Prepared for 

Federal Highway Administration 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Acquisition Management, HAAM-30D 

400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4410 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attention: Tamara Redmon

Pedestrian Safety Engineering and Intelligent Transportation 

System-Based Countermeasures Program 

For Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injuries, Conflicts, and 

Other Surrogate Measures 

Cooperative Agreement Number DTFH61-01-1X-00134 

UNLV Account Numbers: 2360-254-49BX 

2330-254-49CA and 2330-254-49CD 

Phase 2 Final Technical Report 

September 15, 2008 

Shashi S. Nambisan 

Center for Transportation Research and Education 

Iowa State University 

2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4700 

Ames, IA 50010-8664 

Mukund R. Dangeti 

Vinod Vasudevan 

Transportation Research Center 

University of Nevada Las Vegas 

4505 Maryland Parkway, Box: 454007 

Las Vegas, NV 89154-4007
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. xiv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. xvii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 2

The Study Area ............................................................................................................... 2

Development Patterns ..................................................................................................... 3

Population ....................................................................................................................... 4

Transportation ................................................................................................................. 5

Law Enforcement ............................................................................................................ 6

Pedestrian Crash Problem in Las Vegas Metro Area and the Safety Program ............... 7

Study Objectives ............................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER 2 COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTIONS ................................................. 12

SUMMARY OF THE COUNTERMEASURES INSTALLED ................................... 20

Turning vehicles yield to pedestrian sign ................................................................. 20

Advance yield markings + Yield here to pedestrian sign ......................................... 20

In-roadway knockdown signs ................................................................................... 21

ITS No RTOR Signs ................................................................................................. 21

Pedestrian call buttons that light up/confirm press, other ADA related technologies

................................................................................................................................... 22

Warning sign for motorist ......................................................................................... 22

High visibility crosswalk treatment .......................................................................... 23

Median refuge ........................................................................................................... 23

Smart lighting............................................................................................................ 23

ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices .............................................................. 24

Portable speed trailers ............................................................................................... 24

Pedestrian activated flashing yellow ......................................................................... 24

Pedestrian countdown signals (animated eyes)......................................................... 25

Danish offset ............................................................................................................. 25

Pedestrian Channelization ......................................................................................... 26
ii

CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS AND MEASURES OF 

EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................................................ 28

1. Crash Frequency (Pedestrian Crashes/Year) ........................................................... 28

2. Crash Severity (Distribution of Crashes by Injury Type/Year) ............................... 28

3. Pedestrian and Vehicle Conflicts ............................................................................. 29

4. Percentage of Pedestrians who look for Vehicles before beginning to Cross ......... 29

5. Percentage of Pedestrians who look for Vehicles before Crossing Second Half of 

the Street ....................................................................................................................... 29

6. Percentage of Captured Pedestrians ......................................................................... 30

7. Percentage of Diverted Pedestrians ......................................................................... 30

8. Percentage of Pedestrians Who Pushed the Call Button .......................................... 30

9. Pedestrian Not Completing Roadway Crossings ..................................................... 30

9.1. Pedestrians in the Crosswalk during the Flashing DON’T WALK Phase ......... 30

9.2. Percentage of Pedestrians in the Crosswalk at the End of All-Red ................... 31

9.3. Percentage of Pedestrians Trapped in the Middle of Crossing .......................... 31

10. Percentage of Pedestrians who begin their Crossing during WALK phase ............ 31

11. Pedestrian Signal Violations (Crossing during the DON’T WALK Phase) ........... 31

12. Percentage of Drivers who Yielded to Pedestrians ................................................. 31

12.1. Distance Vehicle Yields before the Crosswalk ................................................ 32

12.2. Percentage of Vehicles Blocking Crosswalk ................................................... 32

12.3. Percentage of Drivers Turning Right on Red coming to a Complete Stop ...... 33

13. Pedestrian Delay ..................................................................................................... 34

14. Vehicle Speed ......................................................................................................... 35

15. Vehicle Delay at Intersections/Mid-block Crossings ............................................. 35

16. Other Required Data ............................................................................................... 35

16.1. Vehicle Volume/Counts ................................................................................... 35

16.2. Pedestrian Volume/Counts............................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION AT SITES BEFORE AND AFTER 

COUNTERMEASURE INSTALLATION ...................................................................... 38

Evaluation of Countermeasures .................................................................................... 39

Z-Test ............................................................................................................................ 39
iii

T-Test ............................................................................................................................ 40

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL SITES ...................................................... 42

SITE 1: MARYLAND PARKWAY / SIERRA VISTA DRIVE ................................. 43

1.1 Site description.................................................................................................... 43

1.2 Problems Identified ............................................................................................. 44

1.3 Countermeasures Proposed ................................................................................. 44

1.4 Countermeasures Installed .................................................................................. 44

1.5 Safety MOEs ....................................................................................................... 46

1.6 Mobility MOEs ................................................................................................... 48

1.7 Statistical Results ................................................................................................ 48

1.8 Summary ............................................................................................................. 49

SITE 2: MARYLAND PARKWAY / DUMONT STREET ........................................ 51

2.1 Site description.................................................................................................... 51

2.2 Problems Identified ............................................................................................. 52

2.3 Countermeasures Proposed ................................................................................. 52

2.4 Countermeasures Installed .................................................................................. 52

2.5 Safety MOEs ....................................................................................................... 54

2.6 Mobility MOEs ................................................................................................... 57

2.7 Statistical Results ................................................................................................ 57

2.8 Summary ............................................................................................................. 62

SITE 3: MARYLAND PARKWAY / TWAIN AVENUE ........................................... 63

SITE 4: HARMON AVENUE / PARADISE ROAD ................................................... 64

4.1 Site description.................................................................................................... 64

4.2 Problems Identified ............................................................................................. 65

4.3 Countermeasures Proposed ................................................................................. 65

4.4 Countermeasures Installed .................................................................................. 65

4.5 Safety MOEs ....................................................................................................... 66

4.6 Statistical Results ................................................................................................ 67

4.7 Summary ............................................................................................................. 69

SITE 5: HARMON AVENUE: PARADISE ROAD TO TROPICANA WASH ......... 70

5.1 Site description.................................................................................................... 70
iv

5.2 Problems Identified ............................................................................................. 71

5.3 Countermeasures Proposed ................................................................................. 71

5.4 Countermeasures Installed .................................................................................. 71

5.5 Safety MOEs ....................................................................................................... 74

5.6 Mobility MOEs ................................................................................................... 75

5.7 Statistical Results ................................................................................................ 77

5.8 Summary ............................................................................................................. 81

SITE 7: FLAMINGO ROAD / KOVAL LANE ........................................................... 82

7.1 Site description.................................................................................................... 82

7.2 Problems Identified ............................................................................................. 83

7.3 Countermeasures Proposed ................................................................................. 83

7.4 Countermeasures Installed .................................................................................. 83

7.5 Safety MOEs ....................................................................................................... 85

7.6 Statistical Results ................................................................................................ 88

7.7 Summary ............................................................................................................. 90

SITE 8: FLAMINGO ROAD / PARADISE ROAD..................................................... 91

SITE 9 AND 10: BONANZA ROAD: D STREET AND F STREET ......................... 92

9.1 Site description.................................................................................................... 92

9.2 Problems Identified ............................................................................................. 93

9.3 Countermeasures Proposed ................................................................................. 93

9.4 Countermeasures Installed .................................................................................. 94

9.5 Safety MOEs ....................................................................................................... 96

9.6 Mobility MOEs ................................................................................................... 98

9.7 Statistical Results ................................................................................................ 98

9.8 Summary ........................................................................................................... 102

SITE 11: TWAIN AVENUE: CAMBRIDGE STREET TO SWENSON STREET 

AND SITE 12: TWAIN AVENUE: SWENSON STREET TO PALOS VERDE 

STREET ...................................................................................................................... 103

11.1 Site description................................................................................................ 103

11.2 Problems Identified ......................................................................................... 104

11.3 Countermeasures Proposed ............................................................................. 104
v

11.4 Countermeasures Installed .............................................................................. 105

11.5 Safety MOEs ................................................................................................... 107

11.6 Mobility MOEs ............................................................................................... 108

11.7 Statistical Results ............................................................................................ 109

11.8 Summary ......................................................................................................... 113

SITE 13: LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD / LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD ................. 114

13.1 Site description................................................................................................ 114

13.2 Problems Identified ......................................................................................... 115

13.3 Countermeasures Proposed ............................................................................. 115

13.4 Countermeasures Installed .............................................................................. 115

13.5 Safety MOEs ................................................................................................... 116

13.6 Mobility MOEs ............................................................................................... 118

13.7 Statistical Results ............................................................................................ 118

13.8 Summary ......................................................................................................... 119

SITE 14: LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD / MCDANIEL STREET ............................ 120

SITE 15: LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD: BELMONT STREET TO MCCARRAN 

STREET ...................................................................................................................... 121

15.1 Site description................................................................................................ 121

15.2 Problems Identified ......................................................................................... 122

15.3 Countermeasures Proposed ............................................................................. 122

15.4 Countermeasures Installed .............................................................................. 122

15.5 Safety MOEs ................................................................................................... 124

15.6 Mobility MOEs ............................................................................................... 125

15.7 Statistical Results ............................................................................................ 125

15.8 Summary ......................................................................................................... 127

SITE 16: LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD / PECOS ROAD ........................................ 128

16.1 Site description................................................................................................ 128

16.2 Problems Identified ......................................................................................... 129

16.3 Countermeasures Proposed ............................................................................. 129

16.4 Countermeasures Installed .............................................................................. 129

16.5 Safety MOEs ................................................................................................... 130
vi

16.6 Statistical Results ............................................................................................ 130

16.7 Summary ......................................................................................................... 133

18.1 Site description................................................................................................ 135

18.2 Problems Identified ......................................................................................... 136

18.3 Countermeasures Proposed ............................................................................. 136

18.4 Countermeasures Installed .............................................................................. 136

18.5 Safety MOEs ................................................................................................... 138

18.6 Mobility MOEs ............................................................................................... 141

18.7 Statistical Results ............................................................................................ 141

18.8 Summary ......................................................................................................... 145

SITE 19: CHARLESTON BOULEVARD: SPENCER STREET TO 17TH STREET 147

19.1 Site description................................................................................................ 147

19.2 Problems Identified ......................................................................................... 148

19.3 Countermeasures Proposed ............................................................................. 148

19.4 Countermeasures Installed .............................................................................. 148

19.5 Safety MOEs ................................................................................................... 152

19.6 Mobility MOEs ............................................................................................... 154

19.7 Statistical Results ............................................................................................ 155

19.8 Summary ......................................................................................................... 157

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 159

CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................. 163

Advance Yield Markings, and Yield Here to Pedestrian Signs .................................. 163

Pedestrian Countdown Signals ................................................................................... 167

ITS-No Turn on Red Signs ......................................................................................... 169

High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment, Refuge Islands and Danish Offsets ................ 170

Speed Trailers ............................................................................................................. 172

Automated Pedestrian Detection device ..................................................................... 175

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 175

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 177
vii

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Cities in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area ......................................................... 2

Figure 2: Selected high crash sites .................................................................................... 14

Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive ..................... 43

Figure 4. Reflective Pavement Marking (RPM) standard line at Site 1 ........................... 45

Figure 5: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment at Site 1 ................................................. 46

Figure 6: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street .......................... 51

Figure 7: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment, Median Refuge and Danish Offset ....... 53

Figure 8: Advance Yield Markings and “Yield Here to Pedestrians” Sign ...................... 53

Figure 9: Pedestrian Activated Flashing Yellow .............................................................. 54

Figure 10: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway / Twain Avenue (Control Site) ...... 63

Figure 11: Aerial Photograph of Harmon Avenue and Paradise Road ............................. 64

Figure 12: Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians Sign .................................................... 66

Figure 13: Aerial Photograph of Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash ... 70

Figure 14: High Visibility Crosswalk and Median Refuge installed at Site 5 .................. 72

Figure 15: Yield Here to Pedestrians Sign installed at Site 5 ........................................... 72

Figure 16: In-roadway Knockdown Signs installed at Site 5 ........................................... 73

Figure 17: Aerial Photograph of Flamingo Road and Koval Lane ................................... 82

Figure 18: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment installed at Site 7 ................................. 84

Figure 19: Pedestrian Countdown Timers with Animated Eyes ....................................... 84

Figure 20: ITS No-Turn On Red – Activated ................................................................... 85

Figure 21: Aerial Photograph of Flamingo Road and Paradise Road (Control Site)........ 91

Figure 22: Aerial Photograph of Bonanza Road and D Street .......................................... 92

Figure 23: Aerial Photograph of Bonanza Road and F Street .......................................... 93

Figure 24: In-roadway Knockdown Signs installed at Site 9/10 ...................................... 94

Figure 25: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment installed at Site 9/10 ............................ 95

Figure 26: Warning Signs for Motorists installed at Site 9/10 ......................................... 95

Figure 27: Pedestrian Channelization installed at Site 9/10 ............................................. 96

Figure 28: Aerial Photograph of Site 11 ......................................................................... 103

Figure 29: Aerial Photograph of Site 12 ......................................................................... 104
viii

Figure 30: In-Roadway Knockdown Signs installed at Sites 11 and 12 ......................... 105

