in 

use. The detection bollards’ effectiveness was highly sensitive to their location and placement. 

2.3. COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: COSTS 

The overall cost of this project was slightly greater than $1.1 million, including $681,000 in 

federal funding. The federal funding averaged roughly $120,000 per year. 

The total costs of the nearly six-year-long project included the following rough estimates: 

PLANNING PHASE I: $215,000 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

24

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE II: $920,000 

Including: 

Design of Countermeasures: $145,000 

Installation/Deployment Labor: $125,000 

Materials and Equipment: $ 95,000 

Data Collection & Evaluation: $225,000 

Other Program Management Costs $330,000 

(including planning and design of 

 countermeasures not installed) 

It should be noted that San Francisco construction and labor costs are substantially higher than 

the national average. On an annual basis, the project cost was actually a relatively small share of 

the total San Francisco public expenditures for pedestrian safety planning, design, enforcement, 

and outreach/education. 

The federal funding was limited in comparison to the unit cost of higher-cost pedestrian safety 

countermeasures. This influenced the selection of countermeasures. 

If this project were replicated with a focus strictly on improving pedestrian safety costeffectively, the data collection/evaluation and other program management costs could be 

substantially lower than the above rough estimates. These costs were driven partly by an 

extensive data collection and analysis effort using extremely labor-intensive video observations 

and a major intercept survey of over 1,000 pedestrians. “Other Program Management Costs” 

include primarily SFMTA costs for such items as: preparation of major technical reports, 

progress reports, and contract documents; planning and design work on countermeasures that 

were never implemented; meetings and tele-conferences with FHWA and SAIC (including 

several site visits); preparation of invoices and financial reports; internal progress reporting; 

 work planning meetings and memos; coordination with other projects and departments; and 

background research activities directly related to the project. 

Cost estimates provided in the body of this report include: materials/equipment, installation 

labor, and engineering/administration labor. This includes shop and engineering/planning labor 

from conceptual design through fine-tuning and initial operations/maintenance. (See Table 2.3-1 

for a summary of estimated capital costs. Additional detail is provided in Chapter 3, including a 

breakdown of estimated costs into materials, installation labor, and engineering/administrative 

labor. San Francisco construction costs tend to be significantly higher than national averages.) 

It was not possible to track costs precisely due to the accounting system limitations. 

Material/equipment costs are precise figures, whereas labor costs are based on careful estimates 

by key project staff. Labor costs also include overhead and fringe benefits.
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

25

The Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign and the outreach program carried 

significant operating costs for operating personnel but, once installed, other countermeasures did 

not require personnel for operation except for small modifications and maintenance for many of 

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

The least expensive countermeasures in total per-unit costs were the “LOOK” pavement stencils 

($300 per stencil) and the “TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” signs 

($800/sign). The retroreflective materials averaged less than $3 per item, but several thousand 

were distributed. The most expensive countermeasures were the video detection system to 

adjust signal timing (out of pocket costs of $17,300) and the flashing beacon with automated 

(infrared) detection ($62,600). Although several other countermeasures appear to be higher, the 

video detection costs as listed are significantly understated since the PedSafe project did not pay 

for the video detection camera equipment or its initial installation, and substantial technical 

assistance was provided free of charge by Econolite, the manufacturer of the equipment. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

26

Table 2.3-1 

Summary of Estimated Capital Costs 

(including installation labor, materials/equipment, and engineering/administrative costs) 

Countermeasure Estimated 

Total Cost 

Per Unit 

Unit Operations/Maintenance Needs 

and Other Notes 

In-Street Pedestrian Sign $1,800 Sign High level of damage if not on 

raised island 

“TURNING TRAFFIC 

MUST YIELD TO 

PEDESTRIANS” Sign 

$800 Sign Low level of maintenance 

LOOK Pavement Stencils $300 Stencil Significant level of fading. 

Modified Signal Timing $2,600 Intersection Negligible maintenance costs 

(beyond fine tuning) 

Pedestrian Head Start 

Signal Timing (“leading 

pedestrian interval”) 

$2,600 Intersection Negligible maintenance costs 

(beyond fine tuning) 

Red Curb Zone/Advance 

Limit Lines 

$2,000 Intersection Average for intersections, some with 

and new red curb zones. 

Engineering/Admin. Costs increased 

by need for legislative approval of 

red curb zones 

Flashing Beacons: Push 

Button Activated 

$21,000 Crosswalk Moderate level of maintenance 

needed 

Flashing Beacons: Infrared 

Activation 

$62,600 Crosswalk Moderate to high level of 

maintenance needed 

Portable Changeable 

Message Speed Limit Sign 

$40,200 Sign with 

Trailer 

Includes estimated one-year of 

operation, as the operating costs can 

easily exceed equipment costs 

Fixed Radar Speed Sign $12,000 Sign Moderate level of maintenance 

needed. 

Automated (Video) 

Detection of Pedestrians to 

Adjust Crossing Time 

$17,300 Intersection Out-of-pocket costs much lower 

than for new installation, since 

project “borrowed” existing camera 

and vendor donated design and 

installation time. Moderate to high 

level of maintenance needed. 

Median Refuge Island $8,600 Island Low level of maintenance needed. 

ADA Curb Ramps $27,000 Intersection Low level of maintenance needed. 

Retroreflective Clothing 

Accessories 

$2.69 Item Cost heavily dependent on specific 

item. 

Video PSA Production $1,200 Contract Only includes contract cost for 

vendor to record voices and produce 

copies 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

27

 

In general, the engineering/administrative costs were quite substantial, and often exceeded the 

material/equipment costs and the installation labor. The engineering/administrative costs for the 

first-time use of a technology are often much higher than continuing costs. Therefore, the listed 

costs, especially for the most innovative or complicated countermeasures, would not be good 

predictors of future costs for new installations. 

2.4. COMPARISON OF COUNTERMEASURES: 

AVAILABILITY AND STANDARD USE 

All countermeasures were explicitly or implicitly consistent with the Federal Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the California MUTCD. It was not necessary to 

obtain special approval to experiment with any of the countermeasures from FHWA or the 

California Department of Transportation. Several countermeasures considered experimental 

when initially proposed by the San Francisco team were added to the MUTCD in the 2003 

revision. Formal local approval from the Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors 

and the County Board of Supervisors were required for visibility red curb zones. 

The following countermeasures are considered approved or standard devices or treatments and 

are now widely used in California, although they were regarded as innovative when they were 

initially proposed: 

• In-Street Pedestrian Signs 

• “TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Signs 

• Modified Signal Timing 

• “Pedestrian Head Start” 

• Advanced Stop Lines and Red Visibility Curb Zones 

• ADA Curb Ramps 

• Median Refuge Islands 

The following countermeasures are in limited use as “off the shelf” products, but not considered 

experimental: 

• “LOOK” Pavement Stencils6

• Flashing Beacons (Push Button-Actuated) 

• Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs 

• Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs 

• Distribution of Retro-Reflective Materials 

6

 The LOOK pavement stencils included a Chinese-English stencil that was custom designed by SFMTA staff, 

working with the vendor. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

28

• Video Public Service Announcements 

The following countermeasures were “custom-made” and involved innovative technologies, 

although they did not require approval as formal experiments: 

• Automated (Video) Detection of Pedestrians to Extend Crossing Time 

• Flashing Beacons (Automated Detection with Infrared Bollards) 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

29

3. DEPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURES 

This chapter discusses the full deployment of countermeasures. Data collection and evaluation 

were conducted at selected intersections. 

3.1. IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNS 

Purpose and Description: 

MUTCD R1-6 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs 

(also known as impactable “Yield To Pedestrians” 

(YTP) signs) are intended for use at uncontrolled 

(unsignalized) crosswalks to remind drivers of laws 

regarding pedestrians’ right-of-way. They are more 

noticeable than roadside signs and may also exert a 

minor traffic-calming effect by effectively narrowing 

the inside lanes slightly. Dimensions and color: 12” x 

44”, fluorescent yellow green diamond sheeting with 

10” x 24” white high intensity sheeting insert. Overall 

height is 47 inches. The signs can be installed with 

either a portable or fixed base. 

The signs were installed at four intersections, typically with two signs per intersection. (More 

detailed notes on observation intersections are provided in the separate Data Analysis Report.) 

Table 3.1-1 

In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs: Characteristics of Intersections 

Intersections 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Lanes 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed Limit Notes 

16th & Capp 4 2 

BART Station, 

Elementary 

School, 

Commercial and 

Residential 

25 

1 sign on marked 

crosswalk, 1 on 

unmarked crosswalk. 

Staggered 4-leg 

intersection. 

Mission & France 4 2 Neighborhood 

Commercial 25 T intersection. 

Mission & Admiral 4 2 Institutional, 

Residential 25 Staggered 4-leg intersection. 

Mission & 

Santa Rosa 4 2 

Neighborhood 

Commercial 

25 

T intersection. 

Installed prior to 

PedSafe and 

replaced. Also, 

installed flashing 

beacons here. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

30

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

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

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 2B.12, In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, 

R16a). The legend ”State Law” may be shown at the top of the sign if applicable. The legends 

”Stop For” or ”Yield To” may be used in conjunction with the appropriate symbol. If a median 

island is available, the in-street pedestrian crossing sign, if used, should be placed on the island. 

National Use: 

In-Street Pedestrian signs have been tested and used by many cities in the U.S. including: Cedar 

Rapids, Salt Lake City, Madison, Las Vegas, Miami, at the Michigan State University Campus, 

and in states such as New Hampshire, New York, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia. The 

City of Madison, Wisconsin utilized these signs and found that the number of drivers yielding to 

pedestrians increased by 6 to 15 percent.7 An informal study of the signs’ use by traffic planners 

for Michigan State University Campus indicated a substantial increase in the number of drivers 

who stopped at the signed crosswalks.8

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Sign Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $7,600 $95

Installation Labor $2,600 $325 

Engineering/Administration 

0 

L b

$4,400 $55

Total Cost $14,600 $1,825

0 

Availability: 

This product can be purchased off-the-shelf. 

Vendors: 

Hawkins Traffic Safety Supply, Berkeley California, email: hawkins48@aol.com 

Impact Recovery Systems, San Antonio, Texas (manufacturer), http://www.impactrecovery.com/ 

How/Who Installed: 

The In-Street Pedestrian signs were installed on a painted median island or raised median island 

where feasible, by bolting them into the street surface pavement. The signs were installed by the 

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) sign shop staff. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Installation should be coordinated with repaving and other street project schedules. 

 

7

 City of Madison, “Year 2 Field Evaluation of Experimental ‘In-Street’ YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN Signs”

(submitted to FHWA), 1999. 

8 In-Street Yield To Pedestrian Sign Application in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Iowa Department of Transportation, Final 

Report, 2003. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

31

Installation Challenges: 

Careful consideration of turning movements, lane width and bus routes are important in 

determining the location for sign installation. Installation on a raised median island is preferable 

to installation directly on the roadway with only a double yellow split or painted island. Signs 

were often knocked down and/or damaged by cars, trucks and buses hitting them. The signs 

must be placed carefully, taking into account car and truck turning movements and lane widths, 

in order to reduce damage to the signs. San Francisco experienced high damage rates to signs 

located near left turn paths of intersections. 

Maintenance Needs: 

It is preferable to install the signs on raised medians if possible. Maintenance time and costs will 

increase if the installation location is susceptible to knockdowns. 

3.2. “TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” SIGNS 

Purpose and Description: 

To remind drivers who are making turns to yield to pedestrians, 

particularly at signalized intersections where right turn on red 

(RTOR) is permitted and pedestrian crosswalks are marked, a 

“Turning Traffic Must Yield To Pedestrians” (R10-15) sign 

may be used. For application of these signs San Francisco 

selected intersections with higher levels of conflicts between 

turning vehicles and pedestrians and higher pedestrian collision 

rates from left-turning vehicles. Dimensions and color: standard 

size is 30” x 36” with black legend on white retro-reflective 

background. Some cities, such as San Ramon (CA) and San 

Francisco have used their own versions of these signs in the 

past. San Ramon’s sign was more distinctive than the MUTCD 

and included red and black text. In San Francisco the MUTCDcompliant signs were installed at eight intersections. 

Table 3.2-1 

“TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS” Signs: Characteristics Of 

Intersections 

Intersections 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 

Mission Street 

& Ocean Ave. 4 4 Neighborhood Commercial 25 Angled T intersection. 

Mission Street 

& Avalon Ave. 4 2 

Neighborhood 

Commercial and 

Institutional 

25 Unsignalized intersection. Others all 

signalized. 

Mission & 

Persia Streets 4 2 Neighborhood Commercial 25 5-leg intersection, with 2 Persia approaches at odd angles. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

32

Intersections 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 

6th & Harrison 

Streets 4 5 Commercial 

25 on 6th, 

30 on 

Harrison 

10th & Harrison 

Streets 4 

5 (typical 

along 

Harrison) 

Commercial 

25 on 

10th, 30 

on 

Harrison 

Unusual geometry for Harrison, with 

eastbound approach right turn only. 

6th & Mission 

Streets 4 4 Commercial and 

Residential 25 Area has high level of pedestrian 

violations, substance abusers, etc. 

Geary Street & 

Van Ness Ave. 4 6 Commercial and 

Residential 25 Van Ness is state highway. 

16th & Guerrero 

Streets 3 4 Commercial and Residential 25 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

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

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 2B.45, Traffic Signal Signs (R10-1 though R10-21). 

National Use: 

Also known as “Roadside Yield to Pedestrians (YTP)” signs, these are used in many cities 

throughout the United States. A more common application of R10-15 signage is to remind 

vehicles turning right on red to yield to pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk. 

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Sign Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $1,000 $16

Installation Labor $1,100 $183 

Engineering/Administration 

7 

L b

$2,900 $48

Total Cost $5,000 $83

3 

3 

Availability: 

This product is available off the shelf.

Vendors: 

Multiple vendors, such as: 

Safety Sign, a Division of Brimar Industries, Garfield, New Jersey, http://www.safetysign.com/ 

How/Who Installed: 

The roadside YTP signs are tied onto signal or streetlight poles at a height sufficient for good 

visibility by turning vehicles. They should be installed at a 45-degree angle to face turning traffic 

throughout more of the turn. The signs were installed by the SFMTA sign shop staff. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

33

e. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Field visits need to be conducted to determine whether there is room on the signal or utility pole 

for installation of the sign, and whether the sign can be angled 45 degrees without blocking the 

signal heads. Permission must be secured from the appropriate agency responsible for 

streetlights prior to installing signs on the streetlight poles. 

Installation Challenges: 

Some signs were not installed on the correct signal/streetlight poles or were not angled 45 

degrees to turning traffic. Also several of the signs appeared to have been struck by turning 

trucks as they were loosened from their fasteners. 

Maintenance Needs: 

The signs must be installed securely and at the correct angle so that they will not block traffic 

signal heads or be knocked down by turning trucks. Maintenance time and costs will increase if 

the installation location is susceptible to knockdowns. 