Figure 31: Close-up view of “In-Roadway Knockdown Signs” installed at Sites 11 and 12

....................................................................................................................... 106

Figure 32: Installation location of Speed-trailer on Twain Avenue ............................... 106

Figure 33: Aerial Photograph of Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas Boulevard ...... 114

Figure 34: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment installed at Lake Mead Boulevard and 

Las Vegas Boulevard .................................................................................... 116

Figure 35: Aerial Photograph of Lake Mead Boulevard and McDaniel Street (Control 

Site) ............................................................................................................... 120

Figure 36: Aerial Photograph of Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran 

Street ............................................................................................................. 121

Figure 37: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment, Danish Offset and Median Refuge ... 123

Figure 38: Advanced Yield Markings installed at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street 

to McCarran Street ........................................................................................ 123

Figure 39: Aerial Photograph of Lake Mead Boulevard and Pecos Road ...................... 128

Figure 40: “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrian” signs installed at Lake Mead 

Boulevard and Pecos Road ........................................................................... 130

Figure 41: Aerial Photograph of Fremont Street: 11th Street to 8th Street (Control Site) 134

Figure 42: Aerial Photograph of Fremont Street: 8th Street to 6th Street ........................ 135

Figure 43: Portable Speed Trailer on Fremont Street ..................................................... 137

Figure 44: In-Roadway Knockdown Signs ..................................................................... 137

Figure 45: Pedestrian Push Button that Confirm Press ................................................... 138

Figure 46: Aerial Photograph of Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Street .. 147

Figure 47: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment at Charleston Boulevard and 17th Street

....................................................................................................................... 149

Figure 48: “Advanced Yield Markings” installed at Site 19 .......................................... 150

Figure 49: Smart Lighting ............................................................................................... 151

Figure 50: Automatic Pedestrian Detection .................................................................... 151
ix

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Pedestrian Fatalities in Nevada and US from 1994 to 2003 ................................. 8

Table 2: Summary of Countermeasures Proposed and Deployed .................................... 12

Table 3: Summary of the Potential Countermeasures....................................................... 15

Table 4: Countermeasures Installed for Evaluation at Selected Sites ............................... 17

Table 5: Relationships between Existing Problems and Installed Countermeasures ....... 18

Table 6: Implementation Plan for Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive ................. 44

Table 7: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive ....... 47

Table 8: Results of motorist MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive .......... 48

Table 9: Delay at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive .......................................... 48

Table 10: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista 

Drive ................................................................................................................. 49

Table 11: Implementation Plan for Maryland Parkway / Dumont Street ......................... 52

Table 12: Results for pedestrian MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street ......... 56

Table 13: Results for motorist MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street ............ 56

Table 14: Delays at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street............................................. 57

Table 15: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street

 .......................................................................................................................... 59

Table 16: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Maryland Parkway and 

Dumont Street ................................................................................................... 60

Table 17: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Maryland Parkway and Dumont 

Street ................................................................................................................. 61

Table 18: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs between stages at Maryland Parkway 

and Dumont Street ............................................................................................ 61

Table 19: Implementation Plan for Harmon Road and Paradise Road ............................. 65

Table 20: Statistical test results of MOEs at Harmon Avenue and Paradise Road ........... 68

Table 21: Implementation Plan for Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash 71

Table 22: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana 

Wash ................................................................................................................. 76
x

Table 23: Results of motorist MOEs at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana 

Wash ................................................................................................................. 76

Table 24: Delays at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash ....................... 77

Table 25: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to 

Tropicana Wash ................................................................................................ 79

Table 26: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Harmon Avenue: 

Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash .................................................................... 80

Table 27: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to 

Tropicana Wash ................................................................................................ 80

Table 28: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs between stages at Harmon Avenue: 

Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash .................................................................... 81

Table 29: Implementation Plan for Flamingo Road and Koval Lane ............................... 83

Table 30: Results of safety MOEs for pedestrians at Flamingo Road and Koval Lane ... 87

Table 31: Results of safety MOEs for motorists at Flamingo Road and Koval Lane ...... 87

Table 32: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Flamingo Road and Koval Lane 

(Baseline vs. Stages) ......................................................................................... 89

Table 33: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for pedestrians between stages at 

Flamingo Road and Koval Lane ....................................................................... 90

Table 34: Implementation Plan for Bonanza Rd: D St to F St.......................................... 94

Table 35: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street ................ 97

Table 36: Results of motorist MOEs at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street ................... 98

Table 37: Delay at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street ................................................... 98

Table 38: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street 100

Table 39: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Bonanza Road: D 

Street to F Street ............................................................................................. 101

Table 40: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street

 ........................................................................................................................ 101

Table 41: Statistical test results of mobility MOE stages 1 and 2 at Bonanza Road: D 

Street to F Street ............................................................................................. 101

Table 42: Implementation Plan for Twain Avenue: Cambridge Street to Swenson Street

 ........................................................................................................................ 104
xi

Table 43: Implementation Plan for Twain Avenue: Swenson Street to Palos Verde Street

 ........................................................................................................................ 105

Table 44: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to Swenson 

Street ............................................................................................................... 108

Table 45: Results of motorist safety MOE at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to 

Swenson Street ............................................................................................... 108

Table 46: Delays at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to Swenson Street ................... 109

Table 47: Vehicle speeds at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to Swenson Street ...... 109

Table 48: Statistical test results at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to Swenson Street

 ........................................................................................................................ 111

Table 49: Statistical test results between stages at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to 

Swenson Street ............................................................................................... 111

Table 50: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street 

to Swenson Street ........................................................................................... 112

Table 51: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs between stages at Twain Avenue: 

Palos Verde Street to Swenson Street ............................................................ 112

Table 52: Statistical test results of speed at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to 

Swenson Street ............................................................................................... 112

Table 53: Comparison of speed between stages at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to 

Swenson Street ............................................................................................... 113

Table 54: Implementation Plan for Lake Mead Boulevard and Lake Mead Boulevard . 115

Table 55: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas 

Boulevard ....................................................................................................... 117

Table 56: Results of motorist MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas Boulevard

 ........................................................................................................................ 118

Table 57: Delay at Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas Boulevard ............................ 118

Table 58: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas 

Boulevard ....................................................................................................... 119

Table 59: Implementation Plan for Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran 

Street ............................................................................................................... 122
xii

Table 60: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to 

McCarran Street ............................................................................................. 124

Table 61: Results of motorist MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to 

McCarran Street ............................................................................................. 125

Table 62: Delays at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran Street ........... 125

Table 63: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street 

to McCarran Street ......................................................................................... 126

Table 64: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont 

Street to McCarran Street ............................................................................... 127

Table 65: Implementation Plan for Lake Mead Boulevard and Pecos Road .................. 129

Table 66: Statistical Test Results at Lake Mead Boulevard/Pecos Road ....................... 132

Table 67: Implementation Plan for Fremont Street: 8th Street to 6th Street .................. 136

Table 68: Results of safety MOEs for pedestrians at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Street

 ........................................................................................................................ 140

Table 69: Results of safety MOEs for motorist at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Street

 ........................................................................................................................ 140

Table 70: Delay at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Street .............................................. 141

Table 71: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for pedestrians at Fremont Street: 6th

Street to 8th Street ........................................................................................... 143

Table 72: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for pedestrian between stages at Fremont 

Street: 6th Street to 8th Street ........................................................................... 143

Table 73: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for motorists at Fremont Street: 6th Street 

to 8th

 Street ..................................................................................................... 144

Table 74: Statistical significance of safety MOEs for motorist between stages at Fremont 

Street: 6th Street to 8th Street ........................................................................... 144

Table 75: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Street

 ........................................................................................................................ 146

Table 76: Statistical test results of mobility MOE between stages at Fremont Street: 6th

Street to 8th Street ........................................................................................... 146

Table 77: Implementation Plan for Charleston Boulevard/Spencer Street ..................... 148
xiii

Table 78: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th

Street ............................................................................................................... 153

Table 79: Results of motorist MOEs at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th

Street ............................................................................................................... 153

Table 80: Delays at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Street ...................... 154

Table 81: Speeds at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Street ...................... 154

Table 82: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street 

to 17

th Street ................................................................................................... 155

Table 83: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Charleston Boulevard: 

Spencer Street to 17th Street ........................................................................... 156

Table 84: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer 

Street to 17th Street ......................................................................................... 156

Table 85: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs between stages at Charleston 

Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Street ........................................................ 157

Table 86: Statistical test results of vehicle speed at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street 

to 17

th Street ................................................................................................... 157
xiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report documents efforts on and findings from Phase 2 of a cooperative agreement 

between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the University of Nevada, 

Las Vegas (UNLV) Transportation Research Center (TRC), titled “Pedestrian Safety 

Engineering and Intelligent Transportation System-Based Countermeasures Program For 

Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injuries, Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures” 

(Cooperative Agreement Number DTFH61-01-X-00018, UNLV Account Numbers: 

2360-254-49BX, 2330-254-49CA and 2330-254-49CD UNLV/TRC/RR-02-03). Five 

state and local agencies in Nevada co-sponsored the program: City of Las Vegas, Clark 

County Department of Public Works, Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada 

Office of Traffic Safety, and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern 

Nevada. Several other local agencies and private sector organizations were cooperating 

partners: City of North Las Vegas, City of Henderson, Orth Rodgers Inc. etc. 

The goals of the program are to deploy and evaluate countermeasures (that were 

identified and developed in Phase 1) to help improve pedestrian safety and walkability 

(and reduce/minimize risk). The intent of this program is to serve as an example of what 

would lead to the implementation of successful pedestrian safety countermeasures across 

the nation. Some of the countermeasures deployed in Phase 2 have been selected in 

consultation with Florida (Miami-Dade County) team and San Francisco team. This is to 

permit a comparative evaluation of countermeasures at three different locations in the 

country. 

A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based methodology was used to identify high 

pedestrian risk zones and areas in the study area. Initially 16 high risk zones comprising 

of 47 pedestrian high crash sites were identified in the Phase 1. However, due to limited 

financial resources to improve pedestrian safety at all the identified locations, eighteen 

(18) pedestrian high crash sites were identified in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Of 

these 18 locations, countermeasures were deployed at 14 locations with the remaining 4 

sites as control sites, where none of the countermeasures were deployed. Seventeen 
xv

countermeasures were initially selected to evaluate in this program Based on the risk 

associated at each site, multiple countermeasures were deployed at several sites. The 

deployment of these multiple countermeasures was done in phases to evaluate 

effectiveness of each individual countermeasure. Data were collected before and after 

each countermeasure deployment at sites. Statistical analyses were performed on the 

collected data to determine the significance of the changes in measures of effectiveness 

before and after deploying the countermeasure. 

Although seventeen countermeasures were initially selected to evaluate in this program, it 

later reduced to fifteen, due to the unavailability of vendors to supply two of the 

countermeasures, “Enlarged Pedestrian Signal Heads” and “Advanced Warning Roving 

Eyes for Motorists.” However, a new countermeasure is added to the list and it would be 

installed at locations where “Enhancer LED Pedestrian Signals” were supposed to have 

been installed. This report documents the results of analyzes based on fifteen 

countermeasures excluding the pedestrian enhancer. The summary of the effectiveness of 

these countermeasures are as follows: 

1) “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians” signs: Significant improvement in 

motorists’ yielding behavior, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped 

in the middle of the street. 

2) Advance yield markings for Motorists: Significant improvement in motorists’ 

yielding behavior. 

3) In roadway knockdown signs: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding 

behavior, reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street. 

4) ITS “No-Turn on Red” signs: Significant improvement in pedestrians’ compliance. 

5) Pedestrian call button that light up: Significant improvement in pedestrians’ 

compliance, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of 

the street. 

6) Warning signs for motorists: No significant improvement in either motorist or 

pedestrian MOEs. 
xvi

7) High visibility crosswalk treatment: Significant increase in motorists’ yielding 

distance, significant improvement in pedestrians’ yielding behavior. 

8) Median refuge: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, significant 

increase in motorists’ yielding distance, significant improvement in pedestrians’ 

yielding behavior. 

9) Smart lighting: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, significant 

reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street, significant 

increase in percent of “diverted” pedestrians. 

10) ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices: Significant improvement in motorists’ 

yielding behavior, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the 

middle of the street, significant increase in percent of “diverted” pedestrians. 

11) Portable speed trailer: Significant increase in motorists’ yielding distance. 

12) Pedestrian activated flashing yellow: Significant increase in motorists’ yielding 

distance, significant reduction in percent of drivers blocking crosswalk, significant 

improvement in pedestrian yielding behavior. 

13) Pedestrian countdown signals with animated eyes: Significant improvement in 

pedestrians’ looking for turning vehicles. 

14) Danish offset: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, significant 

increase in motorists’ yielding distance, significant reduction in percent of 

pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street, significant increase in percent of 

“diverted” pedestrians. 