3.3. “LOOK” PAVEMENT STENCILS 

Purpose and Description: 

Pavement stencils are an inexpensive alternative to the 

electronic “animated eyes” signals countermeasure 

that was eliminated from the PedSafe study due to the 

lack of an available vendor to provide a combined 

animated eyes/countdown signal. The “LOOK” 

stencils remind pedestrians to look for cross and 

turning traffic before leaving the curb and entering the 

roadway. The stenciled images consist of opposing 

left- and right-pointing arrows with the word “LOOK” 

centered between them. These stencils are applied to 

the roadbed facing the sidewalk along the gutter lin

The word “LOOK,” in twelve-inch letters with left- and right-pointing arrows, is dye-cut into 

solid black and solid white pavement marking material. The two "O"s have small eyeballs on the 

inside of the letters to help advertise the intended message. The letters and arrows are 

interchanged with the background material to provide black-on-white and white-on-black 

messages, resulting in no wasted material. San Francisco also used bilingual, custom-made 

“LOOK” signs with both English words and Chinese characters. 

These were initially installed at seven intersections. After the data collection was completed, 

they were added at five other intersections, by agreement with FHWA. These installations were 

too late for evaluation. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

34

Table 3.3-1 

“LOOK” Pavement Stencils: Characteristics Of Intersections 

Intersections 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 

4th & Harrison 

Streets 4 5 Commercial 25/30 

Signalized. 5-leg 

intersection with 

freeway on-ramp. 

17th & Mission 

Streets 2 4 Commercial 25 Signalized. 

Broadway & 

Columbus Ave. 4 4 

Commercial, 

Major Tourist 

Center 

25 

Signalized. Damaged 

by restaurant dumping 

dirty water in gutter. 

Chinese/English 

customized stencils. 

6th Ave. & Geary 

Blvd. 2 6 Commercial 25 

Signalized. Also, 

median islands added 

here. 

6th & Mission 

Streets 4 4 

Commercial, 

High Density 

Residential 

25 

Signalized. Initially 

damaged by unrelated 

construction. 

7th & Mission 

Streets 4 4 Commercial, Government 25 

Signalized. Initially 

damaged by unrelated 

construction. 

17th/Market/Castro 

Streets 2 

4 on 

Market/4 on 

Castro 

Commercial & 

Muni Metro 

Station 

25/30/25 Signalized. 

16th/Market/Noe 

Streets 2 

4 on 

Market/2 on 

Noe 

Commercial 25/30/25 Signalized. 

Broadway/Stockton 

Streets 4 2 

Commercial & 

High Density 

Residential 

25 

Signalized. 

Chinese/English 

customized stencils. 

16th & Capp Sts. 3 2 

BART station, 

School, 

Commercial, 

High Density 

Residential 

25 

Minor street stop. Also, 

impactable Yield sign 

and flashing beacon 

site. 

Mission St. & 

Ocean Ave. 4 3 Neighborhood Commercial 25 

Signalized. Odd angled 

T intersection, 

immediately adjacent to 

another T intersection. 

11th Ave. & Geary 

Blvd. 2 6 

Neighborhood 

Commercial and 

Residential. 

25 Minor street stop, 

planned for signal. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

35

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

The California and Federal MUTCD address pavement markings in Section 3B.19, Pavement 

Word and Symbol Markings. “Word and symbol markings on the pavement are used for the 

purpose of guiding, warning, or regulating traffic. Symbol messages are preferable to word 

messages.” The guidelines do not specifically mention “LOOK” pavement markings, but allow 

for choice in the selection of messages. The “LOOK” pavement markings have been deemed to 

conform to MUTCD standards for word messages by the Markings Technical Committee at the 

Texas Transportation Institute (part of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices). 

National Use: 

“LOOK” pavement stencils are used in several European countries and have been tested in the 

United States in Salt Lake City, Miami, and Las Vegas. 

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Unit Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $7,400 $110 

Installation Labor $8,400 $125 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$4,400 $65 

Total Cost $20,200 $300 

Availability: This product is available off the shelf. 

Vendors: 

Flint Trading Inc., Thomasville, North Carolina, http://www.flinttrading.com/ (manufacturer) 

Pervo Paint Company, San Diego, California, http://www.pervo.com/ 

Time Striping Inc. Van Buren, Arkansas, http://www.timestriping.com/ 

How/Who Installed: 

The “LOOK” stencils are made of thermoplastic and installed by heat from a torch onto the 

surface of the pavement at crosswalk entryways and were installed by SFMTA paint shop staff. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Coordination with street repaving and construction project schedules is necessary. 

Installation Challenges: 

The “LOOK” stencils must be applied to a clean, dry street pavement surface and care must be 

taken to avoid over-application of the heat torch, as this may prevent the thermoplastic from 

setting properly, resulting in the stenciled message appearing blurry. There was a delay in 

production and an increase in cost for the bilingual English/Chinese language version stencils, 

and due to their increased size and the unusual geometry of the intersection, the bilingual stencils 

were placed in crosswalk entryways in a manner where they almost overlapped. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

36

Maintenance Needs: 

At one intersection where the stencil was applied, restaurant owners dumped greasy water into a 

city catch basin, which flowed over the stencils causing them to become dirty and fade. 

According to the vendor, the stencils can be cleaned with a soapy solution if they become dirty. 

Street cleaning can be requested at locations where this is a common occurrence. 

3.4. MODIFY SIGNAL TIMING 

Purpose and Description: 

San Francisco modified the signal timing at five intersections with higher rates of pedestrian 

collisions. The signal timing was modified to add 0.5-1 second All Red phases, or extending 

pedestrian crossing time. All Red phases are a useful tool for pedestrian safety at intersections 

with high traffic and pedestrian volumes. By adding an All Red phase, the intersection is cleared 

of vehicle cross traffic and pedestrian crossings before the opposing traffic is released. This 

measure should improve clearance but it is not 100% effective. 

Table 3.4-1 

Modify Signal Timing: Characteristics Of Intersections 

Intersections 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed Limit Notes 

9th & Harrison 

Streets 5 4 Commercial 25/30 

Added 1 sec. all-red 

phases. In an 

areawide change 

related to opening of 

a parallel freeway 

segment , cycle and 

total pedestrian 

crossing time were 

reduced. 

16th & Valencia 

Streets 2 4 

High Density 

Residential and 

Commercial 

25 

New timings 

introduced along with 

side street 

countdown signals. 

Added all-red phase. 

Geary Street & 

Van Ness Ave. 4 6 

Commercial and 

High Density 

Residential 

25 

Van Ness is a state 

highway. Longer 

cycle and longer 

crossing time. “Yield 

to Pedestrians” signs 

also installed. 

6th & Harrison 

Streets 4 5 Commercial 25/30 

Added pedestrian 

head start crossing 

6th Street. 

Geary Blvd. & 

Laguna Street 6 2 

Commercial and 

High Density 

Residential 

35/25 

More crossing time 

and extended all-red 

phase. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

37

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

The addition of All Red phases and extending pedestrian crossing time was implemented 

following approved guidelines in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 

Section 4D.10 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals, and Section 4E.10, Pedestrian 

Intervals and Signal Phases, and according to the Department of Parking and Traffic’s (DPT) 

Guidelines to Common Signal Timing Settings and Conventions, first adopted March 28, 2003 

and updated January 28, 2005 by the DPT Signal Review Committee. 

National Use: 

Modified signal timing is used in major cities throughout the United States. 

Cost:

Item Total Cost Cost per 

Intersection

Materials/Supplies/Equipment

Installation Labor $5,500 $1,400 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$4,800 $1,2

Total Cost $10,300 $2,6

00 

00 

Note: Cost per intersection for signal timing changes was $1,200 based on cost estimate from the Phase II 

Implementation Plan and Preliminary Engineering Report 2/28/05 

Availability: Not applicable. 

 

Vendors: Not applicable. 

How/Who Installed:

The signal timing changes were developed by traffic engineers and implemented by SFMTA 

signal shop electricians. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Signal modification changes should be coordinated with any signal upgrades or installation 

schedules. 

Installation Challenges: 

Signal modification must be evaluated by traffic engineers to ascertain its feasibility and to 

verify that the changes are compatible with the specific signal controller type in use at the 

location. 

Maintenance Needs: 

It is necessary to conduct field checks to confirm that signal timing changes have been made 

correctly, and to update signal timing cards based on traffic/pedestrian volume changes. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

38

3.5. PEDESTRIAN HEAD START 

Purpose and Description: 

Pedestrian Head Starts were added at five locations to provide an initial four seconds of crossing 

time to establish pedestrians’ right-of-way before vehicles started turning. The “head start” is 

particularly useful at intersections with multiple turn lanes, heavy turning volumes, and longer 

crossing distances. While a red turn arrow would be a useful addition, this was not budgeted in 

San Francisco. 

Table 3.5-1 

Pedestrian Head Start: Characteristics Of Intersections 

Intersections 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 

6th & Howard 

Streets 4 4 Commercial, Hotel 25/30 

8th & Howard 

Streets 4 4 

Commercial and 

High Density 

Residential 

25/30 

10th & Harrison 

Streets 4 

5 (typical 

along 

Harrison) 

Commercial 

25 on 10th, 

30 on 

Harrison 

Unusual geometry for 

Harrison, with eastbound 

approach right turn only. 

6th & Mission 

Streets 4 4 Commercial and 

Residential 25 

Area has high level of 

pedestrian violations, 

substance abusers, etc. 

Mission & Ocean 

Streets 4 3 Neighborhood Commercial 25 

Signalized. Odd angled 

T intersection, 

immediately adjacent to 

another T intersection. 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

The addition of Pedestrian Head Start was implemented following approved guidelines in the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) from Section 4E.10, Pedestrian Intervals 

and Signal Phases, and according to the Department of Parking and Traffic’s (DPT) Guidelines 

to Common Signal Timing Settings and Conventions, first adopted March 28, 2003 and updated 

January 28, 2005 by the DPT Signal Review Committee. 

National Use: 

Pedestrian Head Start is used in major cities throughout the United States 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

39

Cost:

Item Total Cost Cost per 

Intersection

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $0 $0 

Installation Labor $5,400 $1,400 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$4,800 $1,200 

Total Cost $10,200 $2,600 

Note: Cost per intersection for signal timing changes engineering/administration was $1,200 based on cost estimate 

from the Phase II Implementation Plan and Preliminary Engineering Report 2/28/05 

Availability: Not applicable. 

Vendors: Not applicable.

How/Who Installed: 

Signal timing changes were evaluated by DPT traffic engineers and implemented by San 

Francisco DPT signal shop staff. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Level-of-service impacts checked when potential for adverse impacts. (The City of San 

Francisco standard holds reduction of LOS from D to E to be a significant adverse impact.) 

Installation Challenges: 

Coordination with existing planned signal timing changes and signal upgrades at proposed 

PedSafe intersections was necessary. 

Maintenance Needs: 

It is necessary to conduct field checks of intersections to make sure signal timing changes have 

been made correctly, and to update signal timing cards. 

3.6. ADVANCED STOP LINES AND RED VISIBILITY CURB ZONES 

Purpose and Description: 

Vehicles often encroach into crosswalks while waiting either to make a right turn on red, or for 

the signal to change, hindering the ability of pedestrians to have a clear path to cross the street in 

the crosswalk. Advanced stop lines remind drivers to stop in advance of pedestrians crossing in a 

crosswalk and to discourage crosswalk encroachment by drivers. Advanced stop lines can be 

useful at uncontrolled crosswalks to reduce “multiple threat” collisions where a following 

vehicle passes a first vehicle stopped for the pedestrian. 

Advanced limit lines were installed at 14 intersections. They were installed 6 feet from the 

crosswalk at signalized intersections and 10 feet from the crosswalk on uncontrolled main 

(arterial) street approaches. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

40

Large trucks and autos parked at intersection corners often block the visibility of pedestrians 

standing on corners waiting to cross the street. Red visibility curb zones are installed at 

intersection corners to improve the visibility of vehicles for crossing pedestrians, and the 

visibility of pedestrians for drivers. These red curb zones are usually 20 feet long but may be 

longer or shorter depending on an analysis of visibility at intersection corners. 

Red visibility curb zones were installed at nine of the 14 intersections. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

41

Table 3.6-1 

Advanced Stop Lines and Red Visibility Curb Zones: Characteristics of Intersections 

Intersections 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent 

Land Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 

Mission Street & 

Geneva Ave. 4 4 Neighborhood Commercial 25 Limit lines on all approaches. 

Mission/Avalon/ 

Teresa Streets 4 2 

Institutional 

and 

Neighborhood 

Commercial 

25 

Limit lines on Mission. Red zone 

(20 feet) on Mission. Removed 1 

parking meter. 

Mission Street & 

France Ave. 4 2 Neighborhood Commercial 25 

Limit lines on Mission. Red zone 

(28 feet) on Mission. Removed 1 

parking meter. 

Mission Street & 

Santa Rosa Ave. 4 2 Neighborhood 

Commercial 25 

Limit lines on Mission approaches. 

Red zone (20 feet) on Mission. 

Removed 1 metered white zone 

space. 

Geary Blvd. 

& 7th Ave. 6 2 Commercial, Medical 25 Signalized. Limit lines on Geary approaches. 

Geary Blvd. 

& 11th Ave. 6 2 Commercial 25 

Minor street stop. Limit lines on 

Geary approaches. 10-foot red 

zone on Geary. Removed yellow 

loading space. 

Market/Castro/ 

17th Streets 4 4/2 

Commercial, 

Muni Metro 

Station 

30/25/25 Signalized. Limit lines on 

5 of 6 approaches. 

Market/Noe/16th 

Streets 4 2/2 Commercial 30/25/25 

Signalized. Limit lines on 

northbound/southbound Noe and 

westbound Market approaches. 

Red zones on 16th Street (11 and 

20 feet). Removed 2 meter spaces. 

4th & Harrison 

Streets 4 5 Commercial 25/30 

Signalized. 5-leg intersection with 

freeway on-ramp. Limit lines on all 

approaches. 18-foot red zone on 

Harrison. Removed 1 meter space. 

9th & Harrison 

Streets 5 4 Commercial 25/30 

Signalized. Limit lines on all 

approaches. Added 22-foot red 

zone on Harrison. Also added 1 

sec. all-red phases. 

6th & Minna 

Streets 4 2 

Commercial 

and High 

Density 

Residential 

25 

Minor street (alley) stop controlled. 

Replaced limit lines on 6th. 

Location with high level of 

pedestrian violations, substance 

abuse, etc. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

42

Intersections 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent 

Land Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 

17th & Mission 

Streets 2 4 Commercial 25 Signalized. Limit lines on all approaches. 

16th & Capp 

Streets 3 2 

BART 

Station, 

Commercial, 

School 

25 

Minor street stop-controlled. 

Limit lines on 16th Street only. 

20 ft. red zone on 16th. Removed 

1 meter space. Also received 

impactable Yield sign and 

flashing beacons. 

Columbus Ave. & 

Union Street 4 2 

Commercial. 

Major tourist 

center. 

25 

Signalized. Advanced limit lines 

on all approaches, and added 

15 ft. visibility red zone on 

Union Street. Removed 1 metered 

yellow loading zone. 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

Limit lines four feet in advance of crosswalks may be used at any location with limited 

crosswalk visibility, for driver compliance, or non-standard geometrics. (Caltrans Supplement to 

MUTCD). The use of stop lines is approved by MUTCD in Section 3B.16, Stop and Yield Lines. 

The MUTCD defines a stop line as a solid white pavement marking line extending across 

approach lanes to indicate the point at which a stop is intended or compulsory. 

The use of red visibility curbs is approved by MUTCD in Section 3B.18, Parking Space 

Markings “Parking space markings tend to prevent encroachment into fire hydrant zones, bus 

stops, loading zones, approaches to intersections, curb ramps, and clearance spaces for islands 

and other zones where parking is restricted.” The MUTCD diagram shows that the distance of 

these no parking red visibility zones at intersection approaches are generally 20 feet long. In 

fact, the California MUTCD optional guidance is that all intersections, parking should be 

prohibited for one stall length before or after marked crosswalks, and at signalized intersections, 

it is preferred to prohibit parking for two stall lengths on the near side approach to the crosswalk. 

(The national MUTCD shows the same recommendation in a diagram, but does not include the 

explicit text.) 

San Francisco’ draft guidelines recommend installing advanced stop lines using the following 

range of recommended distances: controlled intersection approaches: 4 to 6 feet; uncontrolled 

intersection approaches up to 35 MPH: 6 to 10 feet; uncontrolled intersection approaches over 35 

MPH: 6 to 20 feet; midblock crosswalks, controlled or uncontrolled up to 35 MPH: 10 to 15 

feet; and midblock crosswalk with speed limits over 35 MPH: 10 to 25 feet. 

National Use: Advanced stop lines and red visibility curbs are used routinely.
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

43

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Cost per 

Intersection

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $600 $43 

Installation Labor $19,500 $1,393 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$7,300 $521 

Total Cost $27,400 $1,957 

Availability: 

The products for implementation of this measure are available off the shelf.

Vendors: Multiple vendors

How/Who Installed: 

Advanced stop lines are installed using thermoplastic road marking material applied with heat, 

onto the surface of the pavement at crosswalk entryways. Red curb paint was applied at 

intersection corners after line of sight visibility analysis was completed. Installation was 

performed by San Francisco DPT paint shop staff. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Coordinating stop line striping with street repaving and construction is necessary. 

Installation Challenges: 

Field visits must be conducted to determine the placement distance of the lines from the 

crosswalk needed to maintain line of sight visibility between vehicles and pedestrians at 

intersections. If an entire metered or regulated parking space had to be removed, that required 

legislation, which often delayed installation. A total of nine parking spaces were removed to 

create red visibility curb zones at the study intersections. The approval of parking space removal 

required review by the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation and 

approval at a County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing. 

The advanced limit lines can also reduce queuing distance. The striping of the advanced stop 

lines must be coordinated with the painting of the red curb zones. 

Maintenance Needs: 

As advanced stop lines and red curb zones become faded they must be repainted. 

3.7. FLASHING BEACONS 

Two types of flashing beacons were studied at two intersections. 

At 16th & Capp, the beacon was push button activated and at 

Mission & Santa Rosa it was activated by infrared automatic 

detection. Results showed a substantial increase in vehicle 

yielding at both intersections. The countermeasure also produced 

a reduction in vehicle/pedestrian conflict and a reduction in 

pedestrians being diverted and/or trapped. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

44

Push Button Activated Flashing Beacon (16th and Capp) 

Purpose and Description: 

A solar-powered flashing beacon activated by push button was installed at 16th 

and Capp Streets to draw attention to the crosswalk and “Ped Xing” warning 

signs. This pedestrian safety measure is implemented at uncontrolled crossings, 

generally where there is a pedestrian attractor nearby, in this case a public school 

and a BART rapid transit station within a half block. No trenching or wiring was 

required other than wiring from the push button pole to the flashing beacon. The 

warning plate (R62E: “Push Button For Pedestrian Warning Lights: Cross with 

Caution”), including Braille text, was intended to remind pedestrians, including the visuallyimpaired, that the flashing beacon does not provide them the same level of protection as a 

standard traffic signal. 

Table 3.7-1 

Push Button Activated Flashing Beacon: Characteristics of Intersection 

Intersection 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Lanes 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed Limit Notes 

16th & Capp 4 2 

BART Station, 

Elementary 

School, 

Commercial and 

Residential 

25 

1 sign on marked 

crosswalk, 1 on 

unmarked crosswalk. 

Staggered 4-leg 

intersection. 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

Push button activated flashing beacons are approved for use by the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD) as cited in Section 4k.103, Flashing Beacons at School Crosswalks. 

National Use: 

Push button activated beacons have been installed by governmental agencies throughout North 

America, and are becoming widely adopted by state departments of transportation (DOTs), 

counties, and cities. 

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Unit Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $7,500 $7,500 

Installation Labor $6,000 $6,000 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$7,300 $7,300 

Total Cost $20,800 $20,800 

Availability: 

The products are available off the shelf. 

Vendors: 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

45

Multiple vendors, including: 

JSF Technologies, Saanichton, British Columbia, http://www.solarcrosswalk.com/products.htm 

Carmanah Technologies Corp. Santa Cruz, California, http://www.carmanah.com/ 

Traffic Safety Corp., Sacramento, California, http://www.xwalk.com/index.html 

Western Pacific Signal LLC, San Leandro, California, http://www.wpsignal.com/ 

How/Who Installed: 

The flashing beacons were purchased through JSF Technologies and installed by the City’s 

Department of Telecommunication and Information (DTIS). The project involved the installation 

of two 1A type poles with top-mounted flashing beacons. Because flashing beacons are solar 

powered no additional power supply was required. Two pedestrian push button devices were 

installed. The San Francisco DPT traffic signal shop conducted troubleshooting. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

It is necessary to coordinate installation of flashing beacons signal poles with street repaving and 

utility construction schedules. A letter was sent out to all underground utility agencies informing 

them of the proposed project and requesting a response if the project location conflicted with any 

nearby utilities. Because traffic signal equipment is pre-approved by California environmental 

laws (CEQA) and its federal counterpart (NEPA), no further clearance was needed. 

Installation Challenges: 

Field visits were needed to determine the location of existing streetlight poles, signs, parking 

spaces, and street furniture to facilitate installation of MUTCD-consistent “Pedestrian Crossing 

Ahead” signs and “Pedestrian Crossing” with arrow signs. Also, the installation of a push button 

pole with “Push Button For Pedestrian Warning Lights” sign was required in a location with no 

available existing pole. Shortly after installation this sign had to be replaced due to vandalism. 

Additional time may be needed for a public hearing process for notifying the public about the 

project. 

Maintenance Needs: 

Pedestrian crossing signs and push button signs may require replacement due to vandalism or 

cleaning due to graffiti. The solar powered flashing beacon rechargeable battery may need to be 

replaced every 3-5 years under normal operating conditions. 

Infrared Activated Flashing Beacon (Mission and Santa Rosa) 

Purpose and Description: 

The Mission Street and Santa Rosa Avenue 

location is a T-intersection previously used to 

test in-pavement crosswalk lights prior to the 

PedSafe project. The crosswalk lights were 

removed due to malfunctioning caused by 

water collecting in the light fixtures and poor 

microwave detector performance. This study 

location was selected because of the need for a 

warning device to increase driver yielding to 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

46

pedestrians. Costs were reduced by installing conduit for the flashing beacon within the existing 

saw cut across Mission Street. 

Although the detector performance and effectiveness of the countermeasure were quite positive, 

the Traffic Engineering Division intends to replace this installation with conventional 

traffic/pedestrian signal. This is considered a stronger method of pedestrian safety, as well as 

addressing the needs for turning vehicles to have greater protection. 

Infrared detectors were used to activate a flashing beacon. For the east crosswalk approach, two 

above ground bollards were installed. At the west crosswalk approach, one bollard was replaced 

with an in-surface activation device (ISAD), due to concern that a full-height bollard would be 

subject to knockdown by turning vehicles. 

The Light Guard Services Inc. Activation bollards, In Surface Activation Device (ISAD), 

controller, and flashing beacon were purchased through JAM Services and installed by the 

Department of Telecommunication and Information Services (DTIS). Two-inch conduits were 

installed across Mission Street to house necessary wires connecting the bollards, ISAD and 

flashing beacons to the controller. DPT’s signal shop assisted DTIS to install the controller, and 

to activate and trouble shoot the system. 

Table 3.7-2 

Infrared Activated Flashing Beacons: Characteristics Of Intersection 

Intersection 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Lanes 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed Limit Notes 

Mission & 

Santa Rosa 4 2 Neighborhood Commercial 25 

T intersection. Inpavement lights 

installed prior to 

PedSafe and 

replaced. Also, 

installed flashing 

beacons here. 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

The use of automated bollard/ISAD activated flashing beacons is approved by the Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as cited in Section 4k.01, General Design and 

Operation of Flashing Beacons. Typical application includes installing flashing beacons at 

intersections where a more visible warning is needed, as was the case at the intersection of 

Mission and Santa Rosa. 

National Use: 

The Cities of Miami and Las Vegas use flashing beacons primarily at school crossings, and the 

City of Orlando uses a bollard infrared pedestrian detection system between a major hotel and 

the Performing Arts Center and Orlando Arena. The City of San Jose recently conducted a study 

to compare in-pavement crosswalk lights with bollard-activated flashing beacon systems. The 

earlier pedestrian study of in-pavement crosswalk lights was conducted at night, while the 

PedSafe study of overhead flashing beacons took place during the day. The results indicated that 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

47

the in-pavement crosswalk lights were more effective in encouraging drivers to yield to 

pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk. However, maintenance problems were generated by both 

the crosswalk lights and bollard activated system including: moisture penetration of the 

crosswalk light housing, vandalism, and a malfunction of the bollard detection system. The 

crosswalk lights require more maintenance than the flashing beacons, primarily due to pavement 

resurfacing and replacement of crosswalk lights.9

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Unit Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $19,300 $19,300 

Installation Labor $14,100 $14,100 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$29,200 $29,200 

Total Cost $62,600 $62,600 

Availability: 

There was no off the shelf device available. The detection bollards and ISAD were purchased 

from LightGuard but the DPT signal shop worked with JAM Services to install the customized 

wiring system from the bollards/ISAD to the controller for activation of the flashing beacons. 

LightGuard manufactured the bollards, ISAD and the controller. 

Vendors: 

Multiple vendors: 

Traffic Safety Corp., Sacramento, California, http://www.xwalk.com/index.html 

Centennial Distributors Inc., San Francisco, California, http://www.centennialdistributors.net/ 

Dialight Corp., Roxboro, North Carolina, http://www.dialight.com/index2.html 

LightGuard, Santa Rosa, California, http://www.lightguardsystems.com/ 

JAM Services Inc., Livermore, California, http://www.jamservicesinc.com/ 

Western Pacific Signal LLC., San Leandro, California, http://www.wpsignal.com/ 

How/Who Installed: 

 DTIS installed the flashing beacon and controller. A sawcut across Mission Street was used to 

connect, via wires, the bollard and ISAD on the west side of the street to the controller on the 

east side of the street. The San Francisco DPT signal shop worked with JAM Services to install 

the customized wiring system from the bollards/ISAD to the controller for activation of the 

flashing beacons. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

A letter was sent out to all underground utility agencies informing them of the proposed project 

and requesting a response if the project location conflicted with any nearby utilities. Because 

traffic signal equipment is pre-approved by California environmental laws (CEQA) and its 

federal counterpart (NEPA), no further clearance was needed. 

 

9

 Crosswalk Enhancement Comparison Study, Experimental Embedded Pavement Flashing Light System vs. 

Standard Overhead Yellow Flashing Beacon, May 7, 2001, City of San Jose, Mansour Malek. 

http://www.lightguardsystems.com/pdf/sanjosestudy.pdf . 10/24/07. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

48

Installation Challenges: 

Because this system was a pilot project testing automated detection of pedestrians using a 

combination of two bollards and one bollard with ISAD, the project was custom designed and 

installed. Because of this, extensive time was spent with the vendors and signal shop staff 

troubleshooting wiring connection problems, as well as waiting for arrival of a specialized 

control box and LED beacon equipment. Depending on local practices, additional time may be 

required for a public hearing notifying the public about the project. 

After installation we received reports of a malfunctioning flashing beacon. After inspection by 

our signal shop, it was determined that the malfunction was caused by a combination of a bad 

wire connection and vandalism (graffiti sprayed across the infrared detection signal). The signal 

shop was able to repair the wire connection and clean the infrared detection area to correct the 

problem. 

Maintenance Needs: 

Operation of flashing beacons requires monitoring to verify that they are operating correctly. 

3.8. PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SPEED LIMIT SIGN 

Purpose and Description: 

 Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit 

Signs, also known as “radar speed trailers,” are 

used to deter speeding. Radar speed trailer 

signs display the speed of oncoming traffic and 

flash LEDs when a vehicle exceeds the posted 

speed limit. A speed limit sign is included on 

the trailer. Above a user-selected maximum, 

the sign “blanks out” to avoid enticing drivers 

into exhibitions of speed. Speed data is 

recorded using a customized, portable 

computer located in the trailer and downloaded 

onto a desktop computer using SmartStat 

software. 

The Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign was deployed 

at approximately 50 locations spread across seven zones throughout 

the city of San Francisco with higher rates of pedestrian collisions. 

Radar Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs are often 

deployed along major arterials, or near college and school 

campuses. 

In addition to the MTA Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit 

Sign, the San Francisco Police Department maintains their own 

fleet of Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs and 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

49

ment. 

deploys them based on citizen requests. The Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign was 

found to be more successful in reducing vehicle speeds than the fixed sign, perhaps due to the 

novelty of seeing the trailer in a new location, and its association with police enforce

Table 3.8-1 

Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign: Characteristics of Intersections 

Intersections 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Lanes 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 

16th & Capp 4 2 

BART Station, 

Elementary School, 

Commercial and 

Residential 

25 Staggered 4-leg 

intersection. 

Mission & France 4 2 Neighborhood 

Commercial 25 T intersection 

Mission & Admiral 4 2 Institutional, 

Residential 25 Staggered 4-leg 

intersection 

11th Ave. & 

Geary Blvd. 2 6 

Neighborhood 

Commercial and 

Residential. 

25 Minor street stop, 

planned for signal. 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

Changeable speed limit signs are approved in MUTCD Section 2B.13, Speed Limit Sign (R2-1): 

“A changeable message sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at which they are 

traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign.” According to MUTCD 

guidelines “If a changeable message sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend 

YOUR SPEED XX km/h (MPH) or such similar legend should be shown. The color of the 

changeable message legend should be a yellow legend on a black background or the reverse of 

these colors.” 

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

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

For neighborhoods and school zones, the MUTCD specifies that the absolute minimum sign size 

allowed is 24 x 30 inches (12" high digits), and it provides for larger dimensions in increments of 

six inches "where speed, volume, or other factors result in conditions where increased emphasis, 

improved recognition, or increased legibility would be desirable" [2003 MUTCD 2B.03]. 