15) Pedestrian channelization: No significant improvement in either motorists’ or 

pedestrians’ MOEs. 
xvii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The project team is grateful to the Federal Highway Administration for their financial 

support of the program. The project team would also like to thank Nevada Office of 

Traffic Safety and Nevada Department of Transportation for providing matching funds 

for the program. Additionally, the following individuals and organizations are thanked 

for their support of the program and for providing the matching funds for the same: Denis 

Cederburg, Nalliah Rajah, Paul Judd, Kevin Futch and Kaizad Yazdani (Clark County 

Department of Public Works), OC White and Niel Rohleder (City of Las Vegas), Rudy 

Malfabon, Kent Sears, (Nevada Department of Transportation), Charles Abbott and 

Bruce Mackey (Nevada Office of Traffic Safety), Jacob Snow, Fred Ohene, Charity 

Fechter and Jerry Duke (Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada). 

The authors are grateful to Tamara Redmon, Gabe Rousseau and Dan Nabors of Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) and Jocelyn Bauer, Kelley Pecheux and their 

colleagues from SAIC, the independent evaluation contractor, for their support and 

guidance through out the duration of the project. Carl Rodriguez (FHWA) is thanked for 

his support and cooperation on administrative activities. Members of Executive Advisory 

Committee are thanked for their input and guidance. They include Jerry Duke of the 

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, OC White of City of Las 

Vegas Public Works Department, Shital Patel of City of Henderson Public Works 

Department, Kevin Futch of Clark County Department of Public Works, Mike Edwards 

of City of North Las Vegas Public Works Department, Kent Sears, Eric Glick, Kelly 
xviii

Anrig. Further, the contributions of Bill Young and his colleagues from the Las Vegas 

Metropolitan Police Department. 

The authors appreciate and recognize the invaluable efforts of key contributors and team 

members on the project: Natachai Wongchavalidkul, Maggie Saunders, Erin Breen and 

Dr. Ganesh Karke of UNLV Transportation Research Center. Thanks are also due to 

Benjamin Torella and Nimfa Valerio for their efforts in providing CAD drawings for the 

project. The assistance provided by Dr. Ashok Singh and Dr. Srinivas Pulugurtha are 

greatly acknowledged. The assistance and support provided by Mani Mani, 

Krishnakumar Vanjeswaran, Pankaj Maheswari, Sriram Balasubramanian and Vinay 

Virupaksha, of the UNLV Transportation Research Center are gratefully acknowledged.
1

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 
2

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Study Area 

Several cities lie within the boundaries of Clark County, Nevada, but most of the 

population resides in the City of Las Vegas or in the unincorporated Clark County area. 

The physical boundaries between the jurisdictions are invisible, creating a unified 

metropolitan area. The study area includes all of this urban and suburban area. Figure 1 

provides an illustration of the Las Vegas metropolitan area or “valley”. This is the 

general extent of the study area. 

Figure 1: Cities in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area 

Conditions within the study area are consistent with those to be found in many 

southwestern states and in communities with a wide, fast street system. A history of high 

incidence of pedestrian crashes has generated awareness in the multiple agencies that 
3

govern the area. The roadways in the study area are under the jurisdiction of City of 

Henderson, City of Las Vegas, City of North Las Vegas, Clark County, or the Nevada 

Department of Transportation (NDOT). The Regional Transportation Commission of 

Southern Nevada (RTC) and the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) are other entities 

who have administrative responsibilities for the transportation system and transportation 

safety in the study area. 

Development Patterns 

The original downtown core of Las Vegas has been revitalized and transformed to a large 

casino pedestrian mall with two cross streets. With the partial exception of government 

and law, the gaming industry dominates the commercial activity in this urban core area. 

Other economic and civic activities are located away from the urban core. Streets 

entering this downtown area were reconstructed around the year 2000 to include curb 

extensions, some wide sidewalks, and landscaping, but the scale favors the motorized 

vehicle. Near the new mall, the homeless and the unemployed congregate near the day 

labor office and social services building. 

Commerce sprawls out from the center and along Las Vegas Boulevard, known as the 

Strip. The Strip has evolved into one of the most recognizable and heavily traveled streets 

in the world. Designed as a Day and Night Scenic Byway, 14 of the 15 largest hotel 

complexes in the world are located along this roadway. An estimated 90,000 people stroll 

along the resort corridor every day of the peak season. The strip consists of a minimum of 

six lanes of through traffic. The sidewalks are often crowded with tourists and visitors 

with attractions such as mock facades of famous cities from around the world, fountains 

set to music, and an erupting volcano compete for driver attention. 

Old and new residential neighborhoods were built as suburbs, disconnected from any city 

center, commerce, or services. Many peripheral suburbs, such as Summerlin and Green 

Valley, are exclusive areas connected only by high-speed arterial streets. Some cater to 

senior citizens, while others attract young white-collar workers. New development 
4

continued to proliferate until recently with the wide, fast streets that are the indicative of 

auto-oriented urbanity and the concern to pedestrian mobility and safety. 

Neighborhood advisory boards and homeowner associations offer some sense of identity 

to some residential communities. But there is a less obvious, unique identity of place for 

residents in the City of Las Vegas and County areas than in other cities in the study area, 

such as Henderson, or North Las Vegas. These areas have better defined central areas and 

some geographical distinction at their boundaries. 

The assets within the neighborhoods of the study area include the various boards and 

associations representing the interests of the community. They also include a myriad of 

organizations such as churches, youth groups, school district, health care providers, law 

enforcement agencies, emergency responders, and committed businesses that are eager to 

improve quality of life for those who live, work, and shop within the area. These assets 

are tapped and cultivated in an effort to combine neighborhood resources with local and 

regional resources to improve pedestrian accessibility, mobility, and safety. 

 

Population 

Clark County, Nevada, which includes Las Vegas, has been the fastest growing 

metropolitan area in the country, with more than 70 percent increase in population during 

the last decade. The County is home to 75 percent of Nevada’s 2.495 million residents. 

About 40 million people from across the world visit the Las Vegas valley each year, 

creating a tourism industry and economic base for support businesses that lures an 

average of 5,000 new residents to the area each month. Entry level hotel/casino 

employment positions have been abundant, but most start at minimum wage. 

The Hispanic population in Clark County has grown from 11.2 percent of the total in 

1990 to 26 percent of the total in 2005, with an estimated 1,200-1,500 Hispanics 

immigrating to the area each month. Seventy five percent of the Las Vegas Hispanic 

population was born outside of the United States, suggesting a potential language barrier 
5

and related limitations on transportation opportunities. According to The Latin Chamber 

of Commerce, Hispanics represented 55 percent of the workforce in construction industry 

in Clark County. Non-white residents, including African Americans and Asians, 

represent an additional 17.8 percent of the total population. 

About 11 percent of the population is over 65 years of age, and 25 percent of the overall 

population is under the age of 18 years. The number of children under 18 years of age in 

Hispanic families is significantly higher, representing 36.6 percent of the Hispanic 

population. These numbers reflect issues that need to be studied when developing 

treatment programs, particularly education and outreach campaigns. The culture of the 

Hispanic community and the needs of senior citizens set them apart from the majority of 

the population who often has easier access to motorized transportation. 

Transportation 

Las Vegas is a new urban area by most standards. Its development originated during the 

first half of the twentieth century in a vast desert with ample land for urban sprawl. A 

majority of the growth in population and the economy growth in this area has occurred 

over the last 20 years. The low-density template used to develop the desert city provided 

a traditional street grid pattern with major surface arterial streets at every mile, and 

rights-of-way adequate to provide for six or eight lanes of traffic that generally travels at 

or above the posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph). Intersections are wider, often 

with striped dual or triple left turn pockets, and single or double right turn pockets. A few 

streets have raised medians, but those with adequate width are more likely to have 

two-way-left-turn lanes in their center. Sidewalks, when present, are generally a 

maximum of five feet wide and built at the back of curb, with no buffer between the 

sidewalk and the travel lanes for vehicles. In the 10 years between 1990 and 2000, the 

number of lane miles in Clark County more than doubled, for a total of 5,849 miles of 

lanes. Principal arterial streets and minor arterial streets account for 47 percent of urban 

vehicle miles of travel in the Las Vegas valley. Expansion of the roadway network 

continues as the area struggles to serve the growing number of vehicles, but the length of 
6

time spent commuting gradually creeps up as congestion overtakes the new roads. The 

Las Vegas valley is a non-attainment area for national clean air standards. 

Citizens Area Transit, the local bus system, began serving the citizens of Clark County in 

December 1992. In just under 10 years, ridership has grown from 15 million riders in 

1993 to 61 million riders in 2006. Special bus service is available for qualified senior 

citizens and the disabled. The entire system consists of 46 routes served by 336 vehicles, 

carrying around 180,000 passengers each weekday in the greater Las Vegas Valley. 

Incidents such as transit system users crossing such “high speed,” “high volume” and 

“high risk” streets to use the transit system is not uncommon in the study area. 

The Clark County School District (CCSD) is the fifth largest in the nation - with an 

enrollment of about 308,783 students in year 2005. CCSD’s policy is that students who 

live within two miles of a school are not provided bus transportation by CCSD - i.e., they 

have to walk, bicycle, get dropped off by a parent/guardian or take public transit. In spite 

of this policy, many school children ride buses to school, and it is not uncommon to see 

buses stop on seven lane, arterial streets to allow children to board and depart. Many of 

the older suburban schools in the Las Vegas valley are adjacent to multi-lane arterial 

streets. As in many areas of the United States, schools are frequently placed in locations 

that require motorized transportation. Elementary aged children who cross major streets 

at intersections proximate to the schools that are not signalized are typically assisted by a 

crossing guard during school hours, but middle schools generally do not provide crossing 

guards. School speed zones are aggressively enforced at speeds of 15 mph for elementary 

and middle schools, and 25 mph for high schools. But officer resources limit the number 

of school zones that can be policed each day. 

Law Enforcement 

The City of Las Vegas and Clark County are served by the Las Vegas Metropolitan 

Police Department (LVMPD), a consolidated agency funded by both entities. There are 

approximately 1,800 officers in the department, about 130 of who are dedicated to traffic 

administration, patrol, and crash investigation. The agency investigates approximately 51 
7

percent of the crashes that occur in Nevada. An inter-local agreement with the Nevada 

Highway Patrol assigns traffic on and near the freeway system to the state troopers. 

LVMPD conducts a variety of specialized enforcement programs, including active efforts 

to increase motorist compliance at marked crosswalks. They conduct regular Selective 

Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEPs) under traffic safety grants awarded through the 

Nevada Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). Pedestrian safety has become an issue for the 

agency and they are committed to helping with this project. One commanding officer 

shared his viewpoint that motorists are simply unaware of the dangers a pedestrian 

confronts in the street environment. 

Pedestrian Crash Problem in Las Vegas Metro Area and the Safety Program 

The pedestrian fatality rate in the State of Nevada had been among the worst in the nation 

over the past decade. Based on pedestrian fatality rates, Nevada has been among the 10 

worst states for pedestrian safety since the early 1990s (NHTSA, 2004). Pedestrian 

fatalities per 100,000 population in the State of Nevada and the U.S. from 1994 to 2003 

are shown in Table 1. Nevada has been ranked first on two occasions during the last 10 

years, in 1996 and 1999, as having the worst pedestrian safety in the United States. Thus, 

the pedestrian safety problem (as quantified by fatal and injury crashes) in Clark County 

warrants immediate attention. 
8

Table 1: Pedestrian Fatalities in Nevada and US from 1994 to 2003 

Year 

Pedestrian Fatality Rate 

per (100,000 Population) Nevada’s 

Ranking 

Pedestrian Fatalities 

in Nevada US Nevada 

1994 2.11 3.71 4 54 

1995 2.12 3.93 5 60 

1996 2.05 4.26 1 68 

1997 1.99 3.52 4 59 

1998 1.93 2.64 6 46 

1999 1.81 3.70 1 67 

2000 1.69 2.13 10 43 

2001 1.72 2.15 7 45 

2002 1.68 2.40 6 52 

2003 1.63 2.90 3 65 

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (2004) 

A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based-analysis of crash data in the Las Vegas 

metropolitan area was used to identify locations with high pedestrian crash rates. 

Altogether, 19 sites were identified as pedestrian high crash locations. Based on 

conditions and crash characteristics, various intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and 

other engineering pedestrian safety countermeasures were identified for deployment at 

these locations. 

Study Objectives 

Various strategies to enhance pedestrian safety have been implemented and evaluated 

around the world. Such strategies have seen limited deployment and evaluation in the 

United States. Such countermeasures were deployed and evaluated at high crash locations 

identified within the Las Vegas valley. A before-and-after evaluation strategy was used to 

assess the effectiveness of these countermeasures. The successful countermeasures can be 

considered for similar kinds of traffic volume and site conditions throughout the United 

States. Some deployed novel strategies and their effects on pedestrians’ and drivers’ 

behavior can also be used in different parts of the world. In this research, nine 

countermeasures were installed and evaluated. Out of these nine, seven of the 

countermeasures were installed at high-risk locations. The remaining two 
9

countermeasures, an in-pavement flashing light system and pedestrian countdown 

signals, are installed at other locations. The effectiveness of the implemented 

countermeasures was evaluated under prevailing weather conditions and in the 

geographic location of the Las Vegas valley. 

Goals 

The goals of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian Safety Program 

are to identify, develop, deploy, and evaluate pedestrian safety countermeasures to help 

improve pedestrian safety (minimize risk) and walk-ability. The intent of this program is 

to serve as an example of what would lead to the implementation of successful pedestrian 

safety countermeasures across the nation. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is the region 

targeted for deploying and identifying countermeasures. The focus of Phase 2 of the 

FHWA Pedestrian Safety Program is to implement engineering and Intelligent 

Transportation System (ITS) based countermeasures, to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these pedestrian safety countermeasures for various target groups and causal (risk) 

factors. 