National Use: 

Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs are commonly used in major cities and towns 

across the United States along corridors where speeding has been. They are also often used near 

college and school campuses. 

Cost: 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

50

Item Total Cost Unit Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $12,500 $12,500 

Installation Labor $7,300 $7,300 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$20,400 $20,400 

Total Cost $40,200 $40,200 

Availability: 

Device available off the shelf. 

Vendors: 

Multiple vendors: 

Kustom Signals Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, http://www.kustomsignals.com/ 

Traffic Display Monitoring Systems, Dallas, Texas, http://1-radar-speed-trailer-display.com/ 

Ingram Technologies, Price, Utah, http://www.ingram-tech.com/contact.htm 

RU2 Systems Inc. Apache Jct., Arizona, http://www.ru2systems.com/thankyou.htm 

MPH Industries Owensboro, Kentucky, http://www.mphindustries.com/products_home/ 

How/Who Installed: 

The Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign was deployed at 51 intersections, generally 

at the nearside corner of an intersection. The San Francisco Police Department Traffic Company 

was responsible for operation, maintenance, storage, and transportation of the trailer to 

deployment locations. MTA staff downloaded the speed data for analysis by TSC researchers. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

No significant issues. 

Installation Challenges: 

To implement this countermeasure an agreement was negotiated between SFPD Traffic 

Company and SFMTA to have the SFPD store, deploy, and maintain the Portable Changeable 

Message Speed Limit Sign for MTA. Extensive coordination was required to provide SFPD with 

the installation dates and locations and to train SFPD and MTA staff to collect the radar speed 

data using the specialized NEC computer and SmartStat software. 

During the implementation phase the NEC computer had to be returned to the vendor, Kustom 

Signals, Inc., for repairs. At another stage during trailer deployment the display board was 

damaged due to vandalism and was again returned to the vendor for repair. 

It is recommended that the Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign be deployed early in 

the morning to ensure the availability of a corner location free of parked cars. 

Maintenance Needs: 

The Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign battery requires periodic recharging by 

SFPD staff. The trailer must be stored nightly and is not deployed overnight to protect it from the 

likely threat of vandalism. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

51

3.9. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES (ADA) CURB RAMPS 

Purpose and Description: 

ADA curb ramps are curb cut outs that facilitate 

easier crossing, in compliance with the Americans 

With Disabilities Act of 1990. Deficient curb ramps 

were replaced and detectable warning strips installed 

at one intersection for the PedSafe study. These 

measures included shortening a gas station driveway 

that intruded into a major crosswalk, replacing it 

with a curb ramp built to comply with new ADA 

standards, including the use of truncated or tactile 

dome mats (colored plastic mats with raised domes 

on their surface which serve as cues signaling the 

boundary between the street and sidewalk for the 

visually impaired). Curb ramp improvements benefit all pedestrians by making street crossing 

more accessible to elderly pedestrians, children, and pedestrians with strollers, not only 

pedestrians with physical impairments. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center is a good 

resource for design guidelines and standards for pedestrian improvements, particularly for 

designing improvements in compliance with The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

(http://www.walkinginfo.org/engineering/pedestrians.cfm) 

Table 3.9-1 

ADA Curb Ramps: Characteristics Of Intersection 

Intersection 

Street 1: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: No. 

of Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent Land 

Uses 

Posted 

Speed Limit Notes 

17th/Market/Castro 

Streets 2 4 on Market/4 on Castro 

Commercial & 

Muni Metro 

Station 

25/30/25 Signalized. 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

The Department of Public Works, which is responsible for installing curb ramps, follows state, 

Caltrans, and ADA design and construction standards when upgrading or installing new curb 

ramps. 

National Use: 

Most cities in the United States have a program to upgrade deficient curb ramps to new ADA 

standards, including the use of truncated or tactile dome mats, which signal the boundary 

between the street and sidewalk for the visually impaired. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

52

Cost:

Item Total Cost Unit Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $1,900 $1,900 

Installation Labor $16,600 $16,600 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$8,500 $8,500 

Total Cost $27,000 $27,000 

Availability: 

San Francisco’s Department of Public Works (DPW) was responsible for the design and 

construction of the ramps. Tactile dome mats are available off the shelf. 

Vendors: 

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

How/Who Installed: 

Design and construction of curb ramps was completed by San Francisco’s DPW, including the 

installation of tactile dome mats. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Construction must be coordinated with city repaving and utility construction project schedules. 

In addition, traffic control plans are required and coordination with city bus service if temporary 

bus stops or shifts in bus zones are necessary. If construction will occur on a designated state 

highway route, state highway agencies must be contacted for permits and approvals. 

Installation Challenges: 

A survey of utilities and sidewalk furniture locations and proposed curb ramp upgrade corners 

must be conducted to determine whether utilities need to be moved or the ramp design modified. 

At one corner, the improvement shortened a gas station driveway that intruded into the 

crosswalk, and added a to-standard curb ramp. The gas station owner argued over related 

changes in curb markings. 

Maintenance Needs: 

Tactile domes require periodic replacement and cement curbs require repair from wear and tear. 

3.10. MEDIAN REFUGE ISLANDS 

Purpose and Description: 

Median refuge islands provide a safe retreat for pedestrians 

crossing wide, multilane streets with long crossing 

distances. The islands encourage pedestrians to wait before 

completing crossing, rather than rushing across traffic. The 

islands also act as a traffic calming device by forcing leftturning vehicles to reduce their speeds to make shorter 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

53

radius turns. Median refuge islands were installed at two signalized intersections, prioritized by 

curb-to-curb crossing width, multiple lanes, high pedestrian volumes, and history of pedestrian 

collisions caused by turning vehicles. 

Table 3.10-1 

Median Refuge Islands: Characteristics off Intersections 

Intersections 

Street 1: No. 

of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent 

Land Uses 

Posted 

Speed Limit Notes 

Geary Blvd. & 

6th Ave. 6 2 Commercial, Medical 25 “LOOK” pavement stencils also installed. 

Geary Blvd. & 

Stanyan Street 6 4 Commercial, Residential 25 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

The design and construction of median refuge islands followed local, state, and federal 

guidelines and standards, including recommended minimum size requirements (AASHTO 

guidance: 50 square feet) and the use of white reflective paint and T-markers at ends of median 

islands, if necessary, to reduce the likelihood and extent of collision damage to the islands. 

National Use: 

Median refuge islands are used in major cities nationwide. 

 

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Cost per 

island

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $4,600 $1,533

Installation Labor $18,200 $6,067 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$2,900 $96

Total Cost $25,700 $8,567

7 

Availability:Not applicable. 

Vendors: Not applicable. 

How/Who Installed: 

The median refuge islands were designed and constructed by San Francisco DPW. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Construction must be coordinated with city repaving and utility construction project schedules. 

Installation Challenges: 

The installation of median refuge islands required providing adequate lead time for 

interdepartmental coordination, and careful consideration of bus and truck turning movements to 

determine refuge island feasibility. Knowledge of vehicle turning movements is necessary in 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

54

determining whether the location is feasible, in addition to establishing the precise location and 

design of the island. 

Maintenance Needs: 

Median refuge islands located at intersections with heavy vehicle turning traffic are susceptible 

to curb damage caused by being hit frequently. To reduce the incidence of such damage, white 

reflective paint and T markers must be well maintained. 

3.11. AUTOMATED VIDEO DETECTION OF 

PEDESTRIANS TO ADJUST SIGNAL TIMING 

Purpose and Description: 

Automated video detection of pedestrians was installed to 

provide up to 3 additional seconds of crossing time for 

pedestrians who were predicted not to reach the curb before 

traffic was released. Detection zones were grouped into 

south curb, center, and north curb zones. As a pedestrian 

crosses the street, a video camera mounted on a utility pole 

detects the pedestrian crossing into each zone. If a 

pedestrian is detected at a time and location predicting that 

the pedestrian will not reach the curb before the light turns 

red, the signal will extend the solid Red Hand (Don’t Walk) 

and green ball up to 3 seconds. When such an extension is made, a compensating reduction in the 

Walk phase is made on the next cycle so that the cross street does not lose overall green light 

time. The video detector was installed at one crosswalk at the intersection of 9th and Howard 

Streets. 

Table 3.11-1 

Automated Video Detection of Pedestrians to Adjust Signal Timing: 

Characteristics of Intersections 

Intersections 

Street 1: No. 

of 

Through 

Lanes 

Street 2: 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent 

Land Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 

9th & Howard 

Streets 5 4 Gas Station, Commercial 25 

Intersection also is 

red light photo 

enforcement location. 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

Because the item is not an actual traffic control device, but only a detection system, it is not 

addressed by MUTCD. 

National Use: 

No other use of video detection for this application in the United States is known. The following 

U.S. cities have installed and are currently operating (ITS) automated detection of pedestrians at 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

55

signalized intersections: Portland, Oregon (infrared and microwave detectors), Los Angeles 

(microwave pedestrian detection sensors). Miami and Las Vegas are testing automated detection 

on an experimental basis.10 The system most similar to the San Francisco experiment is the 

microwave pedestrian detection system in Los Angeles, where curbside microwave detectors 

activate the pedestrian call while crosswalk detectors extend the clearance interval. 

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Unit Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment previously 

purchased

Installation Labor $2,700 $2,700 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$14,600 $14,600 

Total Cost $17,300 $17,300 

The out-of-pocket costs shown above were far lower than costs would have been for an entirely 

new system. Not only was the camera “borrowed” from a previous traffic-related installation, 

but Econolite provided extensive technical assistance without charge. 

Availability: 

Automated video detection equipment is available off the shelf. However, the technology 

requires extensive programming. 

Vendors: 

There are multiple vendors of the video equipment. 

Econolite, Anaheim, California, http://www.econolite.com/products/autoscope/default.asp 

MS SEDCO Indianapolis, Indiana, http://www.mssedco.com/traffic.html 

Marlin Controls Inc. Danbury, Connecticut, http://www.marlin-controls.com/detectors.html 

4th Dimension Traffic of San Francisco provided the signal controller software 

http://www.4dtraffic.com

How/Who Installed: 

An existing video detection camera at 9th and Howard Street, installed prior to the study as part 

of the existing SFGo Traffic Management System for traffic monitoring purposes, was used to 

detect pedestrians. This video camera is part of San Francisco’s SFGo system, a real-time traffic 

management system that includes traffic signal coordination at 100 key intersections. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Permission from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) prior to installation on streetlight poles 

is required. 

 

10 http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsmart/places.htm 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

56

igns were installed midInstallation Challenges: 

The camera required physical adjustment. Due to the fact that the study intersection was also the 

site of a red light camera program, issues arose such as the location of the crosswalk lines versus 

advanced stop bars and where in the intersection the video cameras would be. Ideally, the video 

detection logic should be adjusted because vehicles encroaching into the crosswalk also activated 

the extension of pedestrian crossing time. 

Maintenance Needs: 

It is necessary to monitor the video cameras to ensure that they are operating properly and are 

angled correctly towards the crosswalks. 

3.12. CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SPEED LIMIT SIGN 

Purpose and Description: 

Fixed Changeable Message Speed Limit signs (also 

known as driver feedback signs, radar speed display 

signs, or variable message signs) are interactive signs, 

generally constructed of a series of LEDs that display 

vehicle speed as motorists approach. Their purpose is to 

make drivers aware of their current speed and to 

encourage those who are speeding to slow down to the 

legal limit. They are used as a traffic calming device in 

addition to or instead of physical devices such as speed 

humps. 

 

Four Changeable Message Speed Limit signs were installed, two at 

each of two locations; west of Castro on Market Street and near the 

newly-relocated Bessie Carmichael School in the South of Market 

neighborhood. The precise installation locations were selected 

because they had been identified as areas where speeding was a 

problem, and also because the utility poles to which they were 

mounted offered convenient electrical service for the signs. 

Changeable Message Speed Limit signs display the speed of 

oncoming traffic and flash LEDs when a vehicle exceeds the posted 

speed limit. Above a certain maximum, the sign “blanks out” to avoid 

enticing drivers into exhibitions of speed. Speed data were 

downloaded using a Palm Pilot PDA with Bluetooth software. The s

block near the four locations shown in Table 3.12-1. 

Table 3.12-1 

Changeable Message Speed Limit : Characteristics of Intersections 

Locations Facing Traffic 

Direction 

Street : 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent 

Land Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

57

Locations Facing Traffic 

Direction 

Street : 

No. of 

Through 

Lanes 

Primary 

Adjacent 

Land Uses 

Posted 

Speed 

Limit 

Notes 

Market Street, 

west of Castro St. 

Southeastbound 

(outbound) 4 

Commercial 

and 

Residential 

30 

On grade near boundary 

between residential and 

high-density mixed uses. 

Market Street, 

west of Castro 

Street, near 

Douglas Street 

Northwestbound 

(inbound) 4 Residential 30 

On grade near boundary 

between residential and 

high-density mixed uses. 

Harrison Street, 

east of 7th Street Westbound 5 Institutional, Industrial 30 

On major arterial approach 

to Bessie Carmichael 

Elementary 

Folsom St. W of 

7th St. Eastbound 5 

Institutional, 

Industrial, 

Commercial, 

Residential 

30 

On major arterial approach 

to Bessie Carmichael 

Elementary 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

Use of fixed radar speed signs is approved by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD). The MUTCD Expressway specifications dictate that the digits be 18” in height, and 

36” by 48” sign dimensions. The signs are typically used on roadways with 45+ MPH speed 

limits. 

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

dimensions allowed are 24” by 30” (with digits 12" in height), and provides for larger 

dimensions in increments of six inches "where speed, volume, or other factors result in 

conditions where increased emphasis, improved recognition, or increased legibility would be 

desirable" [2003 MUTCD 2B.03]. 

Many vendors offer a larger, more visible 30” x 42" display sign with digits 15” in height, which 

vendors claim has become the overwhelming choice for school zones, neighborhoods, and 

playground areas. The 30” x 42” sign is 75% larger than the MUTCD minimum. It provides 

improved visibility, but is not inappropriately large for this application, as may be the case with 

the even larger 36” x 48” sign. 

All radar speed signs must be FCC approved, and must display an identification plate with the 

appropriate FCC information. SpeedCheck radar speed signs meet both of these requirements.11

National Use: 

Fixed Changeable Message Speed Limit signs are commonly used in major cities, towns, and 

near college campuses and schools where speeding along major corridors has been identified. 

San Francisco has focused their use primarily on key arterial routes and near schools. 

 

11 MUTCD speed radar sign guidelines: http://www.informationdisplay.com/radar-speed-sign-FAQ.shtml. 10/19/07. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

58

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Cost per 

Sign

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $22,900 $5,700

Installation Labor $13,600 $3,400 

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$11,700 $2,900

Total Cost $48,200 $12,000 

Availability: 

Changeable Message Speed Limit signs are available off the shelf from multiple vendors. 

Vendors: 

There are multiple vendors. 