Objectives 

The objectives of Phase 2 of the program are to follow up on the findings and 

recommendations of Phase 1. Specifically, these objectives are to deploy the selected 

countermeasures at the sites identified in Phase 1, and to evaluate their effectiveness. 

Some of the countermeasures deployed in Phase 2 were selected in consultation with the 

Florida, Miami-Dade county team. This was to permit a comparative evaluation of 

countermeasures at two different locations in the country. 

Tasks 

As presented in the proposal for Phase 2: Implementation (Volume 1), the work plan to 

meet Phase 2 objectives and the Government’s requirements consist of the following 

tasks. 

1. Finalize the implementation plan. 
10

2. Coordinate design and implementation of countermeasures with local partners and 

agencies. 

3. Collect data and analyze existing conditions. 

4. Collect data after deployment of countermeasures. 

5. Conduct statistical analysis and evaluate countermeasures. 

Disseminate the outcomes, findings, and experiences from the program through topical 

avenues. 
11

CHAPTER 2 

COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTIONS
12

CHAPTER 2 

COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTIONS 

A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based methodology was used to identify high 

pedestrian risk zones and areas in the study area. Initially 16 high risk zones comprising 

of 47 pedestrian high crash sites were identified in the Phase 1. However, due to limited 

financial resources to improve pedestrian safety at all the identified locations, eighteen 

(18) pedestrian high crash sites were identified in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. 

Figure 2 shows the map of Las Vegas metropolitan area with the selected 18 locations. Of 

these 18 locations, countermeasures were deployed at 14 locations with the remaining 4 

sites as control sites, where none of the countermeasures were deployed. Seventeen 

countermeasures were selected to evaluate in this program. These countermeasures are 

summarized in Table 2 and in Appendix A, DWG No 123.01-123.13. 

Table 2: Summary of Countermeasures Proposed and Deployed 

Proposed and Deployed Countermeasures 

Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrian Sign 

Advance Yield Markings 

In-Roadway Knockdown Signs 

ITS No-RTOT Signs 

Pedestrian Call Buttons that Light Up 

Warning Sign for Motorist 

High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment 

Median Refuge 

Smart Lighting 

Advance Warning for Motorists (Roving Eyes) 

ITS Automatic Pedestrian Detection Devices 

Portable Speed Trailer 

Pedestrian Activated Flashing Yellow 

Pedestrian Countdown Signals (Animated Eyes)

Enlarged Pedestrian Signal Heads 

Danish Offset 

Pedestrian Channelization 
13

Some countermeasures that were proposed in the cross cutting treatment report were 

changed to match the standard required by the MUTCD 2003. These countermeasures 

are: Turning Vehicle to Pedestrian Sign, Regulatory Sign for Advance Yield Markings, 

In-Roadway Knockdown Signs, and Warning Sign for Motorists. Further, the 

countermeasures that need the request for permission to experiment to the FHWA are 

Smart Lighting, Enhancer LED Flashing Pedestrian Signal, ITS Automatic Pedestrian 

Detection Devices, Pedestrian Countdown Signal (animated eyes), and In-Roadway 

Knockdown Signs. 

Table 3 shows the summary of each countermeasure that were installed and evaluated in 

the Phase 2 of FHWA Pedestrian Safety Project. Summary of the countermeasure 

includes countermeasure code, countermeasure name, countermeasure drawing details 

and a short description of the countermeasure. Table 4 presents the details of the installed 

countermeasures for evaluation at each study location. Table 5 addresses problems 

accomplished by the installed countermeasures at each study location. Appendix A 

presents pictures and drawings of these countermeasures. 
14

Control PointsHigh Pedestrian Risk Locations

R

!

0 0.7 1.4 2.1 0.35 Major Streets Miles 

! R !

R!9 10

13 14 15 16

18 17

12 11

! R

7 8

!!

R

1

2

3

R !

6 5 4

!

I 15

US

95

UPRR

SAHARA AV

CAREYAV

FLAMINGORD

TROPICANAAV

WASHINGTON AV

JONES

BLVD

OWENSAV 

CHARLESTON BLVD

EASTE

RN

AV

DECATUR

BLVD

LASVEGASBLVD

LAMB

BLVD RANCHODR VEGAS DR

STEWARTAV

LAKE MEAD BLVD

BOULDERHWY

VALLEY

V

E

I

W

BLVD

INDUSTRIALRD

PARADISE RD

BRUCE

ST

FREMONT ST 4THST

MARYLAND

PKWY

MART

N

I

L

KI

NG

BLVD

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

SWENSON

ST

VEGAS VAL

SMOKE RANCH RD

PECOS

RD

DESERT 

SANDS AV

BONANZA RD

CI

VI

C

CENTER

DR

MOUNTAI

N

V

S

I

TA

ST

TWAIN AV

COMMERCEST

4TH

ST

TWAIN AV

I 15

LAKE 

BONANZA R

TWAINAV

US 95 

PECOS

RD

DESERT INN RD

LAMB

BLVD

DESERT INN RD

PECOS

RD

Figure 2: Selected high crash sites 
15

Table 3: Summary of the Potential Countermeasures 

COUNTERMEASURE DWG No. NOTE

A1 1. Electronic Blank-out sign shall be integrated into existing traffic management systems.

( Appendix A ) 2. Housing body and inside framework permanently attached to form a single unit designed to withsta

foot as specified in AASHTO publication entitled standard specification for structural support for hig

and traf 3. Flat aluminum sign face with fiber optics or LED assembly mouted on it

4. Housings constructed of extruded aluminum with a flat aluminum back welded into the housing5. The sign shall be completely blank out when not energized. No phantom words or leged seen unde

conditions

Advance yield markings A2.1 1. See MUTCD Sect.3B.16, Page 3B-33 and 3B-34

( Appendix A )

+ A2.2 1. All components shall be square post, perforated on all four sides

( Appendix A ) 2. Attach anchor and sleeve together prior to driving into ground. Leave at least one hole, but no more 

ground or above sidewalk3. For sidewalk installation, drill sidewalk a 3" hole, the center to be 6" from back of sidewalk4. Attach post to anchoring system by using at least two 3/8" diameter. drive rivets.

5. Provide 4" minimum lap between post and the anchor/sleeve assembly. One hole, but no more than 

above sidewalk.

A3.1 and A3.2 1. 123.05 is YIELD for pedestrian at crosswalk sign

( Appendix A ) 2. 123.05A is WATCH for pedestrian sign (mid-block or no crosswalk locations)

A4 1. Electronic blank-out sign shall be integrated into existing traffic management systems.

2. Housing body and inside framework permanently attached to form a single unit designed to withstafoot as specified in AASHTO publication entitled standard specification for structural support for hig

and traf 3. Flat aluminum sign face with fiber optics or LED assembly mouted on it

4. Housings constructed of extruded aluminum with a flat aluminum back welded into the housing5. The sign shall be completely blank out when not energized. No phantom words seen under any am

A5 1. Pedestrian push button shall not be located more than 24" from the back of walk. If distance from 

button is 20" to 24", the button shall be located at a maximum hight of 44" from the surface of the wa

( Appendix A ) 2. The force required to activate control shall be no greater than 5 lb.

3. Post shall be HOT-DIP galvanized by manufacturer or prime painted by manufacturer and finish paspecifications and as required by the entity

A6 1. All components shall be square post, perforated on all four sides

( Appendix A ) 2. Attach anchor and sleeve together prior to driving into ground. Leave at least one hole, but no more 

ground or above sidewalk3. For sidewalk installation, drill sidewalk a 3" hole, the center to be 6" from back of sidewalk4. Attach post to anchoring sstem by using at least two 3/8" diameter. drive rivets.

5. Provide 4" minimum lap between post and the anchor/sleeve assembly. 

Turning vehicles yield to ped signIn-roadway knockdown signs

ITS no RTOR signsPed call buttons that light up, other ADA related TechnologiesRegulatory sign for motoristSign yield to pedestians
16

Table 3: Summary of the Potential Countermeasures (Continued) 

COUNTERMEASURE DWG No. NOTE

A7 1. Types of crosswalks are selected based on the requirement in each jurisdiction

( Appendix A )

A8

( Appendix A )

A9 1. Metal halide fixtures with reflective floodlights to light the walkways of the pedestrian 

2. When activated, it gives a brilliant white light that significantly contrast with the golden 

high pressure sodium bulbs.

( Appendix A )

A11

( Appendix A )

Portable speed trailers - - A13 1. All poles to be HOT-DIP galvanized by manufacturer or prime painted by manufacture

painted by contractor per specifications and as required by the entity.2. Low bidder must supply shop drawing for design approval before contract can be awar

( Appendix A )

A14 1. The hand symbol (DON'T WALK) is portland orange and human symbol (WALK) is lu

( Appendix A )

A16

( Appendix A )

A17

( Appendix A )

High visibility crosswalk treatmentMedian refuge

Smart lightingITS automatic pedestrian detection devicesPedestrian activated flashing yellowPedestrian countdown signals (animated eyes) ---- Danish offset Pedestrian channelization
17

Table 4: Countermeasures Installed for Evaluation at Selected Sites 

D E H J K M N O Q R S T 

1 Maryland Parkway / Sierra Vista Drive CC X 

2 Maryland Parkway / Dumont Street CC X X X 

3 Maryland Parkway / Twain Avenue CC4 Harmon Avenue / Paradise Road CC X X 

5 Harmon Avenue : Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash CC X X X X 

7 Flamingo Road / Koval Lane NDOT / CC X X 

8 Flamingo Road / Paradise Road NDOT / CC 

9 Bonanza Road / D Street NDOT / CLV X X 

10 Bonanza Road / F Street NDOT / CLV X X11 Twain Avenue: Cambridge Street to Swenson Street CC X X12 Twain Avenue: Swenson Street to Palos Verde Street CC X13 Lake Mead Boulevard / Las Vegas Boulevard NDOT / NLV X 14 Lake Mead Boulevard / McDaniel Street NDOT / NLV15 Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran Street NDOT / NLV X X X X X X 16 Lake Mead Boulevard / Pecos Road NDOT / NLV X X17 Fremont Street: 11th Street to 8th Street NDOT / CLV18 Fremont Streer: 8th Street to 6th Street NDOT / CLV X X X19 Charleston Boulevard/ Spencer Street* CLV X X X X X X

* New study location COUNTERMEASURES

** Excluded from further consideration

D Turning vehicles yield to Ped Sign Q Smart Lighting

CC Clark County E Advance Yield Markings R Advance Warning for 

NDOT Nevada DOT H In-Roadway Knockdown Signs S ITS Automatic Pedes

CLV City of Las Vegas J ITS No RTOR Signs T Portable Speed Traile

NLV City of North Las Vegas K Ped Call Buttons that Light Up, other U Pedestrian Activated 

ADA related Technologies W Pedestrian Countdow

M Regulatory Sign for Motorist X Enlarged Pedestrian S

N High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment Y Danish OffsetO Median Refuge Z Pedestrian Channeliz

8 Charleston Boulevard (Maryland Parkway - Eastern Avenue)

Potential Countermeasures

Maryland Parkway (Flamingo Wash - Sierra Vista Drive)

1

Harmon (Paradise Road - Las Vegas Boulevard)

2

Site # Location Zone # Jurisdiction

Flamingo Road (Paradise Road - Las Vegas Boulevard)

3

Bonanza Road (D Street - H Street)

4

Fremont Street (15th Street - 6th Street)

7

Twain Avenue (Cambridge Street - Palos Verde Street)

5

Lake Mead Boulevard (Pecos Road - Las Vegas Boulevard)

6
18

Table 5: Relationships between Existing Problems and Installed Countermeasures 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

X X X

Enlarged pedestrian countdown sig

X X High visibility crosswalk treatmen

X X X Advance yield markings + sign yie

X X High visibility crosswalk treatmen

X X X X In-roadway knockdown signs (H) X X Danish Offset (Y) 

Pedestrian activated flashing yello

3 Maryland Parkway / Twain Avenue

X X Regulatory sign for motorists (M) X X Turning vehicles yield to pedestria

X X Advance yield markings + sign yie

X X High visibility crosswalk treatmen

X X X X In-roadway knockdown signs (H) 

X X Median Refuge (O) 

X X High visibility crosswalk treatmen

X X ITS No RTOR signs (J) 

X X Pedestrian countdown signals (ani

8 Flamingo Road / Paradise Road

X X Warning Sign for Motorists (M) 

X X X X Pedestrain channelization (Z) X X X X High visibility crosswalk treatmenX X X X High visibility crosswalk treatmen

X X X X In-roadway knockdown signs (H) X X X X In-roadway knockdown signs (H) X X X Portable speed trailers with fine in

Note:

A Countermeasures in the final implementation stage

* New Location

Problem Description:

1 Pedestrians do NOT use the crosswalks 7 Pedestrian failure to yield2 Inconspicuous crosswalks 8 High speed / high traffic volume3 Pedestrians trapped in the middle of street 9 Pedestrians do NOT wait for signals/ acceptable gaps4 High percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes 10 High pedestrian / Right turning vehicle conflicts