SpeedCheck Information Display Products, Indianapolis, Indiana, 

http://enforcementproducts.com/speedmonitoringtrailers.html 

Wattco, State College, Pennsylvania, http://www.wattco.net/ats.htm 

3M, St. Paul, Minnesota, 

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Traffic_Safety/TSS/Offerings/Products/ 

Permanent_Signing/ 

Fortel Traffic, Inc., Anaheim, California, http://www.forteltraffic.com/ 

Western Pacific, San Leandro, California, http://www.wpsignal.com/gh/fsmd.htm 

How/Who Installed: 

The Changeable Message Speed Limit signs were procured in a competitive bid process but 

were installed by City forces. The fixed radar speed signs were installed on street light poles with 

appropriate electrical service points by the San Francisco DPT signal shop. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: 

Approval is required from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to install fixed radar speed 

signs on existing streetlight poles with appropriate electrical service points. 

Installation Challenges: 

Street light poles needed to be surveyed to determine whether appropriate electrical wiring and 

service points were available for connection to the fixed radar speed signs. In addition to being 

located where electricity was available, the signs also needed to be placed at strategic locations 

(e.g., not too close to intersections or to visual distractions). Some of the selected locations did 

not have adequate electrical service points so alternate locations had to be found for the 

installations. At some of the locations, the growth of nearby trees blocked visibility of the signs, 

requiring tree branches to be trimmed, and at one location the radar speed sign had to be 

relocated to a different street light pole location not blocked by foliage. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

59

Maintenance Needs: 

Radar speed signs must be monitored to verify that they are working properly. Nearby tree 

branches and other foliage may require regular pruning if they block the visibility of the signs by 

drivers. 

3.13. RETRO-REFLECTIVE MATERIALS 

Purpose and Description: 

As part of pedestrian safety 

outreach, several types of 

retro-reflective materials were 

chosen for distribution to San 

Francisco pedestrians, 

particularly school children 

and seniors. The retroreflective items were chosen 

based on extensive discussions with educators, public health 

professionals, and advocates for seniors and children. Zipper pulls, 

clipsters, and belt wraps were identified as the most useful items for 

school children, while clipsters, badge clipsters, and armbands were 

considered most useful for seniors. The items were embellished with 

retro-reflective material and printed with slogans such as “Be Safe, Be Seen” or “Look, Slow 

Down, Focus.” 

Federal/State Approval Status (MUTCD): 

Because the item is not a traffic control device, it is not addressed by MUTCD. 

National Use: 

Retro-reflective materials are becoming more commonly used in pedestrian safety campaigns 

nationwide. 

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Unit Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment $7,300 $1.39 

Installation Labor n/a n/a

Engineering/Administration 

L b

$7,200 $1 

Total Cost $14,500 $1.39 

Note: There were 5,250 units of retro-reflective materials purchased (mainly zipper pulls and clipsters, some 

armbands and belt wraps) totaling $7,300. 

Availability:

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

Vendors: 

Multiple vendors supply retro-reflective materials for pedestrian safety campaigns. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

60

How/Who Installed: 

The retro-reflective materials were distributed primarily by SFMTA staff to middle/elementary 

schools and senior citizen centers, and then by their staffs to individual students and seniors. 

 

Utility/Environmental Issues: Not applicable. 

Installation Challenges: 

It was particularly challenging to contact, organize, and publicize multiple community meetings 

at schools and senior citizen centers, and to recruit volunteers to help distribute the pedestrian 

safety retro-reflective materials. 

 

Maintenance Needs: Not applicable. 

3.14. EDUCATION 

Purpose and Description: 

The PedSafe outreach program is described in more detail in Chapter 5 and in Appendix A. 

The outreach plan focused on delivering basic safety tips in addition to information regarding 

PedSafe countermeasures. The outreach was implemented in two ways. The first component 

involved conducting outreach with municipal agencies responsible for pedestrian safety through 

regular inter-agency contacts. In addition, outreach was conducted jointly with grassroots 

community groups and the City Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, integrated with other 

projects. 

The second phase of the plan involved specific PedSafe safety measure education outreach with 

three components: (1) in-person education in five schools and six senior centers located within 

the PedSafe area zones, (2) distribution of retro-reflective materials, and (3) distribution of two 

video public service announcements (PSAs) to local media outlets. This public outreach was 

coordinated with San Francisco’s Safe Schools Project, funded in part by the State of California, 

Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). 

The video PSAs, were translated into Spanish, Russian, Chinese-Mandarin, and ChineseCantonese. These were distributed to cable and ethnic/small TV stations for airplay at no charge. 

Their messages focused on the need for drivers to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, and for 

pedestrians to obey safety signals. 

 

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

National Use: 

Many cities and towns in the United States have implemented pedestrian safety campaigns. The 

Federal Highway Administration and Walking Info.org, (the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information 

Center) offer information and resources for conducting pedestrian safety education campaigns. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

61

The City of San Jose has won an award for their StreetSmarts pedestrian safety outreach 

program. 

Cost: 

Item Total Cost Unit Cost

Materials/Supplies/Equipment

Installation Labor $1,200 for video 

production

Engineering/Administration 

Labor

$14,600 for video 

distribution and 

direct outreach

Total Cost $15,800 

Availability: 

There are many national and local organizations that provide information and resources about 

how to conduct pedestrian safety education campaigns. The video PSAs were available free of 

charge from the FHWA Pedestrian Safety Campaign Toolbox. 

(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_program/pedcampaign/index.htm). 

Vendors: 

Consultants are available to provide media development services. 

How/Who Installed: 

The pedestrian safety educational outreach efforts emphasized the specific for school children 

and seniors walking in their neighborhoods and provided area-specific safety suggestions. The 

presentations focused on providing information about how to use the pedestrian safety devices 

installed as part of the PedSafe program. The grassroots media campaign consisted of hiring a 

consultant to translate public service announcement videos into other languages to deliver a 

targeted message to drivers and pedestrians. The PSAs were sent to several television media 

outlets for airplay during available public service announcement slots. The PSAs were presented 

in English as well as Spanish, Russian, and Chinese to communicate with San Francisco’s 

diverse non-English speaking communities. 

Utility/Environmental Issues: Not applicable. 

Installation Challenges: 

Extensive time and coordination was required to organize community meetings at schools and 

senior center sites 

Maintenance Needs: Not applicable 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

62

 

3.15. DEVICES NOT DEPLOYED 

Several countermeasures originally proposed in the Phase I Concept Plan were not implemented. 

The reasons are explained as follows. 

3.15.1. SMART LIGHTING AND OTHER LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS 

“Smart lighting” is a promising concept of supplemental street corner and crosswalk lighting 

triggered by pedestrian detection. Besides the additional illumination, the device could in theory 

alert drivers to the presence of the pedestrians. The Phase I Concept Plan proposed this 

countermeasure for several intersections that had experienced higher numbers of nighttime 

pedestrian injuries, based on findings regarding the general safety benefits of enhanced roadway 

lighting. The FHWA publication Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide refers to two 

studies indicating that additional lighting led to a 30% reduction in all collisions in one study, 

and a 43% reduction in fatal crashes and 17% reduction in injury crashes in a second study.12 

More detailed research early in Phase II could not find a major U.S. city that had experimented 

with this technology, although it was proposed for use in Miami and Las Vegas.13 SFMTA 

management was concerned about the possible liability exposure from such a device. In addition 

to the potential liability exposure from the possible malfunctioning of a new device, there was 

also potential for drivers or pedestrians to claim that glare or distraction created by the device 

contributed to a crash. 

Street lighting is not managed by the Department of Parking and Traffic in San Francisco, and 

the other two departments that operate street lights (Public Utilities Commission) and design 

lighting improvements (Public Works) were not interested in cooperating on street lighting 

improvements considering the funding available. (Although these departments were consulted 

during Phase I, the departments felt the overall size of the project budget available in Phase II 

was insufficient.) 

3.15.2. UPGRADE OF IN-PAVEMENT CROSSWALK LIGHTS 

In-pavement crosswalk lights have been found to be effective at reducing conflicts in San 

Francisco at four different locations (as described in Chapter 4, Section 4.3-3). However, there is 

disagreement about which type of lighting display is the most effective. For example, 

LightGuard products include a “Pedestrian Crossing” warning sign with LEDs and in-pavement 

lights which is visible from both approaches, while the Traffic Safety Corp. version uses unidirectional lights. 

12 Kittleson & Associates for FHWA, Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide, August 2004, Report No. 

FHWA-HRT-04-091. 

13 According to FHWA website statistics, four metro areas were using “smart lighting” as of 2004: West Palm 

Beach, Los Angeles/Orange/Riverside Counties, Chicago, and Dallas/Fort Worth. See 

http://itsdeployment2.ornl.gov/deploymentstatistics/Results.asp?ID=828&rpt=M&Year=2004 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

63

In the Phase I Concept Plan, DPT proposed repairing and upgrading the Mission and Santa Rosa 

crosswalk pavement lights, a Traffic Safety Corp. device, which had been installed prior to the 

PedSafe project . This could have included a more visible configuration of lights. The Mission & 

Santa Rosa installation had proven unreliable and had been turned off indefinitely, due primarily 

to water collecting in the cans below the lights, despite waterproofing efforts by electricians, and 

due secondarily to problems with the microwave pedestrian detection units. Pressure from policy 

makers and the news media persuaded DPT to remove the lights and commit to replacing them 

with flashing beacons, rather than attempt any upgrade. Data were already collected at all four 

in-pavement crosswalk light locations. 

3.15.3. PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE (EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE) 

San Francisco has a long history with pedestrian scramble phasing (exclusive pedestrian phases), 

dating back to the 1950s with several intersections in the financial district. During Phase I of the 

PedSafe project (but completely separate from the PedSafe project, and without any federal 

funding), new pedestrian scramble phases were installed at four intersections on Stockton Street. 

A fifth adjacent intersection was proposed for Phase II at Stockton and Sacramento Streets, and 

initial work started, including investigation of equipment needs and development of new signal 

timings. 

 

However, implementation was deferred indefinitely due to concerns about impacts on Muni 

public transit schedule adherence. Extensive analysis was conducted to measure the impacts of 

the previous pedestrian scramble phases and to determine whether potential delays to Muni could 

be mitigated. This additional intersection is particularly sensitive to delays to Muni because there 

are three major lines on Stockton and one on Sacramento, with combined ridership (about 80,000 

weekday passenger trips) exceeding many rail transit lines in the nation. 

This improvement is still planned for the future after transit signal priority can be provided and 

other signal timing adjustments made to satisfy Muni management. 

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

pedestrian scramble intersections. 

3.15.4. ANIMATED EYES SIGNALS 

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

vendor, Relume, lost interest in supporting experimentation with the device in San Francisco, 

apparently after assessing the market potential for the devices. City staff also expressed 

skepticism about the effectiveness of this concept. Some even characterized it as “cartoon-like.” 

Because San Francisco is committed to the countdown version of pedestrian signals, any such 

device would also need to include the countdown element. It is logistically difficult to ensure that 

all of the symbols (eyes plus hand/walking man), in addition to the countdown numbers, are 

visible within the standard pedestrian signal head (16” x 18”). 

The “LOOK” pavement stencils are considered a “low tech” variation on this concept. However, 

they are less striking and much easier to “tune out” than a novel pedestrian signal. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

64

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

65

4. DATA ANALYSIS OF COUNTERMEASURES 

4.1. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT (BY REFERENCE) 

Detailed data analysis of PedSafe countermeasures is presented in the separate January 2008 

Data Analysis Report. The report was authored primarily by the UC Berkeley Traffic Safety 

Center (TSC), with support and review by the SFMTA. While that report is summarized in the 

Executive Summary, readers interested in the safety effectiveness of the PedSafe 

countermeasures should refer to the full Data Analysis Report. This is incorporated by reference. 

The Data Analysis Report focused primarily on the impacts of the countermeasures on pedestrian 

and driver behavior and pedestrian attitudes. The report did not include the following material 

regarding the performance of pedestrian detectors used at several PedSafe study locations. 

4.2. PEDESTRIAN DETECTOR PERFORMANCE 

4.2.1. PEDESTRIAN DETECTOR OVERVIEW 

Automated detection of pedestrians was used in San Francisco prior to the PedSafe project to 

activate in-pavement crosswalk lights. Both overhead microwave detection units and infrared 

bollards have been used, and as described in Section 4.3-3, the infrared detection has proven 

more effective. 

Automated detection of pedestrians was installed at two locations specifically for the PedSafe 

project. For the Mission and Santa Rosa location automated pedestrian detection using infrared 

bollards and in-pavement surface automated detection (ISAD) was tested. When adjusted 

correctly, the detector performance was similar to that reported for the in-pavement lights in 

Section 4.3-3. For the intersection of 9th and Howard Streets video detection for the purpose of 

increasing pedestrian crossing time was tested, using a camera initially installed at this 

intersection by the city’s new Integrated Transportation Management System, SFgo. Since this is 

a new detector technology, an evaluation of its performance is included. 

Howard and 9th Streets are major, five-lane arterials; Howard Street is one-way westbound and 

9th Street is one-way northbound. The video detection camera focused on a single Howard Street 

crosswalk. Detection zones were set up similar to virtual “detector loops” in three zones. As 

shown in Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, the detector loops appear as bars within the northeast 

crosswalk. When a late-crossing pedestrian is detected, the “Ped Call” indicator appears at the 

top of the screen (see Figure 4.2-3). Equations were developed to predict whether a pedestrian in 

a zone at a specific time late in the Flashing Red Hand phase would likely still be crossing when 

cross traffic was released. A compensating extension of up to 3 seconds was triggered, 

depending on how late the pedestrian appeared to be. This resulted in an extension of the green 

ball and solid Red Hand phase (as if the traffic green were extended at the very end of its phase, 

but in this case to encourage pedestrians to finish crossing quickly). 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

66

It was intended that the logic would minimize extensions due to vehicles encroaching on the 

crosswalk. The manufacturer, Econolite, has offered to work on this problem, but this has not yet 

taken place. 

Figure 4.2-1 

9th & Howard Intersection with Video Camera at Top of Streetlight Pole 

 View courtesy of Google, Inc. 

Figure 4.2-2 

Northeast Crosswalk with Video Detection Zones at 9th & Howard 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

67

Figure 4.2-3 

 Econolite Autoscope Pedestrian Detection Zones and Display

Autoscope Layout

4.2.2. VIDEO DETECTION: DATA COLLECTION METHODS 

To assess the detector performance at 9th and Howard Streets, we focused on the following 

primary outcome variables: (1) the percentage of pedestrian who complete crossing during the 

Red Hand phase or during the red traffic signal, (2) the number of vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, 

(3) the percentage of missed activations, and (4) the percentage of false activations. After 

installation, pedestrian data and observations were manually collected at 9th and Howard Streets 

for a 30-minute period during the noon hour on Tuesday, March 6, 2007. We conducted before 

and after observations for the primary variables in addition to the following information: number 

of pedestrians crossing, whether there was a 3-second extension, the reason for the extension 

(late pedestrian, autos encroaching in crosswalk, or other reason). We also noted whether the 

pedestrian was running, aborted the crossing, and any vehicle/pedestrian conflicts as well as the 

location (lane #) of the pedestrian at the end of the Flashing Red Hand (FRH) phase. 

Additionally, Econolite Autoscope Detector software is able to generate a log of the signal 

activations. This can be reviewed to determine how many and how long the actual extensions 

were. 

4.2.3. VIDEO DETECTION: MANUAL DATA COLLECTION RESULTS 

During a 30-minute manual count, the automated pedestrian detection system consistently 

detected late-crossing pedestrians who activated the 3-second extension. Most late-crossing 

pedestrians triggered the extension while in the second lane from the curb from either side of 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

68

Howard Street. A total of 70 pedestrians were counted crossing the eastside crosswalk at Howard 

Street. Of the total number of pedestrians crossing, 8 (11%) of the counted pedestrians activated 

the pedestrian crossing phase extension by crossing late. Four (6%) of those 8 pedestrians were 

in a group. There were 5 false extension activations due to vehicles encroaching into the 

crosswalk to make a right turn on a red onto 9th Street northbound from the curb lane. All of the 

observed late-crossing pedestrians were detected by the camera which triggered the extension. 

The vehicle encroachment into the crosswalk triggering the pedestrian extension did not impact 

the traffic flow and no vehicle/pedestrian conflicts were observed. In addition, no pedestrians 

were observed running or aborting their crossings. 

4.2.4. VIDEO DETECTION: AUTOMATED DATA COLLECTION RESULTS 

The manual results are consistent with findings by Econolite that during a typical 3-hour 

afternoon period, there was an extension over 1 second in length for 14% of the cycles. (See 

Figure 4.2-4.) The signal timing was set so that an extension was followed by a compensating 

reduction in the Walk phase of the next cycle to maintain the average 60-second cycle. In the 

figure, the bars exceeding 60 seconds indicate triggering of the timing extension, while bars 

shorter than 60 seconds indicate the compensating reduction in time during the following cycle. 

The figure suggests that the extension logic was successfully implemented. 

Figure 4.2-4 

Pattern of Cycle Lengths 

Cycle Time

52.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

60.0

62.0

64.0

1:29:26 PM1:39:26 PM1:49:26 PM1:59:26 PM2:09:26 PM2:19:26 PM2:29:26 PM2:39:28 PM2:49:26 PM2:59:29 PM3:09:26 PM3:19:26 PM3:29:26 PM3:39:26 PM3:49:26 PM3:59:26 PM4:09:26 PM4:19:26 PM
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

69

4.3. ANALYSIS OF NON-PEDSAFE COUNTERMEASURES 

The following presents analyses performed for countermeasures that were not installed with 

FHWA funding. These analyses were conducted outside of the PedSafe Evaluation Plan, and 

often used different measures of effectiveness, data collection techniques, and schedules. 

4.3.1. PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE 

As described above, the SFMTA was unable to implement a pedestrian scramble (exclusive 

pedestrian phase) during the PedSafe deployment phase. However, extensive data collection and 

analysis was conducted on four adjacent Stockton Street scramble intersections, with similar 

traffic and pedestrian characteristics, during the Planning Phase I, under a totally separate 

project. These four intersections (at Pacific Avenue, Jackson, Washington, and Clay Streets ) 

have somewhat higher pedestrian volumes and slightly lower cross street traffic volumes than the 

intersection at Sacramento Street. It was also possible to do pedestrian collision analysis for 

these four intersections and several others. 

Pedestrian Scramble Collision Impacts 

The raw number of pedestrian injury crashes before and after installation at the four existing 

Stockton Street study intersections increased (comparing equal 2.5-year periods) from 2 to 4. 

(See Figure 4.3-1.) However, there were factors suggesting that this result should not imply that 

the pedestrian scramble phasing itself was causing more pedestrian injuries. First, the preinstallation crash level was relatively low compared to the high pedestrian volumes, suggesting 

that an increase could represent regression to the mean. Second, two of four post-installation 

crashes could not be related to signal phasing (in one case the pedestrian scramble was not 

operating and in the other case, the pedestrian was hit by a vehicle backing up). Also, all of the 

post-installation injuries were suffered by elderly pedestrians, possibly related to their relative 

difficulty in adapting to such a change. 

The collision impacts of pedestrian scramble phasing at other intersections have been positive. 

Three other intersections outside of Chinatown experienced substantial reductions in pedestrianinvolved collisions after the scramble phasing was introduced. The per-year pedestrian crash 

averages are as follows: 

• Stockton & O’Farrell: 1.0 crashes pre-installation versus 0.3 crashes post-installation 

• 4th & Howard: 1.4 crashes pre-installation versus 0.2 crashes post-installation 

• 4th & Folsom: 0.4 crashes pre-installation versus 0.2 crashes post-installation 

The differences are substantial enough that it is not necessary to compare to control intersections 

or annual trends. 

While there are a number of other pedestrian scramble intersections in San Francisco 

(particularly on Montgomery Street), these were introduced such a long time ago, that there are 

no pre-installation crash tabulations available. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

70

The national research has been summarized as follows: 

“Using exclusive pedestrian intervals that stop traffic in all directions has been shown to reduce 

pedestrian crashes by 50 percent in some locations (i.e., downtown locations with heavy 

pedestrian volumes and low vehicle speeds and volumes).”14 

Figure 4.3-1. 

Impact of Pedestrian Scrambles on Pedestrian Safety and Convenience

Figure 4.3-1 

Impact of Pedestrian Scrambles on 

Through Vehicle Speeds on Stockton Street 

 

14Zegeer, C.V. and C. Seiderman. “Designing for Pedestrians.” In 2001 Compendium of Technical Papers, ITE, 71st

Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL Washington, DC: ITE, 2001. Zegeer, C.V. et al. Pedestrian Signalization Alternatives. 

Report No. FHWA/RD-83/102, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1983. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

71

Pedestrian Scramble Impacts on Pedestrian/Driver Behavior 

The total number of vehicle/pedestrian conflicts observed at Stockton Street pedestrian scramble 

intersections decreased from 7.0% to 1.1%. However, the proportion of pedestrians running or 

aborting their crossing increased at each intersection, in total from 5.3% to 11.2%. One possible 

reason is that late in the exclusive pedestrian phase, with no conflicting auto movements and the 

countdown showing few seconds remaining, many pedestrians are emboldened to cross even 

though they must run to finish crossing before traffic is released. 

Pedestrian Scramble and Pedestrian Attitudes 

A post-installation pedestrian intercept survey was conducted by UC Berkeley Traffic Safety 

Center (TSC) researchers on Stockton Street. Among over 150 respondents, 69.5% said they felt 

safer with the pedestrian scramble phase in use. A strong majority favored the phasing change, 

with 72% saying they liked it “very much.” 

Pedestrian Scramble and Muni Transit Operating Speeds 

The northbound impact found by TSC researchers was a reduction in Muni operating speed, 

including dwell time, from 3.55 MPH to 2.94 MPH (a 21% impact). (See Figure 4.3-2.) The 

actual impact on running time in the five blocks between Broadway and Sacramento was an 

average of 55 additional seconds. 

There was a high level of variability in Muni travel times, with a standard deviation of 69 

seconds and an average 5:51 travel time (coefficient of variation, or standard deviation as a 

proportion of the mean, was 0.20) for southbound PM peak between Broadway and Sacramento 

and 41 seconds standard deviation for northbound PM peak. 

Mean boarding times on Stockton during the PM peak ranged between 38 and 51 seconds at each 

stop location (this included only time that the bus was actually stopped, not 

acceleration/deceleration delay). The standard deviation was 13 to 16 seconds for four of the five 

stops, but 24 seconds for the Jackson/Washington northbound stop. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

72

 

Total Muni signal delay averaged 88.6 seconds southbound and 85.7 seconds northbound per 

bus. This compares to the worst-case scenario of waiting through every red phase of about 220 

seconds (which is the sum of the red phases at each intersection). 

Pedestrian Scramble and Auto Operating Speeds 

Auto speeds for through vehicles on Stockton Street decreased significantly after the installation 

of the pedestrian scramble, from 6.8 MPH to 3.8 MPH (44%) northbound and from 8.2 to 4.9 

MPH (40%) southbound. These estimates were determined by floating car speed runs. 

Auto speeds on the side streets were found to improve with the pedestrian scramble. This could 

be because prior to the installation, heavy vehicle turns from the side streets (often effectively 

with one lane approaches) were delayed by pedestrians crossing Stockton Street, delaying all 

vehicles on the approach. 

As expected, the pedestrian scramble brought a major reduction in vehicle delays caused by 

conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians. The number of turning vehicles delayed by 

pedestrians decreased by an unweighted average of 79% at the four intersections (up to 88%). 

The actual vehicle-seconds of delay caused by pedestrians decreased substantially to nearly zero. 

Computerized traffic modeling using the Synchro TM software package was conducted to analyze 

the effects of signal timing on vehicle progression. The results indicated that offsets were not 

well timed for a steady 25 MPH progression. However, field observations suggest that it is quite 

difficult to model or optimize traffic flows during peak activity periods because there is so much 

friction from double parkers, parking maneuvers, bus maneuvers, and jaywalkers (plus a very 

distracting visual environment). Speeds are extremely variable. 

4.3.2. PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS 

San Francisco has been a national leader in the use of pedestrian countdown signals, converting 

virtually all of the pedestrian signals citywide (over 800 intersections) to the countdown version 

This was completed outside of the FHWA PedSafe project, and the results of the conversion 

were reported separately and in greater detail15 Pedestrian countdown signals have been 

proposed as the standard form of the device for revisions to the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices expected in 2009. 

Pedestrian Countdown Signal Pilot Project: Pedestrian Injury Decline 

During the 14-intersection pilot project, pedestrian injuries decreased by about half at 

intersections equipped with countdown signals. However, this decline was not statistically 

greater than the decline at control intersections not receiving countdown signals. This likely 

reflects some regression to the mean. 

15 Markowitz, F., Sciortino, S, Fleck, J. and B. Yee. “Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience with an Extensive 

Pilot Installation.” ITE Journal, vol. 76, no. 1 (January 2006): 43-48. Fielding, S. Pedestrian Countdown Signals: 

Evaluation of Citywide Installation in San Francisco. Pro Walk Pro Bike Presentation, Madison, WI, September 5, 

2006. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

73

In general, when countdown signals were installed, both during the pilot installation phase, and 

during the later citywide installation, signal timing was also changed. Previously, the San 

Francisco practice was to carry the flashing Red Hand (flashing Don’t Walk) pedestrian phase 

through the yellow traffic indication phase. The solid Red Hand (solid Don’t Walk) started 

concurrently with the start of the red traffic indication. With the countdown signal installation, 

this changed so that the solid Red Hand began at the beginning of the yellow phase, more 

consistent with the signal practice of other cities in Northern California.

Pedestrian Countdown Signal Impacts On Pedestrian Behavior and Attitudes 

Pedestrian countdown signals were responsible for statistically significant improvements in 

pedestrian behavior and attitudes. Pedestrians finishing crossing in the red phase decreased from 

14% to 9%. The proportion of pedestrians running or aborting their crossing decreased from 13% 

to 8%. The proportion of pedestrians finding the pedestrian signals “very helpful” increased from 

34% to 76%. (See Figure 4.3-3.)
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

74

Figure 4.3-2 

Pedestrian Countdown Signals Pilot Project: Impacts on Behavior and Attitudes 

Pedestrian Countdown Signal: Citywide Conversion Collision Impacts

At 579 intersections converted from conventional to countdown pedestrian signals, the number 

of pedestrian injury collisions decreased by 22%. During the same period, at 204 other 

signalized intersections without countdown signals, the decline was only 2%. The proportion of 

all traffic collisions attributed to red light running decreased from 45% to 34%. While there were 

numerous factors affecting the decline in the number of drivers running red lights, it is likely that 

the countdown devices played a major role by providing warning to drivers approaching a green 

light about to change. 

4.3.3. IN-PAVEMENT CROSSWALK LIGHTS 

In-pavement crosswalk lights were installed at four locations in San Francisco: three by the city 

and county (DPT) in 2001 and the first by a private school (in Spring 2000). Three of these 

locations were mid-block (two connecting school facilities on either side of local streets with 

minimal non-student use, the other connecting City Hall with a civic plaza across a four-lane 

collector street with much heavier and more diverse pedestrian volume). The fourth was at an 

uncontrolled crosswalk at a T-intersection on a four-lane arterial in a neighborhood commercial 

district and this installation was later replaced by flashing beacons. 

Two locations used the LightGuard TM technology with: 

• Bi-Directional Lights 

• “Ped X-ing” Warning Sign With LED Lights 

• Infrared Bollards to Detect Pedestrians Entering the Crosswalk 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

75

Two other locations used Traffic Safety Corporation technology, featuring: 

• Uni-Directional Lights 

• No LED Warning Sign 

• Overhead Microwave Detection of Pedestrians Entering the Crosswalk 

At the three mid-block locations, prior to and after the installations, crossing guards were 

deployed. This should be taken into account in comparing the San Francisco locations to other 

cities. (The City Hall crosswalk is staffed by a police officer throughout most of the day. The 

Page Street location is staffed by a school crossing guard at peak crossing periods. The Francisco 

Street crosswalk is supervised by teachers when large groups of students cross.) 

In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights: Collision Impacts 

There were no clear impacts of the in-pavement lights on reported pedestrian collisions. At the 

City Hall location, on Polk Street mid-block between Grove and McAllister Streets (a 

LightGuard site), there were no pedestrian injuries reported five years before or five years after 

installation. At the other LightGuard site (Page Street, mid-block between Ashbury and Masonic 

Streets), there was one reported pedestrian injury in each of the five years before and after 

installation. 

At the Francisco Street location, there were no pedestrian injury collisions prior to installation 

versus two injury collisions after the installation. However, one of the post-installation collisions 

was not preventable by the device, as it involved a vehicle backing up. 

At the Mission & Santa Rosa intersection, pedestrian injury collisions increased from two to five 

after installation. However, the in-pavement lights were either malfunctioning or removed during 

much of the five-year post-installation period, so no conclusions could be drawn.

In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights: Detector Performance 

At the two infrared bollard locations, 91-94% of pedestrians were detected correctly, and only 2-

9% of activations were false. By contrast, at one microwave pedestrian detection location, only 

71-86% of pedestrians were detected correctly, and 24% of activations were false. 

In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights: Driver/Pedestrian Behavior 

For the combined microwave pedestrian detection data (at the two installations), the number of 

drivers stopping for pedestrians increased from 53% before installation to 72% after installation. 

The percentage of pedestrians running to complete or aborting their crossing actually increased 

from 2% to 5%. 

At the City Hall infrared bollard installation, the proportion of drivers stopping for pedestrians, 

increased from 67% to 82%. The percentage of pedestrians running to complete or aborting their 

crossing was reduced from 6% to 3%. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

76

 

In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights: Pedestrian Attitudes 

At the same location, pedestrian intercept interviews were conducted. Of those aware of the 

lights, 50% deemed them to be “very helpful” in helping them to cross safely. Also, 73% 

believed drivers were yielding more frequently. 

4.3.4. ACCESSIBLE (AUDIBLE) PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS 

Modern accessible pedestrian signals (APS) provide an audible and vibrotactile indication of the 

Walk signal to the blind and visually impaired. They also can provide audible and Braille 

information about the intersection name and crosswalk orientation. San Francisco has installed 

APS devices at 52 intersections. 