5 Inconspicuous pedestrian signals due to wide streets 11 High percentage of night time crashes

9

1011

Bonanza Road / D StreetFlamingo Road / Koval LaneBonanza Road / F StreetTwain Avenue: Cambridge Street to Swenson Street

2 Maryland Parkway / Dumont Street

Harmon Avenue / Paradise Road

5 Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash74

Control SiteControl Site

Site # Location Problems / Concerns Counterm

1 Maryland Parkway / Sierra Vista Drive
19

Table 5: Relationships between Existing Problems and Installed Countermeasures (Contin

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 Twain Avenue: Swenson Streeet to Palos Verde Street X X X X X In-roadway knockdown signs (H) 

X X Enlarged pedestrian signal heads (X

X X High visibility crosswalk treatment 

14 Lake Mead Boulevard / McDaniel Street

X Advance warning for motorists (Rov

X Advance yield markings + sign yield 

X X High visibility crosswalk treatment 

X X ITS automatic pedestrain detection d

X Pedestrian activated flashing yellow 

X X X Smart lighting (Q)

X X Median Refuge (O) X X Danish Offset (Y) 

X X X X Regulatory sign for motorists (M) 

X X X Turning vehicles yield to pedestrian 

17 Fremont Street: 11th Street to 8th Street

X X X In-roadway knockdown signs (H)

X Pedestrian call buttons that light up 

(K) 

X X X Portable speed trailer with fine info X X High visibility crosswalk treatment X X Regulatory sign for motorists (M) 

X Advance yield markings + sign yield 

X X X Smart lighting (Q) 

X Advance warning for motorists (Rov

X X ITS automatic pedestrain detection d

Note:

A Countermeasures in the final implementation stage

* New Location

Problem Description:

1 Pedestrians do NOT use the crosswalks 7 Pedestrian failure to yield2 Inconspicuous crosswalks 8 High speed / high traffic volume

3 Pedestrians trapped in the middle of street 9 Pedestrians do NOT wait for signals/ acceptable gaps

4 High percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes 10 High pedestrian / Right turning vehicle conflicts

5 Inconspicuous pedestrian signals due to wide streets 11 High percentage of night time crashes6 Motorist failure to yield

18 Fremont Street: 8th Street to 6th Street19 Charleston Boulevard/ Spencer Street*13 Lake Mead Boulevard / Las Vegas Boulevard15 Lake Mead Boulevard / Belmont Street to McCarran Street

16 Lake Mead Boulevard / Pecos Road

Control SiteControl Site

Site # Location 

Problems / Concerns Countermea
20

SUMMARY OF THE COUNTERMEASURES INSTALLED 

Brief discussions for each countermeasure are discussed next. 

Turning vehicles yield to pedestrian sign 

This countermeasure is a symbol sign that reminds turning motorists that they must yield 

to pedestrians at traffic signals. This sign was tested at two different positions at each 

high crash location; position 1 placed next to the traffic signal (on the far side of the 

intersection) and position 2 placed on a sign pole 50 feet ahead of the intersection. 

Turning vehicles yield to pedestrian sign is as recommended in MUTCD 2003, Section 

2B.45 (R10-15) (drawing 123.04 of Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• Pedestrian do NOT wait for signals/acceptable gaps 

• High pedestrian/right turning vehicle conflicts 

Advance yield markings + Yield here to pedestrian sign 

Installation of this countermeasure 30 to 50 feet in advance of crosswalks at uncontrolled 

locations enhances pedestrian safety. These markings produce a clear zone for 

pedestrians to reduce conflicts and crashes caused by the screening effect of vehicles on 

multilane roadways. Advance yield markings are as recommended in MUTCD 2003, 

Section 3B.16. Additionally, sign yield to pedestrians is following the stand in MUTCD 

2003, Section 2B.11 (R1-5a) (drawing 123.02 of Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• Motorist failure to yield

• Pedestrian failure to yield

• High speed/high traffic volume
21

In-roadway knockdown signs 

Pedestrian in-roadway knockdown sign or the in-street pedestrian crossing sign are used 

to remind motorists for pedestrians’ right of way at a crossing or to warn motorists about 

pedestrian traffic at a mid-block. For the sign at crosswalks, the legend STATE LAW is 

shown at the top of the sign if applicable. The legends YIELD TO may be used in 

conjunction with the appropriate symbol (MUTCD 2003, Section 2B.12). This sign is 

referred to the sign R1-6 in the MUTCD 2003. For the sign at mid-block, the legend 

WATCH FOR with pedestrian pictogram is proposed for this study. These signs are 

expected to be effective in increasing the number of motorists stopping for pedestrians 

and reducing the number of pedestrians, who had to run, hesitate, or abort their crossing 

(drawing 123.05 and 123.05A of Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• Pedestrian do NOT use the crosswalks

• Pedestrian trapped in the middle of street

• Motorist failure to yield

• Pedestrian failure to yield

• High speed/high traffic volume

ITS No RTOR Signs 

This countermeasure is a symbol sign to remind motorists that turning vehicles must 

come to a full stop and yield to cross-street traffic and pedestrians prior to turning right 

on red. Many motorists do not fully comply with the regulations, especially at 

intersections with wide turning radii. Motorists are so intent on looking for traffic 

approaching on their left that they may not be alert to pedestrians approaching on their 

right. In addition, motorists usually pull up into the crosswalk to wait for a gap in traffic, 

blocking pedestrian crossing movements. In some instances, motorists simply do not 

come to a full stop (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center). This sign is placed next 

to the traffic signal. It remains completely blank when not energized. No phantom words 

were seen under any ambient light conditions. Electronic blank-out sign are integrated 
22

into existing traffic management system. ITS No RTOR sign is following the standard in 

MUTCD 2003, Section 2B.45 (R10-11) (drawing 123.06 of Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• Motorist failure to yield 

• High pedestrian/Right turning vehicle conflicts 

Pedestrian call buttons that light up/confirm press, other ADA related technologies 

This countermeasure is one of the accessible pedestrian signals (APS). APS is a device 

that communicates information about pedestrian timing in non-visual format such as 

audible tones, verbal messages, and/or vibrating surfaces (MUTCD 2003, Section 

4A.01). The LED light up button which is installed with this countermeasure also gives 

information to pedestrians that the sign is activated after they push the button (drawing 

123.07 of Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• High percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes 

Warning sign for motorist 

The objective of this countermeasure is to enhance visibility and minimize inappropriate 

perceptions between pedestrians and the motorists. The MUTCD recommends the use of 

an advance pedestrian crossing sign in advance of locations where pedestrians may cross 

but may not be expected by the motorist. Warning sign for motorist is based on the 

standards set in MUTCD 2003, Section 2C.41 (W11-2) (drawing 123.03 of Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• Motorist failure to yield

• Pedestrian failure to yield

• Pedestrian do NOT wait for signals/acceptable gaps

• High pedestrian/right turning vehicle conflicts
23

High visibility crosswalk treatment 

Currently, existing crosswalks at the selected locations have inconspicuous conditions. 

The objective of this countermeasure is to enhance visibility and minimize inappropriate 

perceptions between the pedestrians and the motorists. This countermeasure is also 

expected to encourage greater number of pedestrians to use cross crosswalks. 

Problems addressed

• Pedestrians do NOT use the crosswalks

• Inconspicuous crosswalks

• Motorist failure to yield

• Pedestrian failure to yield

Median refuge 

Median refuges are raised barriers in the center portion of the street or roadway that serve 

as a place of refuge for pedestrians who cross a street at mid-block or at an intersection 

location. These median, in turn, also helps to reduce the speed of vehicles. They also 

have benefits for motorist safety when they replace center turn lanes. Desired turning 

movements need to be carefully provided so that motorists are not forced to travel on 

inappropriate routes, such as residential streets, or make unsafe U-turns (Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Information Center). 

Problems addressed

• Pedestrian trapped in the middle of street

• Motorist failure to yield

Smart lighting 

The objective of the smart lighting strategy is to increase the intensity of illumination at 

the crosswalk when a pedestrian is detected in the crosswalk. The sudden increase in 

lighting intensity alerts motorists that pedestrians are in crosswalk more so than when 

continuous intensity light is used in the crosswalk. Note that high intensity lighting will 
24

remain only when pedestrians are present in the crosswalk (drawing 123.12 of Appendix 

A). 

Problems addressed

• High percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes

• Motorist failure to yield

• High percentage of night time crashes

ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices 

This countermeasure is a device that is installed with advance warning for motorists 

(roving eyes) or smart lighting. The detection devices use ultrasonic or microwave radar 

to detect pedestrians at crossing areas. This countermeasure is aimed at reducing overall 

pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and inappropriate crossings (drawing 123.11 of Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• Pedestrians do NOT wait for signals/acceptable gaps 

Portable speed trailers 

This mounted radar display trailer is accurate, at about five miles per hour, and easily 

read at a glance. Additionally, differences from the use of a traditional portable speed 

trailer which only provides feedback on vehicle speed, this speed trailer also informs the 

driver of the size of the fine associated with their speed (if they exceed the speed limit). 

These fine related information was collected from the local police departments. 

Problems addressed

• Pedestrian failure to yield 

• High speed/high traffic volume 

Pedestrian activated flashing yellow 

Pedestrian activated flashing yellow is pedestrian-activated overhead flashing yellow 

lights and downward lighting installed above the crosswalk. The flashing yellow lights 

could be either activated by a pedestrian pushing a button at the curb or activated by “ITS 
25

automatic pedestrian detection devices.” These flashing lights are timed to stay on long 

enough to allow pedestrians to cross the street. This countermeasure has the objective of 

drawing the attention of drivers to the presence of a crosswalk ahead, and encouraging 

pedestrians in crossing the street (drawing 123.13 of Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• Motorist failure to yield

Pedestrian countdown signals (animated eyes) 

The animated eyes ITS warning sign is installed together with pedestrian countdown 

signal and walk man pictogram. The main purpose of the “animated eyes” is to remind 

pedestrian to look left and right for the vehicles before crossing the street. The sign could 

be activated by a pedestrian call button or using pedestrian detection devices (drawing 

123.10 of Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• Pedestrian trapped in the middle of street 

• High percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes 

• Pedestrian do NOT wait for signals/acceptable gaps 

Danish offset 

Danish Offset is the use of an offset at the middle of a multilane crossing to ensure 

pedestrians are facing the next half of traffic being crossed. In addition, it also provides a 

median refuge to pedestrians. 

Problems addressed

• Pedestrian trapped in the middle of street

• Pedestrian failure to yield

• Pedestrian do NOT wait for acceptable gaps
26

Pedestrian Channelization 

Pedestrian Channelization is commonly used where the safe direction of pedestrian traffic 

is required. It is also seen on construction sites and roadway works. This countermeasure 

can also be used as a safety barrier to separate vehicles and people (drawing 123.08 of 

Appendix A). 

Problems addressed

• Pedestrian do NOT use the crosswalks

• Pedestrian trapped in the middle of street

• Pedestrian failure to yield

Pedestrian do NOT wait for signals/acceptable gaps 
27

CHAPTER 3

DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS AND 

MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
28

CHAPTER 3

DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS AND MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 

Field observations are conducted before and after deployment of countermeasures at site 

to obtain required data to derive the Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). Data are 

collected to identify the effectiveness of the selected countermeasures at each site. 

Collected data include information pertaining to pedestrians and motorists. Different data 

collection strategies are used for intersections and mid-block locations. The observed 

pedestrian crossing behaviors at intersections are: crossing direction, crosswalk usage, 

pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street while crossing, crossing distance from the 

crosswalk (if not using crosswalk), waiting time before crossing, purpose of the trip, and 

yielding behavior. Similarly, the observed pedestrian crossing behaviors at mid-block 

locations are: crossing direction, trapped in the middle of the street while crossing, 

distance of crossing from the nearest intersection, waiting time for an acceptable gap, and 

yielding behavior. In general, the pedestrians’ activities approximately 200 feet on either 

side of the intersections are observed. At mid-block locations, pedestrians’ activities 

between intersections are observed. Data collected on motorists included traffic volume, 

vehicle approaching speed, yielding distance, etc. Data collection at a site depends on the 

countermeasures evaluated. Different types of data for evaluation of different 

countermeasures are listed in the following section. 

1. Crash Frequency (Pedestrian Crashes/Year)

Crash data are collected from 1996 to 2000 within the Las Vegas metropolitan area. 

Based on this primary data, high crash locations in the Las Vegas metropolitan area are 

identified. Countermeasures are also selected based on the high crash locations as well as 

the type of crashes. The crash database includes pedestrian and vehicle crashes, excluding 

crashes in parking lots. 

2. Crash Severity (Distribution of Crashes by Injury Type/Year)

The severity of crash data and their distribution within the Las Vegas metropolitan area 

are collected. In general, pedestrian crashes are divided into two categories: fatal and 
29

injury. Likewise, vehicle crashes are categorized as follows: fatal, injury, and property 

damage only (PDO). Specifically, crash severities are categorized on a 1 to 5 scale, where 

1 is a crash with no injury and 5 is a fatal crash. Alternatively, the severity of crashes is 

divided into five categories as follows: fatal injury (K), incapacitating injury (A), nonincapacitating injury (B), no visible injury but complaint of pain (C), and no injury, 

property damage only (O), which is also referred as the KABCO injury scale. 

3. Pedestrian and Vehicle Conflicts

A conflict involves an evasive action by a motorist or a pedestrian, where the vehicle and 

pedestrian are on a collision course. Evasive action is evidenced by a motorist stopping 

abruptly, slamming on the brakes, or swerving or by a pedestrian suddenly stepping back, 

lunging back, or running forward to avoid being struck by a vehicle. For a conflict to be 

scored, evasive action by either a motorist or a pedestrian need to be observed. At 

signalized intersections, only the pedestrians crossing between the stop bar and the 

intersection (including within the crosswalk) are considered for evaluating evasive action. 

Any conflicts occurring in a crosswalk at an intersection where countermeasures have 

been installed are recorded. At mid-block locations, all conflicts occurring within 300 

feet upstream and downstream of the proposed crosswalk/countermeasure locations are 

recorded for both before and after deployment of the countermeasures. The pedestrian 

and vehicle conflict is expressed in terms of vehicle or pedestrian volume. 

4. Percentage of Pedestrians who look for Vehicles before beginning to Cross

This MOE is scored if the pedestrians look in the direction of a potential threat before 

stepping off the curb onto the roadway. The data are reported as a percentage of the total 

pedestrians observed during the study period. 

5. Percentage of Pedestrians who look for Vehicles before Crossing Second Half of the 

Street

This MOE is evaluated for the pedestrians who are at the centerline/center of roadway 

and visibly scan for vehicles before continuing to cross the second half of the street. The 
30

observed data are reported as a percentage of the total pedestrians observed during the 

study period. 

6. Percentage of Captured Pedestrians

The percentage of captured pedestrians is the percentage of pedestrians who modified 

their paths to use a safety countermeasure, but who do not go out of their way to do so. 

7. Percentage of Diverted Pedestrians

The percentage of diverted pedestrians is the percentage of pedestrians who modified 

their paths to use a safety countermeasure, and who went out of their way to do so. In this 

case, unlike “captured” pedestrians, these pedestrians would have to divert from their 

shortest path and walk some additional distance to use the safety countermeasure. This 

was determined based on observations of “back-tracking” movements by pedestrians. 

8. Percentage of Pedestrians Who Pushed the Call Button

To record this MOE, every signal cycle for a given data collection period in which a 

pedestrian is present is observed as to whether or not the call button is pushed (cycles 

where no pedestrians are present are ignored in the percentage calculation). This MOE is 

recorded separately for each treated crosswalk at the intersection. Pedestrians are scored 

if they push the call button and the recorded data are converted to the percent of the total 

pedestrians crossing at a signalized intersection. Also, the percent of cycles where the call 

button is pushed is considered. 

9. Pedestrian Not Completing Roadway Crossings

The data pertaining to pedestrians on the roadway or crosswalk can be divided into 

following categories: 

9.1. Pedestrians in the Crosswalk during the Flashing DON’T WALK Phase

When crossing at a signalized intersection, pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of 

the flashing DON’T WALK phase are those who are still in the roadway when the 

solid hand appears on the pedestrian signal. The corresponding percentage of total 
31

pedestrians crossing during the observation period is calculated. Data are collected 

from field observations. 

9.2. Percentage of Pedestrians in the Crosswalk at the End of All-Red

The number of pedestrians in or near the crosswalk, who initiate their crossing before 

the solid DON’T WALK pedestrian signal who are still in a traffic lane after the cross 

street traffic receive the green signal, is counted. These data are reported in terms of 

the percentage of total observed pedestrians. 

9.3. Percentage of Pedestrians Trapped in the Middle of Crossing

The number of pedestrians who are trapped in the middle of uncontrolled locations 

for at least 5 seconds is counted. This is generally the result of a pedestrian selecting a 

gap that is too small for them to completely cross the road before encountering 

approaching traffic. Pedestrians are scored as trapped in the middle at the centerline 

or between lanes if they have to wait to finish crossing. These pedestrians are 

converted into the percentage of total observed pedestrians. 

10. Percentage of Pedestrians who begin their Crossing during WALK phase

This MOE is scored if a pedestrian steps from the curb into the crosswalk when the 

WALK signal is displayed on the pedestrian signal head. These data are converted into 

the percentage of total observed pedestrians. 

11. Pedestrian Signal Violations (Crossing during the DON’T WALK Phase)

A pedestrian is considered to be a signal violator if the pedestrian steps in or near the 

crosswalk from the curb when the solid DON’T WALK sign is displayed on the 

pedestrian signal head. Such violators are reported as a percentage of the total pedestrians 

observed during the study period. 

12. Percentage of Drivers who Yielded to Pedestrians 

Drivers’ yielding behavior to pedestrians is recorded. In particular, the yielding behavior 

of a motorist at a crosswalk, right-turning on red (RTOR), and yielding distance from the 
32

crosswalk is recorded. At signalized intersections, the percent of drivers who stop or slow 

to allow pedestrians to cross in front of them before proceeding is observed. Motorists’ 

yielding behavior is only scored when pedestrians have the right of way (i.e., during the 

WALK phase or during the flashing DON’T WALK phase if pedestrians started crossing 

when the WALK signal is displayed). At mid-block locations, it is the percentage of 

through vehicles that yields. Drivers’ yielding behavior is presented in terms of the 

percentage of the total observations. The collected data pertaining to motorists’ yielding 

behavior will be discussed next. 

12.1. Distance Vehicle Yields before the Crosswalk

The distance a driver stops before a crosswalk at an intersection is the distance 

between the front bumper of the stopped vehicle and the marked crosswalk. The 

distance a turning driver (making a RTOR or a permissive left turn) stops/yields to 

pedestrians in the far crosswalks of an intersection (after initiating the turn and 

crossing the first crosswalk) is the distance between the front bumper of the vehicle 

and the marked crosswalk. The distance a driver yields at a mid-block crosswalk is 

the distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk when the driver first begins to 

brake in advance of the mid-block crossing. To score the distance the motorist yield 

to a pedestrian, both a vehicle and a crossing pedestrian need to be present at the 

same time. The yielding distance of the vehicles are recorded in three categories, less 

than 10 feet (<10 ft), between 10 to 20 feet (10-20 ft), and greater than 20 feet (>20 

ft). To help with field observations, reference marks are identified on the curb at these 

intervals in advance of the crosswalk. 

12.2. Percentage of Vehicles Blocking Crosswalk

The data for the frequency of vehicles blocking the crosswalk at the intersections and 

mid-block locations are collected. A vehicle is scored as 

"blocking the crosswalk” when it encroaches the crosswalk. These data on the 

vehicles that block the crosswalk are converted into the percentage of total observed 

vehicles during the study period. 
33

12.3. Percentage of Drivers Turning Right on Red coming to a Complete Stop

Drivers are scored as coming to a complete stop if their wheels stopped turning before 

they enter the crosswalk. Drivers are scored as RTOR coming to rolling stop if the 

vehicles slow considerably, but the wheels do not stop turning before entering the 

crosswalk. If drivers turn without appreciably slowing, they are scored as RTOR 

without slowing. This MOE is reported in terms of the percentage of total observed 

vehicles during the study period. 

At uncontrolled locations, a motorist is scored as yielding if he/she stops or slows, 

allowing the pedestrian to cross. A motorist is scored as unyielding if he or she passes 

in front of a pedestrian but would have been able to stop when the pedestrian arrive at 

the crosswalk. The problem requires calculating the distance that a motorist driving 

within the posted speed limit can stop for a traffic signal that changes to red using the 

signal-timing formula. This formula takes into account driver reaction time, safe 

deceleration rate, posted speed limit, and the grade of the road. The required distance 

for motorists to stop their vehicles safely within perception and break reaction time is 

called stopping sight distance (SSD). The SSD is the sum of the distance traveled 

during the brake reaction time and the distance to brake the vehicle to stop. 

According to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), the SSD in meters is given as follows: 

 d = 0.278Vt + 0.039 V2/a meters (Equation 1)

Where, 

t = brake reaction time, 2.5 sec; 

V = design speed, km/h; 

a = deceleration rate, 3.4 m/s2

Equation 1 is used to measure the distance beyond which a driver can safely stop for a 

pedestrian, and a mark can be placed at this distance on each side of the sidewalk. 

Motorists downstream of this marking after a pedestrian has entered the roadway can 

be scored as yielding to pedestrians, but not for failing to yield. Motorists upstream of 

the landmark when a pedestrian enter the crosswalk can be scored as yielding or not 
34

yielding because they have sufficient distance to safely stop. When a pedestrian first 

starts to cross, only drivers in the first half of the roadway are scored for yielding. 

Once the pedestrian approaches within half a lane of the marked median, the yielding 

behavior of motorists in the remaining lanes can be scored. 

13. Pedestrian Delay

Pedestrian delay is the time a pedestrian has to wait before crossing the street at a marked 

or unmarked crosswalk. The duration starts when a pedestrian is first oriented to make 

the crossing and ends when they begin to cross. Pedestrian delays are measured using a 

stopwatch. At a signalized intersection, the stopwatch is started at the beginning of the 

flashing DON’T WALK phase. Each time a pedestrian arrives at a crossing area and 

prepares to cross the street, the time on the stopwatch is recorded for that pedestrian. 

When the WALK signal is displayed, the time appear on the stopwatch is recorded. The 

difference in time between the WALK signal display and the time each pedestrian spent 

waiting to cross the street is the individual pedestrian delay. The delay is averaged and 

reported based on the total observations. Pedestrian signal violators are not scored (i.e., 

pedestrians crossing during the flashing DON’T WALK or during the solid DON’T 

WALK phase). 

When pedestrian crosses at a mid-block location, he/she may continue walking along the 

road/sidewalk (glancing over his/her shoulder) up until the time that a gap in traffic is 

detected and the crossing maneuver is initiated. In this case, a zero delay is recorded for 

the pedestrian, as the pedestrian continues to move up until the time of crossing. 

Pedestrian delay begins only when the pedestrian turns to initiate the crossing maneuver 

and stops walking to wait for a gap in traffic. If a pedestrian becomes delayed or trapped 

in the roadway after starting the crossing maneuver, this additional in-roadway delay is 

added to the delay the pedestrian experience before crossing to get the pedestrian’s total 

delay. 
35

14. Vehicle Speed

Average vehicle speeds are measured using the space mean speed technique. A length of 

segment on the upstream of an intersection is measured and a corresponding time taken 

by a vehicle to travel this segment is recorded. The same strategy is used at mid-block 

locations. The mean and 85th percentile speed and standard deviation of speed are 

reported. 

15. Vehicle Delay at Intersections/Mid-block Crossings

Vehicle delay is defined as an average amount of time a vehicle is stopped waiting at a 

traffic signal and/or yielding to a crossing pedestrian. The average vehicle stopped delay 

is measured using a delay study. Standard methodologies for conducting stopped delay 

studies at signalized intersections are used. The average vehicle stopped delay for an 

approach is reported. 

16. Other Required Data

In order to quantify the MOEs, data pertaining to traffic volume, pedestrian volume, and 

crossing locations are collected. The required information and data collected are 

discussed next. 

16.1. Vehicle Volume/Counts

The number of vehicles or vehicle counts is done during peak periods along the sites 

where countermeasures are deployed. Data are collected during morning and evening 

peak hours, 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 7:00 PM, respectively. Vehicle counts are 

obtained from video recording. 

16.2. Pedestrian Volume/Counts

Pedestrian movements and pedestrian volume are obtained during peak hours for all 

the selected sites. Data are collected during morning and evening peak periods, 7:00 

to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 7:00 PM, respectively. At some of the locations, where the 

pedestrians’ peak volume need not be during the vehicle peak period, data was 
36

collected from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Pedestrian volume and movement information 

are obtained from real time field observations. 
37

CHAPTER 4 

DATA COLLECTION AT SITES BEFORE AND AFTER 

COUNTERMEASURE INSTALLATION 
38

CHAPTER 4 

DATA COLLECTION AT SITES BEFORE AND AFTER COUNTERMEASURE 

INSTALLATION 

Data on the number of pedestrians crossing the street were collected at each of the 19 

locations. Data were collected for five hours on each day. Of the five hours, two hours 

were during the morning and three hours of evening peak hours for vehicle traffic. At 

some locations, where the pedestrian sample is low due to the non-similarity of the 

vehicle and pedestrian peak volume times, data was collected for eight to twelve hours. 

The data collection days were primarily weekdays and data collection over the weekends 

was minimal. Weekend data collection was mainly intended for locations where 

pedestrian activities proximate to recreational and shopping areas are expected to be 

greater during the weekends. At other locations, such as the residential and small 

commercial locations, more pedestrian activities are expected during weekdays. 

The pedestrians’ crossing behaviors were observed at a crosswalk and approximately 

within 200 feet from a crosswalk at all approaches of an intersection. All pedestrians 

were observed at mid-block locations, where distance from a crosswalk was not a 

deciding factor. The yielding behavior and whether a pedestrian was trapped or not 

trapped in the middle of the street while crossing were recorded. All observed pedestrian 

data were analyzed based on crossing locations. Both of the crossing behaviors consist of 

two options for each observation. The yielding behavior consists of two options, either 

“yielding” or “not yielding.” Likewise, the observation on pedestrians trapped in the 

middle of the street has two options either “trapped” or “not trapped” while crossing. 