While intended primarily to serve visually impaired pedestrians, the devices also appear to 

benefit sighted pedestrians. Observations were conducted at five pilot intersections recently 

equipped with APS, mostly in the Civic Center area. The proportion of sighted pedestrians 

finishing on the solid Red Hand decreased from 27% to 17%, while the proportion starting on the 

Walk phase increased from 59% to 70%.16

16 The sample sizes (N) were 296 pre-installation and 418 post-installation. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

77

 

5. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION 

In San Francisco, multiple city agencies and non-profit groups conduct education and outreach 

about traffic and pedestrian safety topics frequently. Among these efforts are the following: 

• The Public Health Department has held traffic calming/pedestrian safety media campaigns 

annually for several years. Typically, a different theme is chosen for each year, for example, 

focusing on fines one year, and the benefits of courteous driving and walking the next year. 

• The Public Health Department holds an annual pedestrian safety summit for neighborhood 

organizations and citywide advocacy groups, providing a forum for sharing ideas regarding 

outreach efforts. 

• Advocacy groups such as Walk San Francisco and Senior Action Network hold media and 

public events, including demonstrations and meetings, to call attention to the need for 

improving safety. 

• The regional office of the California State Auto Association has focused on traffic and 

pedestrian safety over the last several years. For example, they funded the pilot countdown 

signal effort and distributed a flyer explaining how the devices work. 

• The Police Department Traffic Company participates in many of the above efforts. 

The education and outreach program developed specifically for PedSafe consisted of three 

tracks: (1) development/distribution of video public service announcements (PSAs) to cable and 

small/ethnic local TV stations, (2) presentations to schools and senior citizen facilities, and (3) 

distribution of retro-reflective materials at the presentations and independently. Details of the 

pedestrian outreach and education effort specifically for PedSafe are provided in Appendix A. 

The video PSAs were initially included in the FHWA Pedestrian Safety Campaign Planner. One 

of these very short (20 second) PSAs was targeted toward drivers, and the other had messages 

for both pedestrians and drivers. SFMTA staff arranged for Spanish, Russian, 

Chinese/Cantonese, and Chinese/Mandarin voice-over versions. These were distributed to local 

TV and cable stations, with the assistance of a media expert: Dave Winters of DW Multimedia of 

Emeryville, California. 

The City government cable station claimed that it aired the PSAs 858 times, fairly evenly split 

among the different languages. The major regional cable operator indicated that their policy 

limits them to airing only PSAs sent from the corporate office and that they had therefore 

ignored our submittal. Four other local TV stations (including Spanish and Chinese language 

stations) declined to reply.17

17 The city government station is SFGTV (Channels 26 and 28). The other stations included Royal Channel (KMTP 

32), Univision (Channel 14 and 66), KTSF (Channel 26), and KNTC Azteca (Channel 42). The cable operator was 

Comcast, the largest regional service. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

78

The direct outreach program was presented at five senior centers and six public elementary and 

middle schools in or near study zones. The presentations included general safety tips and 

information about the PedSafe project and other topics related to pedestrian safety. Retroreflective items, such as armbands, were distributed at the presentations. 

The retro-reflective accessories were also provided to schools and senior centers that could not 

accommodate a presentation. The purchase included: 3,000 zipper pulls, 1,250 clipsters/badge 

holders, 750 armbands, and 250 belt wraps. The accessories were emblazoned safety slogans. 

It was not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the outreach efforts. However, UC Berkeley 

Traffic Safety Center observers were posted at Spring Valley Elementary School, located in San 

Francisco’s affluent Russian Hill neighborhood, one month after retro-reflective materials 

(armbands and bag/belt wraps) were distributed at a school assembly. No use was noted between 

7:30 and 8:00 AM during the third week of February 2006, as the students arrived at the school. 

Sunrise was about 6:45 AM, so there was marginal need for the children to be wearing the 

materials. However, that observation and anecdotal evidence suggest that use of the materials 

was limited. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

79

6. PHASE II CONCLUSIONS 

6.1. LESSONS LEARNED 

6.1.1. LESSONS LEARNED: OVERALL PROJECT SUCCESS AND 

COUNTERMEASURES 

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 project catalyzed San Francisco’s consideration and 

use of a number of innovative, generally lower-cost countermeasures. It also provided an 

opportunity for the San Francisco team to learn more about best practices in pedestrian safety 

from FHWA and other grantees. There are numerous off-the-shelf materials and references that 

are directly useful (much of it FHWA-produced such as the Pedestrian Safety Campaign 

Planner, the Walkable Community brochure, and numerous research reports). The lessons from 

this project will prove very useful in numerous future projects, such as the San Francisco Better 

Streets Plan. 

Because San Francisco had such a extensive pedestrian safety program even before PedSafe was 

initiated, there was limited room for the project to catalyze major citywide changes or to achieve 

high visibility, especially considering the project budget. For example, even before PedSafe, San 

Francisco assessed pedestrian injury “hot spots” and trends. Several San Francisco agencies 

devoted significant staff to pedestrian safety planning, engineering, education, and enforcement. 

Inter-agency and public advisory committees were formed outside of the project. 

The federal funding (about $680,000 or $120,000 per year) was extremely helpful and 

appreciated. However, on a per-year or per-intersection basis it was fairly limited, even 

compared to some other funding sources used for pedestrian and traffic safety. San Francisco 

has a sales tax dedicated to transportation uses that alone provides roughly $840,000 annually for 

“pedestrian circulation and safety.” The separate “traffic calming” allocation from this sales tax 

is around $2 million annually. Typical State of California grants for design and construction of 

pedestrian improvements (e.g., for improvements within four blocks of a specific elementary 

school or rail transit station) often range from $300,000 to $800,000, with minimal requirements 

for data collection and evaluation. 

The primary lessons learned from the project about countermeasures include the following: 

• There is 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 should, over the long term, decrease the number of pedestrian injuries. 

However, due to the project scheduling, it was not possible to directly observe the impacts 

on pedestrian-involved crashes, which would require several years of post-installation data 

to have meaningful results. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

80

• Of course, pedestrian safety is heavily affected by a wide range of factors beyond the 

control of a project such as PedSafe. (These include such factors as: driver licensing and 

other traffic law changes; Police enforcement activities; employment and other economic 

activity fluctuations; vehicle safety improvements (e.g., braking abilities), and other safety 

efforts (such as red light photo-enforcement programs). The ability of a project with the 

budget the size of this PedSafe effort to have a major citywide impact is limited, although it 

can certainly catalyze significant changes. 

• Particularly cost-effective countermeasures appear to be the in-pavement “Yield To 

Pedestrians” (YTP) signs and pedestrian countdown signals. (The pedestrian countdown 

signals, installed citywide in San Francisco, not only appear effective in aiding pedestrians in 

safer crossing, but also have some value in warning drivers of approach as the green light is 

about to change.) The In-Street Pedestrian signs were effective and relatively inexpensive, 

but susceptible to damage when not installed on raised islands. 

• By contrast, the “LOOK” pavement stencils seemed to have negligible value. 

• Low-cost but effective measures have the advantages of quick implementation and the 

potential to draw support and funding for further improvements. 

• Flashing beacons and in-pavement crosswalk lights both appeared effective at inducing 

drivers to yield to pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks. (The Mission & Santa Rosa 

flashing beacons are being replaced by a conventional traffic/pedestrian signal as a 

potentially stronger degree of protection for pedestrians and especially for turning vehicles.) 

• The Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign was more effective than the fixed speed 

display sign at reducing driver speeds. This may be due to drivers “tuning out” the fixed sign 

weeks or months after it is installed, in addition to the subliminal association of the trailer 

with police enforcement. 

• Pedestrian Scramble phasing is potentially quite effective for certain situations (e.g., smaller 

intersections with heavy volumes of turning vehicles and pedestrians), but can be difficult to 

use in some situations (e.g., wide intersections with heavy through traffic volumes, including 

transit service). 

• Pedestrian Head Starts had mixed results. There were substantial reductions in the number of 

vehicles turning in front of pedestrians at three of four intersections. However, these changes 

did not lead to a significant reduction in vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. 

• Video detection of pedestrians to extend crossing time appeared to be a promising 

technology, but needs further testing and refinement. 

• Infrared detection of pedestrians to trigger beacons or in-pavement lighting has been more 

effective in San Francisco than overhead microwave detection. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

81

• Accessible (Audible) Pedestrian Signals (APS) were helpful to both sighted pedestrians as 

well as visually impaired pedestrians. 

• Pedestrians appeared to appreciate most countermeasures, but showed minimal awareness of 

which devices were installed. There were essentially no common suggestions by pedestrians 

surveyed for improving intersection safety; suggestions varied widely. 

• It was not possible to make conclusions about how the overall effectiveness of the 

countermeasures varied by neighborhood or pedestrian characteristics (e.g., age group). 

This was primarily because the number of installations for each countermeasure was 

limited. However, it is likely that such factors were important. For example, the low level 

of use of the push button to actuate the flashing beacons at 16th & Capp may have been 

partly due to the generally younger age profile of pedestrians, the relatively narrow 

crossing, and the extremely lively (distracting) street activity in this area. (However, this 

finding was also generally consistent with national research.) 

6.1.2. LESSONS LEARNED: OUTREACH 

• Device-specific safety instruction was typically not necessary, as most devices were intuitive 

or even invisible to pedestrians. 

• To reach the maximum audience, translate outreach messages into multiple languages. 

6.1.3. LESSONS LEARNED: IMPLEMENTATION 

• Coordinating improvements with other agencies, especially those involved in street 

construction, is crucial. (In San Francisco, street reconstruction “erased” previous pedestrian 

safety measures, such as advanced limit lines and ladder style crosswalks.) 

• Developing and implementing a comprehensive pedestrian safety plan requires a long time 

frame. The San Francisco project took nearly six years, including almost two years for 

planning, two years for design/procurement/approvals, and two years for implementation and 

evaluation. However, this time frame was partly the result of an extensive and extremely 

labor-intensive data collection and analysis effort. (In San Francisco, it generally takes 2-3 

years to install pedestrian signals at a typical location, from funding commitment through 

design and construction, usually as part of a large signal contract.) 

• It is advantageous to have full-time dedicated pedestrian safety planning and engineering 

staff. San Francisco MTA Pedestrian Program staff now includes three budgeted full-time 

positions, two of which are filled by engineers and the third by a planner. 

• Institutional issues proved challenging. For example, a proposed pedestrian scramble 

installation needed to be deferred due to concern about potential impacts on public transit 

schedules. Street lighting improvements also required the active participation of a nontransportation department. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

82

6.1.4. LESSONS LEARNED: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

• Video data collection had the advantage of allowing repeated viewings and precise time 

stamping of events (such as pedestrian wait time duration). However, the labor requirements 

for tabulating video recorded events were several times greater than for manual data 

collection. The field of vision was also often more restricted than optimal, possibly obscuring 

important vehicle actions. The amount of information provided by video footage (particularly 

after conversion into a format that is compatible with the playback software) is far less than a 

live observer could collect, making it more difficult, for example, to determine whether there 

was a vehicle/pedestrian conflict. 

Video data collection also required close communication between the Police, SFMTA, and 

the data collection organization. Device installation and video observation dates needed to be 

closely coordinated, in part, because the video van required a particular parking space and a 

special permit to ensure the availability of the space. In one case, the radar Portable 

Changeable Message Speed Limit Sign was towed away early in the data collection period by 

the Police Department. 

While, in theory, video footage could be analyzed for vehicle speeds, it was quite difficult to 

do this with the necessary precision. There were occasional problems with converted video 

recordings skipping frames or running at inconsistent speeds, making sensitive timing 

analyses difficult. 

• Clear, consistent definitions of the pedestrian/driver behavior measures of effectiveness 

(MOEs) are needed. There are no accepted, universal definitions of five key project MOEs: 

• Vehicle/Pedestrian Interaction; 

• Vehicle Yielding; 

• Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflict; 

• Vehicle Blocking Crosswalk; and 

• Pedestrian Trapped In Median. 

The vehicle/pedestrian conflict was particularly challenging to define. The subjective 

definition used stated that a conflict happened if the driver swerved or braked quickly (not 

smoothly) or if the pedestrian changed stride or gait, apparently showing concern about an 

imminent collision. This was a less restrictive definition than a “near miss” as it did not 

require the pedestrian and vehicle to come “within inches” nor require the driver to “slam on 

the brakes.” However, it would not include the routine, smooth changes in speed that drivers 

and pedestrians make frequently as they yield to avoid a collision. 

Thus defined, the occurrence of a conflict was rare enough that it was quite difficult to detect 

an adequate number of conflicts during baseline observations to make a statistically 

significant improvement possible. A strict definition can make statistical significance 

impossible to achieve even with a reasonable sample size. 

• The earlier version of PBCAT (Version 1.0) proved difficult to use in the Phase I analysis. 

In particular, the classification of each pedestrian collision by a single list of key factors 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

83

proved overly simplistic. These key factors forced a decision on whether the most salient 

feature was the violation type or the vehicle movement. (PBCAT has been updated , and 

Version 2.1 includes more flexible crash typing and “expert systems” guidance.”) Statistical 

software and the Crossroads TM software proved more flexible and helpful. The SFMTA has 

also used GIS mapping analysis of pedestrian crashes for over six years, and this has been 

helpful. Often, the actual police collision reports had to be reviewed to understand the 

problems specific to an intersection (such as precise vehicle movements involved prior to 

collisions). 

• While analysis of crash patterns is quite helpful in selecting the proper treatment, several 

years of crash data are needed, and even then, patterns at the same intersection may vary 

significantly year-to-year. Site visits are therefore very important. 

• Crash analysis should consider the pedestrian and/or vehicle volumes as a measure of 

exposure, rather than only the absolute number of injuries or crashes. 

6.2. COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES 

Similar projects were carried out in the Las Vegas and Miami metropolitan areas. A preliminary 

final report was available for Miami, but not for Las Vegas as of publication time. The chief 

findings in Miami that related directly to the San Francisco experience include: 

• Pedestrian push button confirmation light: a significantly higher proportion of pedestrians 

waited to cross until the Walk signal. (This result from an additional visual cue was similar to 

the impacts of audible signals on sighted pedestrians.) 

• Reduced waiting times at a mid-block signalized crossing resulted in significantly better 

compliance. (San Francisco has favored shorter traffic signal cycles, usually 60 to 80 

seconds, in part for this reason.) 

• Pedestrian Head Start (leading pedestrian interval) did not significantly improve yielding 

by right-turning drivers. (The effectiveness of the Pedestrian Head Starts in San Francisco 

appeared to vary with the intersection characteristics.) 

• In-Street Pedestrian signs: these signs were highly effective at increasing driver yielding, 

but were easily damaged (which was very similar to the San Francisco experience).

• The stutter flash beacon was effective in increasing driver yielding.