After the collection of various elements of the data, data was analyzed to determine the 

effectiveness of the countermeasure deployed. There are multiple countermeasures 

deployed at various sites to address multiple problems. Analysis of each site includes site 

description, aerial photo of the site showing injury and fatal crash locations, problems 

identified at that particular location, countermeasure proposed to improve the pedestrian 

safety at that location, countermeasures implementation details, data collection dates and 
39

analysis of the data collection at the respective locations. Data was also analyzed based 

on the type of countermeasure installed. Most of the proposed countermeasures were 

installed at more than one location. Therefore for each countermeasure, data from 

different sites was collected and analyzed to determine the overall effectiveness of the 

countermeasure. Analysis of individual sites and individual countermeasures follows. 

Evaluation of Countermeasures 

Several statistical tools are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the deployed 

countermeasures in enhancing pedestrian safety. The types of statistical tools are based 

on the considered measures of effectiveness (MOEs) for evaluation. The evaluation 

strategy and the statistical tools used for some of the countermeasures are discussed next: 

A before and after study strategy was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of most of 

the countermeasures. Data were collected in the morning and afternoon peak periods. 

This was done both prior and after the deployment of the above mentioned 

countermeasures (“before and after” condition). Data are stratified and analyzed for 

morning and evening peak hours based on total observations. The percentage of motorists 

yielding is obtained for both before and after study evaluation periods. 

Z-Test 

The z-test for two proportions, a statistical tool, is used to determine if the proportions 

obtained during the two study periods are significantly different. 

Let PB = proportion of vehicles yielding during the “before” period 

 PA = proportion of vehicles yielding during the “after” period 

The null hypothesis (H0) is that the percentage of motorists yielding during “before” 

period (PB) and “after” period (PA) is the same. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is the 

percentage of motorists yielding during “after” (PA) period is greater than the percentage 

of motorists yielding during “before” period (PB). They are expressed as follows: 

 H0: PB = PA

 Ha: PB < PA
40

The one-tail test for proportions is used to test these hypotheses at a 95 percent 

confidence level. 

Let XB = number of vehicles yielding in the “before” period, out of a total of nB vehicles 

 XA = number of vehicles yielding in the “after” period, out of a total of nA vehicles 

The population proportions PA

ˆ and PBˆ are estimated by the sample proportions: 

n/XP AAA

ˆ = and BBB n/XP

ˆ =

For large sample sizes, the two sample proportions are approximately and normally 

distributed, and the z-test for testing the equality of the two proportions vs. the 1-sided 

alternative can be used. The test statistic used is Z0, and is defined as follows: 

( ) 















+−

−

=

AB

AB

0

n

1

n

1

P

ˆ 1Pˆ

P

ˆ Pˆ

Z

Where, 

AB

AB

nn

XX

P

ˆ

+

+

=

Z0 is distributed approximately N (0, 1) when H0 is true. 

The significant probability or P-value for equality of proportions vs. the 1-sided 

alternative is calculated by: 

P-value = P(Z < Z0) 

The null hypothesis is rejected if the P-value < 0.05 (for 95% confidence level). 

T-Test 

A paired t-test and Welch-Satterthwaite t-test are used to compare if speeds are 

statistically different at two evaluation periods at the 95 percent confidence level. The 

Welch-Satterthwaite t-test is used when the assumption that the two populations have 

equal variances seems unreasonable. It is used to identify the difference between means 

of independent samples. 

Let μB = population mean during before evaluation period, 

 nB = number of observations during before evaluation period, 
41

B

x = sample mean of nB observations, 

2

SB = sample variance of observations during before study. 

Similarly, μA, nA, A

x , and 2

SB are the population mean, number of observations, sample 

mean, and sample variance of after evaluation period, respectively. 

The null hypothesis of equal means for “before” and “after” periods vs. the 1-sided 

alternative is expressed as: 

 H0: μB – μA = 0 

 Ha: μB – μA > 0 

The test statistic computed from the sample is: 

















+

−

=

A

2

A

B

2

B

AB

0

n

S

n

S

xx

t

The distribution of the test statistic when H0 is true is a t-distribution with approximate 

degree of freedom given by: 

11

2

2

2

2

2

22

−

















+

−

































+

=

A

A

A

B

B

B

A

A

B

B

n

n

S

n

n

S

n

S

n

S

df

The significance probability or P-value for equality of means vs. the 1-sided alternative is 

calculated by: 

 P-value = P(tdf > t0) 

If the obtained P-value is greater than the critical α-value, i.e., 0.05 at the 95 percent 

confidence level, then H0 is accepted. Similarly, if the P-value is less than the α-value, 

then H0 is rejected at the 95 percent confidence level. 
42

CHAPTER 5 

ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL SITES 
43

SITE 1: MARYLAND PARKWAY / SIERRA VISTA DRIVE 

1.1 Site description 

This is an intersection of a six lane minor arterial (Maryland Parkway) with a speed limit 

30 mph, and a two land local street (Sierra Vista Drive) with speed limit of 25 mph. At 

this location, the principle comments relate to the need to connect crosswalks to sidewalk 

ramps. Initially, these crosswalks are not connected to the ramps at the crossings and end 

up at the pork chop island. This location has a mixed land use of residential and 

shopping. Figure 3 presents the aerial photograph of this site. Site 1 in Appendix B 

presents implementation plan and the conceptual design of this location. Figure 3 shows 

an aerial photograph of the site with pedestrian crashes super imposed on it for site 1. 

This figure shows that the pedestrian crashes are distributed along Maryland Parkway. 

Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive 
44

1.2 Problems Identified 

A field observation is conducted to identify problems associated with pedestrian safety at 

this site. Field observation and crash analysis recognize several contributing factors 

associated with pedestrian safety at this site. The major problems identified for this site 

are: pedestrians not using the crosswalks, inconspicuous crosswalks, pedestrians trapped 

in the middle of street, high percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes, and 

inconspicuous pedestrian signals due to wide streets. 

1.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

A “High visibility crosswalk” treatment was proposed at this location in Stage 1 

countermeasure deployment, to help reduce the problem of inconspicuous crosswalks at 

the location. Stage 1 countermeasure deployment also included relocating the existing 

pedestrian sign; and install Reflective Pavement Marking (RPM) standard line 100 feet 

long at the upstream crosswalk. Enlarged Pedestrian Signal Heads are also proposed as 

Stage 2 countermeasure deployment. The implementation plan for the proposed 

countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 6. 

Table 6: Implementation Plan for Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Relocate existing pedestrian sign O O O 

Install RPM standard line 100 feet long at the 

upstream crosswalk O O O 

Redesign of East approach to permit only right turns O O O 

High visibility crosswalk O O O 

High visibility crosswalk from island to sidewalk O O O 

Enlarged Pedestrian Signal Heads X O 

 O - Installed 

 X – Cannot be installed due to non-availability 

1.4 Countermeasures Installed 

As indicated before, various countermeasures at each of the sites are deployed in different 

stages. The descriptions of these deployments are explained as follows: 
45

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “high visibility crosswalk treatment, 

relocating existing pedestrian sign; and install RPM standard line 100 feet long at the 

upstream crosswalk.” These countermeasures were installed on October 4-7, 2006. The 

after condition data for Stage 1 countermeasure deployment was collected on October 31, 

2006. Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows the countermeasures deployed at this location. 

Figure 4. Reflective Pavement Marking (RPM) standard line at Site 1 
46

Figure 5: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment at Site 1

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment 

Stage 2 countermeasure was stopped due to the non-availability of the vendor to fabricate 

and manufacture “Enlarged Pedestrians Signal Head” countermeasure. 

1.5 Safety MOEs 

The results of the safety MOEs are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 shows the 

pedestrian MOEs that are percent of the pedestrians who look for vehicles before 

beginning to cross, percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed, frequency 

of pedestrian signal violation, percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK, and 

percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway. The motorist MOES are summarized in 

Table 8. These motorist MOEs are percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians, yielding 

distance, drivers blocking the crosswalk, and drivers making a complete stop. 

1.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

Table 7 summarizes the data collected for pedestrian MOEs at Maryland Parkway and 

Sierra Vista Drive. It is seen that the “percent of the pedestrians who look for vehicles 
47

before beginning to cross” and “percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway” remained 

the same (62% and 92% respectively) even after the installation of the high visibility 

crosswalk treatment countermeasure. There is a decrease (from 85% in Baseline to 65% 

in Stage 1) in the percent of signal cycles in which call button has been pushed after the 

installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment. However, frequency of pedestrian 

signal violation was decreased to almost half (from 13% in Baseline to 7.3% in Stage 1) 

after the installation of the countermeasure. The “percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at 

DON’T WALK was decreased to zero after the installation when compared to 40% 

during the baseline conditions. 

Table 7: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample NB Percent Sample N1 Percent 

Percent pedestrians who look for 

vehicles before beginning to cross 198 122 62 461 285 62 

Percent signal cycles in which call 

button has been pushed 169 144 85 461 302 65 

Frequency of pedestrian signal 

violation 303 40 13 461 34 7.3 

Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk 

at DON’T WALK 8 3 38 461 0 0 

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway 217 2 0.92 461 4 0.93 

1.5.2 Motorist MOEs 

Table 8 summarizes the data collected for motorist MOEs. The collected data for site 1 

include percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians, yielding distance, percent of drivers 

blocking crosswalk, and percent of drivers making a complete stop. It is evident from 

Table 8, that the motorists are not influenced by the installation of the high visibility 

crosswalk treatment. All the MOEs collected before and after installation of the high 

visibility crosswalk treatment show negative impact. 
48

Table 8: Results of motorist MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample NB Percent Sample N1 Percent 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 30 19 63 158 60 38 

Distance driver stops/yields 

before crosswalk 

< 5 ft 16 14 88 60 37 62 

5-10 ft 16 2 12 60 22 37 

>10 ft 16 0 0 60 1 1 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 89 1 1 158 96 61 

Percent of drivers making a complete stop 89 84 94 158 98 62 

1.6 Mobility MOEs 

Table 9 summarizes mobility MOEs for site 1. The major MOEs collected are pedestrian 

delay and vehicle delays. From Table 9, it is seen that average pedestrian delay decreases 

from 60 seconds to 45 seconds per pedestrian after the installation of the high visibility 

crosswalk treatment. However, on the contrary, average vehicle delay increases from 7.5 

seconds to 21.8 seconds after the stage 1 countermeasure installation. 

Table 9: Delay at Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample Delay Sample Delay 

Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 303 60.09 461 45.26 

Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) 1954 7.48 1868 21.81 

1.7 Statistical Results 

Results from previous tables show that there are notable changes in MOEs associated 

with installation of countermeasures. Although these results could be used to interpret the 

effectiveness of these countermeasures, it is important to perform statistical tests to 

validate the results. The results from the statistical test are explained as follows. 

1.7.1 Safety MOEs 

The statistical results of the safety MOEs for Maryland Parkway and Sierra Vista Drive 

are shown in Table 10. As discussed earlier in the analysis, even though there was a 

decrease in the “percent signal cycles in which call button was pushed,” statistically it is 

not considered significant. Similar is the case with “percent of pedestrians who look for 
49

vehicles before beginning to cross” before and after the installation of the high visibility 

crosswalk treatment. Even though there is a decrease in the “percent of the drivers 

yielding to pedestrians,” the decrease is not statistically significant. However on the 

flipside, it can be stated that the change in the “percent of the pedestrian signal 

violations” and “percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK” in the before and 

after scenario, is statistically significant in after conditions when compared to the before 

conditions. 

Table 10: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Sierra 

Vista Drive 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 

PB – P1 P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before 

beginning to cross -0.002 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent signal cycles in which call button has been 

pushed 0.19 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 0.25 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Distance driver stops/yields before 

crosswalk 

<5 ft 0.25 <0.05 Reject 

5-10 ft -0.24 <0.05 Reject 

>10 ft -0.016 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of drivers making a complete stop 0.32 >0.05 Do not Reject 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.0005 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 0.058 <0.05 Reject 

Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T 

WALK 0.375 <0.05 Reject 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk -0.59 >0.05 Do not Reject 

 

1.8 Summary 

The data collected before and after the installation of the High Visibility Crosswalk 

Treatment at this location indicates that there is a statistically significant improvement 

observed in the “percent of the pedestrian signal violations” and “percent of pedestrians 

in crosswalk at DON’T WALK” MOEs. However, the countermeasure deployment didn’t 

impact the motorist behavior to a notable extent. As per the initial problems identified, it 

can be stated that the countermeasure addressed the problems of pedestrians not using the 
50

crosswalks and inconspicuous crosswalks. The other problems identified at this location 

such as “high percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes,” and “inconspicuous 

pedestrian signals due to wide streets” would have been addressed by installation of 

Enlarge Pedestrians Signal Heads. Vendor non-availability hampered the process of 

installation of this countermeasure. 
51

SITE 2: MARYLAND PARKWAY / DUMONT STREET 

2.1 Site description 

The intersection of Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street comes under the jurisdiction of 

Clark County. Land use around this site is primarily commercial with shopping 

complexes and a shopping mall (Boulevard mall). Maryland Parkway is classified as a 

major arterial in the north-south direction. It has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Dumont 

Street is a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The average daily traffic 

(ADT) on Maryland Parkway near the intersection of Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street 

is 43,000 in the year 2006. The traffic on the eastbound direction of the Dumont Street 

leads to the Boulevard mall. Figure 6 presents the aerial photograph of the site. 

Implementation plan and conceptual designs of this site are presented in Site 2A, Site 2B 

and Site 2C in Appendix B. 

Figure 6: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street 
52

2.2 Problems Identified 

The problems identified at Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street from field observation and 

from crash data include pedestrians not waiting for acceptable gaps before crossing the 

streets, drivers failing to yield, pedestrians trapped in the middle of the roadway, and 

conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Since the safety issues are result of both 

pedestrian and driver behaviors, the selected countermeasures are aimed at altering those.

2.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

The proposed countermeasures to address these problems are “Danish offset,” “Median 

refuge,” “High visibility crosswalk,” “Advance yield markings,” and “Pedestrian 

activated flashing yellow.” The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at 

this location is shown in Table 11. 

Table 11: Implementation Plan for Maryland Parkway / Dumont Street 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Install RPM standard line 100 feet long at the 

upstream crosswalk O O O 

Redesign of East approach to permit only right turns O O O 

Danish Offset O O O 

Median Refuge on East approach O O O 

High visibility crosswalk O O O 

Advance yield markings + warning sign for motorists O O 

Pedestrian actuated flashing beacons O 

 O - Installed 

2.4 Countermeasures Installed 

As table 11 indicates, the countermeasures are installed in three different stages. Their 

description is as follows. 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Danish offset, Median refuge, and High 

visibility crosswalk treatment.” These countermeasures are installed on October 12, 2006. 

The after condition data for stage 1 countermeasure deployment are collected between 
53

October 26 and November 2, 2006. Figure 7 shows the countermeasures deployed in 

stage 1 at this location. 

Figure 7: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment, Median Refuge and Danish Offset 

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “Advanced Yield Markings.” This 

countermeasure is installed on November 06, 2006. The after condition data for stage 2 

countermeasure deployment is collected between November 30 and December 1, 2006. 

Figure 8 shows the countermeasures deployed in stage 2. 

Figure 8: Advance Yield Markings and “Yield Here to Pedestrians” Sign 
54

Stage 3 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Pedestrian Activated Flashing Yellow.” 

This countermeasure was installed on March 7, 2007. The after condition data for Stage 3 

countermeasure deployment was collected on March 22 – April 6, 2007. Figure 9 shows 

the countermeasure deployed in Stage 3 at this location. 

Figure 9: Pedestrian Activated Flashing Yellow 

The MOEs presented in Tables 12 and 13 represents the safety MOEs for pedestrians and 

motorists respectively. Table 14 presents the mobility MOEs for both pedestrians and 

motorists. The statistical test results obtained after the comparison are shown in Tables 15 

and 16. 

2.5 Safety MOEs 

2.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

Table 12 summarizes the data collected for pedestrian MOEs at the Maryland Parkway 

and Dumont Street site. It is observed that all the observed pedestrians look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross and before crossing the second half of street. Pedestrians who 
55

divert their path to utilize the facility are not found during baseline period. Data shows 

that a small proportion of the observed (0.12) pedestrians are trapped in the roadway. 

Data obtained for stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 are shown in Table 12. 

The implementation of stage 1 and stage 2 countermeasures show decrease in the 

proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross and before 

crossing the second half of street when compared to baseline. However, in stage 3, there 

is a notable improvement in pedestrian behavior compared to stages 1 and 2. The 

proportion of diverted pedestrian has shown a continuous increase at all stages. On the 

other hand, the proportion of trapped pedestrians at each stage, as well as proportion of 

diverted pedestrians shows a decreasing trend.

2.5.2 Motorist MOEs 

Table 13 summarizes the data collected for motorist MOEs at site 2. The data indicates 

that the percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians increases in stages 1 and 2, but 

decreases in stage 3. As anticipated, the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians at a 

distance less than 10 ft decreases, whereas the proportions of drivers yielding at a higher 

distance increases at all three stages. Note that since the crossing is absent during 

baseline data collection period, baseline data for drivers yielding distance is not collected. 

Proportion of drivers blocking the crosswalk also shows decreasing values in various 

stages. 
56

Table 12: Results for pedestrian MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stag

Sample = 631 Sample = 266 Sample = 198 Sample 

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent N3 P

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 631 100 255 96 185 93 452 Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 631 100 251 94 180 91 452 Percent of captured pedestrians 631 100 241 91 177 89 381 Percent of diverted pedestrians 0 0 25 9 21 11 71 Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 73 12 17 6 7 4 9 

Table 13: Results for motorist MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample = 432 Sample = 370 Sample = 246 

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 138 32 170 46 188 76 2

Sample = 138 Sample = 170 Sample = 188 

Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

< 10 ft - - 109 64 85 45 

10-20 ft - - 36 21 87 46 

>20 ft - - 25 15 16 9 

Sample = 432 Sample = 370 Sample = 246 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk - - 12 3 8 3 
57

2.6 Mobility MOEs 

2.6.1 Pedestrian Delay 

The average pedestrian and vehicle delay measured at this location for different stages is 

shown in Table 14. The average pedestrian delay at baseline conditions is 3.8 sec/ped. 

The installation of the countermeasures shows different effects on the average pedestrian 

delay. The deployment of advance yield markings and “yield here to pedestrians” signs in 

stage 2 and pedestrian activated flashing yellow in stage 3 shows a higher average 

pedestrian delay than that experienced during baseline period. 

2.6.2 Vehicle Delay 

Table 14 shows that the average vehicle delay continuously reduced after the deployment 

of countermeasures in all three stages. Since no data were collected for the baseline 

period, similar comparison could not be done. 

Table 14: Delays at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street 

Measures of 

Effectiveness (Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay 

Average pedestrian delay 

(sec/ped) 631 3.82 266 21.03 198 7.46 452 13.57 

Average vehicle delay 

(sec/veh) - - 370 5.78 246 3.81 1633 0.84 

2.7 Statistical Results 

2.7.1 Safety MOEs 

The statistical results of the safety MOEs for the Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street 

are shown in Tables 15 and 16. Table 15 shows the statistical results when the data for 

baseline are compared with other stages. These results indicate that no significant 

increase is seen in the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning 

to cross, before crossing second half of street, and the proportion of captured pedestrians 

(P>0.05). A significant increase in the proportion of diverted pedestrian is found 

(P<0.001) in later stages compared to the baseline data. The decrease in proportion of 

pedestrians trapped in roadway is found to be statistically significant. Table 16 shows 

statistical results obtained when stages 1 and 2, and stage 2 and 3 are compared. A 
58

comparison of stage 1 and stage 2 shows no significant increase in the proportion of 

pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross, before crossing second half 

of street, and, percent of captured and diverted pedestrians (P>0.05). However, the 

proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross, before 

crossing second half of street, and the proportion of diverted pedestrians in stages 2 and 3 

shows a significant increase (P<0.05). 

A significant increase in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians is found when 

stages 1 and 2 are compared with baseline data (P<0.001), however no significant 

increase is found in stage 3. The significant increase in the proportion of drivers yielding 

to pedestrians at a distance greater than 10 ft is found when stages 1, 2, and 3 are 

compared. 

2.7.2 Mobility MOEs 

Tables 17 and 18, show the results of the statistical analyses of the mobility MOEs for the 

Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street site. The statistical analyses show no significant 

change in the pedestrian delay when baseline data are compared with stages 1, 2 and 3 

(P>0.05). A significant decrease in stage 2 is found when compared to stage 1. 

The reduction in average vehicle delay from stage 1 to stage 2 is not significant (P>0.05), 

but the reduction from stage 2 to stage 3 is statistically significant (P<0.001). 
59

Table 15: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Stre

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 Ba

PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 P-value H0 PB – P3 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 0.04 >0.05 Do not reject 0.07 >0.05 Do not reject 0.00 Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 0.06 >0.05 Do not reject 0.09 >0.05 Do not reject 0.00 Percent of captured pedestrians 0.09 >0.05 Do not reject 0.11 >0.05 Do not reject 0.16 Percent of diverted pedestrians -0.09 <0.001 Reject -0.11 <0.001 Reject -0.16 Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.14 <0.001 Reject -0.44 <0.001 Reject 0.18 MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.05 <0.05 Reject 0.08 <0.001 Reject 0.10 
60

Table 16: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Maryland Parkway and Dum

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. S

P1 – P2 P-value H0 P2 – P3 P-value 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 0.02 >0.05 Do not reject -0.07 <0.001 Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 0.03 >0.05 Do not reject -0.09 <0.001 Percent of captured pedestrians 0.01 >0.05 Do not reject 0.05 >0.05 Percent of diverted pedestrians -0.01 >0.05 Do not reject -0.05 <0.05 Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.30 <0.001 Reject 0.63 >0.05 Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

10-20 ft -0.25 <0.001 Reject -0.22 <0.001 

>20 ft 0.06 <0.05 Reject -0.09 <0.05 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforeDistance driver stops/yields before crosswalk <10 ft 0.19 <0.001 Reject 0.30 <0.001 Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 0.00 >0.05 Do not reject 0.03 <0.05 Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.03 >0.05 Do not reject 0.02 >0.05 
61

Table 17: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Maryland Parkway and Dumont Str

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 Base

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0 Difference in Mean P-value H0 Difference in Mean 

MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforeAverage pedestrian delay (sec/ped) -17.21 >0.05 Do not reject -3.64 >0.05 Do not reject -9.75 

Table 18: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs between stages at Maryland Parkway and Dum

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. Stag

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0 Difference in Mean P-value 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforeAverage pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 13.57 <0.001 Reject -6.11 >0.05 DAverage vehicle delay (sec/veh) 1.97 >0.05 Do not reject 2.97 <0.001 
62

2.8 Summary 

The results indicate that the installation of the countermeasures has a positive effect in 

reducing the number of pedestrians trapped in the roadway and increasing the proportion 

of drivers yielding to pedestrians, thereby increasing the safety of the pedestrians. The 

countermeasures also results in an increase in the number of pedestrians using the 

crosswalk (increase in number of diverted pedestrians). The countermeasures have a 

positive effect in reducing the vehicle delay at the location of Maryland Parkway and 

Dumont Street. 
63

SITE 3: MARYLAND PARKWAY / TWAIN AVENUE 

Figure 10: Aerial Photograph of Maryland Parkway / Twain Avenue (Control Site) 
64

SITE 4: HARMON AVENUE / PARADISE ROAD 

4.1 Site description 

A mixed land use pattern is observed around the intersection of Harmon Avenue/Paradise 

Road. This site is within the jurisdiction of Clark County. The land use includes 

residential, commercial, and recreational (hotels and casinos). Harmon Avenue spans 

east-west and is classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The 

intersection of Harmon Avenue and Paradise Road has had a total of 12 crashes during 

the period January 1996 to December 2000. Fifty eight percent of the crashes occurred 

during daytime. The ADT along this segment of Harmon Avenue for the year 2006 is 

17,100. Figure 11 presents the aerial photograph of the site. Implementation plans and 

conceptual designs of this site are illustrated in Site 4 in Appendix B. 

Figure 11: Aerial Photograph of Harmon Avenue and Paradise Road 
65

4.2 Problems Identified 

Analyzing crash data and by performing a field evaluation, the problems identified at this 

location are pedestrians do NOT wait for signals/acceptable gaps and high 

pedestrian/right turning vehicle conflicts. 

4.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

The countermeasures suggested for this location are “turning vehicles yield to pedestrian 

sign.” Installing this sign would alert the right turning traffic to yield for the pedestrian. 

As the right turn vehicle volumes are high at this location, Clark County Public WorksTraffic Division requested the study team not to install “No-Turn on Red” since this 

would hamper the volume of right turn vehicles. Also in addition to the “turning vehicles 

yield to pedestrian sign” countermeasure, “warning sign for motorists” are also installed 

at the location to caution the drivers about/or the presence of pedestrians. The 

implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 

19.

Table 19: Implementation Plan for Harmon Road and Paradise Road 

Treatments Stage 1 

Warning Sign for Motorist O 

Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians O 

 O - Installed 

4.4 Countermeasures Installed 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Warning Signs for Motorists” and 

“Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians.” These countermeasures are installed between 

June 13 and 17, 2005. The after condition data for stage 1 countermeasure deployment 

are collected on July 14, 2005. Figure 7 shows the countermeasure deployed in stage 1 at 

this location. 
66

Figure 12: Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians Sign 

4.5 Safety MOEs 

Analysis of collected data shows that the average vehicle delay increases from 66.8 

seconds/vehicle before the installation to 75.6 seconds/vehicle after the installation of the 

sign. The proportion of motorists yielding also increased so that more vehicles in the 

queue yield for pedestrians. Consequently, the vehicle delay also increases. Pedestrian 

delay increases from 44 seconds/pedestrian before the installation to 61 

seconds/pedestrian after the installation of the sign. The motorists’ yielding is increased 

after the sign is installed. This could be because of more turning motorists yielded to 

pedestrians either on red or green phase of the signal. Even though the pedestrians’ 

arrival is considered as random, some pedestrians might have to wait longer and others 

might have to wait less. Some pedestrians arrive at the beginning of the WALK signal, 

(i.e., no waiting time), others arrive during the flashing DON’T WALK phase, and they 

have to wait for a cycle length typically 120 to 140 seconds. The weighted average