6.3. NEXT STEPS AND FURTHER RESEARCH 

The primary opportunity for additional research would be an evaluation of the actual pedestrian 

injury impacts of the countermeasures. This would require follow up observations 3-6 years after 

device installation. (Collision data are not even available in tabulated form in California for at 

least six months. In order to obtain a meaningful sample size, several years of post-installation 

data are needed.) SFMTA participated in a proposal by the San Francisco Injury Center (a unit of 

the University of California – San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital) to the federal 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

84

Centers for Disease Control for funding to perform this analysis, but the application was turned 

down due to limited funding. 

SFMTA is also interested in testing other promising devices, particularly the HAWK beacon 

system and/or stutter flash beacons. (The High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk system is dark 

until a pedestrian activates the push button. It then switches from flashing yellow to solid yellow, 

followed by solid red, then flashing red, allowing cross traffic to continue once the pedestrian 

has crossed.) The City Traffic Engineer has identified the value of converting Stop controls to 

traffic signals that would be subject to transit and pedestrian priority. 

Some of the countermeasures could be refined. For example, red turn arrows could be added to 

pedestrian head start locations. The video detection logic could be adjusted to prevent vehicles 

encroaching on the crosswalk from triggering the signal extension. 

The cost-effectiveness of innovative devices could be compared to that of more traditional traffic 

engineering improvements, such as improved roadway lighting and left turn signalization. 

It would also be valuable to research how the findings from this study can be translated into 

citywide pedestrian plans. San Francisco is currently developing a Better Streets Plan, a 

combination of the planned Pedestrian Master Plan with a citywide streetscape plan. This may 

provide an opportunity to apply the findings of this project. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

85

APPENDIX A: 

OUTREACH ASSEMBLY SUMMARY AND EVALUATION 

As part of the FHWA PedSafe project, a major outreach program was implemented, 

encompassing educational presentations and distribution of retro-reflective materials. 

The primary audience for the presentation outreach encompassed the residents of communities in 

the seven PedSafe zones. The goal was to conduct in-person presentations at both schools and 

senior citizen facilities, providing general safety tips and information about the PedSafe project 

and other topics related to pedestrian safety. 

Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) staff contacted one school and one senior citizen 

facility in each of the zones. The schools were chosen based on their size, diverse populations, 

and demonstrated interest in working with DPT on improving safety. The target grades for the 

school presentation were Kindergarten through 6th grade, considered more receptive than older 

students. The educational message of these presentations varied according to the age level of the 

students. The senior sites were chosen based on their size, diversity, and opportunities for 

meetings with high attendance (e.g. senior lunches). The material presented at these sites 

emphasized the challenges to pedestrian safety for students and seniors walking in these specific 

areas and presented area-specific safety suggestions. 

A Power Point slide show (hard copy available) illustrating different pedestrian safety devices 

employed throughout the City, as well as presenting simple pedestrian safety tips, such as how to 

utilize pedestrian countdown signals when crossing a street, or the benefits of pedestrian islands 

was developed. Safe driving tips were also incorporated to balance the presentation. If needed, 

hard copies of the slides were printed and distributed at senior facilities to make the information 

more accessible. To aid in conveying the message of “be safe be seen,” grant funded wearable 

reflective safety devices, such as armbands, belt wraps, and zipper pulls, which were distributed 

to both students and seniors. 

Outreach Approach 

The basic approach taken was to contact the sites via phone to either the school principal or 

senior facility program director, explain the PedSafe project’s goal, and request the opportunity 

to make a presentation at the site. This one-call approach proved successful for the senior sites, 

but not for the schools. Easy access to the program directors, who managed the facility’s 

calendar, led to quick scheduling of presentations. When scheduled, information such as type of 

room and anticipated number of attendees was gathered. MTA staff followed up each call by 

sending a confirmation letter and small poster announcing the program. This resulted in senior 

citizen facilities in five of the seven zones participating. 

In regard to the schools, multiple phone calls and letters were employed to schedule these 

presentations. Calls were initially made to key administrators, principal and/or vice principals. If 

they did not respond, the next step was to identify those schools that had a health advocate on 

staff and contact that individual. If this proved unsuccessful, a letter was sent describing the 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

86

project and presentation, along with information about other school safety projects/partnership 

opportunities between schools and the city. The letter was followed up with a phone call. Those 

schools with presentations scheduled received confirmation letters including the name and phone 

number of an MTA staff person if further information was needed. The results of these efforts 

led to presentations at schools in five of the seven zones. 

Senior Presentations 

In total, 220 senior citizens attended the presentations. The number of attendees varied from a 

low of 20 to a high of 150 per event. The presentations ranged from 15 to 25 minutes, depending 

on the number of questions asked. While many sites had held, within the past year or two, 

presentations made on pedestrian safety, they welcomed the opportunity to have the subject 

presented again. This could be due to the fact that those sites where drop-in services are available 

do not have a stable client base, whereas others, such as an adult day health center, have the 

same attendees every day. 

The presentations were attended predominately by seniors who were ambulatory, with a small 

number of attendees who use mobility aids (canes, walkers, wheelchairs). At those sites where 

the Power Point presentation could not be shown, (lack of wall, screen, or because the 

presentation was held during lunch), hard copies of the presentation slides were distributed. 

The attendees welcomed hearing about recent and proposed improvements in their zones and 

appreciated the focus on senior citizen pedestrian safety. Questions from attendees varied. Many 

were concerned with what they perceived of as a lack of enforcement regarding motorists driving 

while talking on cell phones, while some were concerned about the increase in pedestrian 

collisions, and specifically pedestrians who were injured by city /Muni buses. Motorists running 

Stop signs and disobeying traffic signals were also areas of concerns that were voiced by 

attendees. 

The majority of the attendees were familiar with the bright orange vests that are worn by city 

service employees, but did not know that they were “reflective.” When informed that all 

attendees would receive a reflective armband (or other device), the items were not only well 

received, but there was also a strong tendency for many to request multiple items to be shared 

with family members. Overall, the silver arms bands were preferred over the orange ones. For 

those with mobility aids, reflective labels (donated by 3M) were also available and with DPT 

staff assistance, were placed on the mobility aids of individuals who requested them. 

School Presentations 

Presentations were made at six San Francisco public schools: three elementary and three middle 

schools. The presentations ranged from 15 to 25 minutes each, depending on the number of 

questions asked. While the original goal was to speak with students from Kindergarten through 

6th grade, and to conduct small classroom presentations, the overwhelming consensus from four 

schools that every student needed to hear the message. This resulted in multiple assemblies, 

either on one day or on multiple days, to accommodate the 7th and 8th graders. As for the other 

two schools, the middle school held the presentation for the 5th and 6th grades and at the 

elementary school, attendance was limited to two classrooms of first graders. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

87

 

The school staff/faculty role on the day of the presentations was primarily to introduce the 

speaker. In most cases, they addressed the students prior to the talk and spoke about pedestrian 

behaviors that they observed taking place around their schools. DPT staff was also able to 

address specific to individual schools by mentioning that they were aware of certain safety 

behaviors after having consulted the school’s crossing guard. Both proved to be helpful in setting 

the tone while also gaining the attention of the students. 

Graphic materials were also developed to accompany the school presentations. Originally created 

for classroom presentations of a smaller size, these materials could not be used for the all school 

assemblies. They were used at the schools in which the talks were held in classrooms and they 

were quite helpful in illustrating various pedestrian safety devices and while engaging the 

students in a simple quiz. 

To accommodate all of the school assemblies, the slide show created for the senior citizen sites 

was altered slightly. While the main change was the omission of the safe driving tips, additional 

slides were omitted based on the age of the students. This change was made after a faculty 

member reviewed the slide show and suggested that certain slides would be too advanced for the 

younger students. This resulted in grades six through eight viewing all of the slides, while the 

presentations for Kindergarten through 5th grade included all but one of the slides. At one 

elementary school, the presentation was held outside as part of an all-school safety/disaster 

training assembly. This location did not allow for any visual aids to accompany the presentation. 

Overall, the presentations were of more interest to elementary students than to those in the upper 

grades. The younger students tended to ask more questions than those in the middle schools, 

particularly those in the 7th and 8th grades. Questions focused mainly on speeding cars; how to 

stop people from speeding. Questions regarding cell phone usage among motorists and the 

impact they can have on unsafe driving was also of concern and generated many questions. As 

for the reflective zipper pulls, they were well received by the younger students, which could be 

seen in their excitement when informed they all would be receiving one. The older students 

appeared less convinced that the zipper pulls would be effective when told of their ability to help 

the students be more visible when walking at night. 

Unsuccessful Efforts 

As previously mentioned, many attempts were made to schedule the presentations. The two 

zones where senior citizen facility presentations could not be scheduled might be attributed to 

our telephone inquiries being met with hesitation and confusion regarding which individual in 

the organization the call should be forwarded to, or whether pedestrian safety was a subject 

matter that their attendees would benefit from. There was also an attempt to partner with other 

groups such as the YMCA and the police department, who have held pedestrian safety 

meetings/presentations, but this was not successful. A promising potential collaboration with San 

Francisco General Hospital’s “Think First” program to prevent brain injuries was only a limited 

success. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

88

At two non-responsive schools, school personnel alluded to their calendars being filled during 

the months when the presentations were to be made, but when pressed to see if an exception 

could be made, the request was passed on to another staff person, who never returned the call. 

Subsequent calls were also unreturned. The letter also failed to generate interest. After speaking 

with personnel at other schools, it became clear that all school assemblies are scheduled months 

in advance and access to individual classrooms for such presentations is limited. Invitations were 

generally acquired as a result of partnering with established programs or with previously 

scheduled assemblies. For example, one talk was done in conjunction with another group, the 

San Francisco General Hospital’s “Think First” program to prevent brain injuries. 

PedSafe Reflective Devices 

 

Item 

Purchased

Number 

Purchased

Number 

Distributed

Remaining 

Inventory as of 

March 3, 2006 

Zipper Pulls

Total 3,000 2,525 395

Clipsters/badge 

holders

Total 1,250 766 484

Armbands

Total 750 400 323

Belt Wraps

Total 250 0 250

Total All Items 5,250 3,691* 1,452

There are 107 pieces not accounted for. This is broken down into 80 zipper 

pulls, and 27 armbands. This is probably a result of either a miscount of 

items in bags and/or leaving more at a location than originally planned. 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

89

FHWA PEDSAFE SCHOOL PRESENTATIONS: 2006 

Zone/Facility Location Presentation Date Comments/Observation 

North Mission 

Marshall Elementary 

(K-5) 

Monica Guzman 

230 students attended

1575 

15th St. 

January 26 2006 

All school assembly 

(Outside) 

Safety/disaster planning was focus of 

assembly. Could not use any graphics. 

Students were mildly engaged. School 

crossing guards also presented safety tips. 

Outer Mission Street 

Monroe Elementary 

(K-5) 

Mark Bolton 

470 students attended

260 

Madrid 

February 14, 2006 

All school assembly broken 

down by K-3 and 4-5. 

Students were very aware of pedestrian 

laws. School was recruiting for student 

safety patrol; folded this effort into 

presentation. Used two students to model 

zipper pulls on their jackets. 

Reflective devices were well received by 

all students. 

Geary/Richmond 

Roosevelt Middle (6-8) 

Diane Panagotacos 

780 students attended

460 

Arguello 

January 26, 2006 

Principal requested that all 

students hear presentations. 

Separate assembly for each 

grade levels and held on 3 

separate days.

Student attention span decreased as 

students got older. 

 

Reflective devices well received by 6th 

graders; lukewarm to no interest with 7th8th graders. 

Geary/Cathedral Hill 

KIPP San Francisco Bay 

Academy (5-6) 

Lydia Glassie 

131 students (Entire 

school population 181)

1430 

Scott St. 

January 11, 2006 

Presentation made on 2 

separate days.

Very attentive student body. Went through 

entire presentation, including driver tips. 

They asked good questions. 

Chinatown/North Beach 

Francisco Middle (6-8) 

Rosa Fong 

610 students attended

2190 

Powell

February 1, 2006 

All school assembly, broken 

down by class year.

Student attention span decreased as 

students’ got older. 

Area police officer attended and provided 

additional safety information. 

Spoke to Vice Principal about assistance 

with mid-block crossing. 

Chinatown/North Beach 

Spring Valley 

Approximately 40 

students attended

1451 

Jackson 

October 20, 2005. 

The presentation was made 

to two classes of 1st grade 

students in conjunction with 

the “Think First” program to 

prevent brain injuries.

The students were a very receptive 

audience and were active participants in 

the presentation 

South of Market 

Bessie Carmichael 

375 7th 

Street 

94103 

Made numerous calls. 

Sent letter and made followup call after sent. Never 

connected with principal or 

any staff person who would 

be responsible for 

scheduling event. 

No presentation made 

Upper Market 

Everett Middle School 

450 

Church 

Street 

Made numerous calls. 

Sent letter and made followup call after sent. Never 

connected with principal or 

any staff person who would 

be responsible for 

scheduling event. 

No presentation made 

Total number of Students attending Presentations: 2,260 

Schools part of the San Francisco Unified School District 
San Francisco PedSafe: 

Final Report and Executive Summary 

90

FHWA PEDSAFE SENIOR PRESENTATIONS - 2006 

Zone/Facility Location Number Contact 

Person Result/ number of attendees Presentation Date

South of Market 

West 

Canon Kip Senior 

Center

705 

Natoma 

St.

487-3786 

771-1135

Lita

45 attendees 

Held in multi-purpose room 

Used slides 

December 1, 

2005 

(KW & JG)

Outer Mission 

Street 

Mission 

Neighborhood 

Excelsior Senior 

Center

4752 

Mission 

@ 

Ondaga

206-7759 Martha 

Calderon

20 attendees 

Generally the orange armbands 

were the most popular, though 

the men tended to pick the green 

over the orange. Clipsters 

seemed to be a popular item to 

attach to bags.

Wednesday, 

December 21, 

2005 

(JG)

Geary/ 

Cathedral Hill 

Kimochi

1840 

Sutter 

931-2287 

931-2299 

Steve 

Ishi 

150 attendees 

Held in lunch room during lunch 

Did not use slides 

January 19, 

2006 

(KW) 

Upper Market 

Street 

Diamond Senior 

Center

117 

Diamond 863-3507 John Yengich 

45 attendees 

Used slides 

Very attentive 

Good questions 

Thursday, 

January 12, 

2006 

(KW) 

Geary/Richmond 

Self Help for the 

Elderly ADHC

408 22nd 

Street 677-7565 Diane Ngo 

45 attendees 

Did not use slides 

Very attentive 

Largest number of attendees 

using mobility aids. 

Monday, 

February 27, 

2006 

10:30 AM 

(KW) 

Total number attending: 220

 

NO PRESENTATIONS IN FOLLOWING ZONES: 

Zone/Facility Location Number Contact 

Person Results of Contact Attempts 

North Mission 

Mission Housing 

Dev. Corp.

474 Valencia St. 864-4632 Left numerous phone messages. 

Could not connect at location.

Chinatown/North Beach 

Lady Shaw Senior Center 

(Self-Help for the Elderly) 

1483 Mason

292-2383 

292-2462 Helen 

Yuen

Contacted program director in early 

January 2006 to schedule event. 

Made 3 attempts to schedule 

something. 

Last message left 1/25/06
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK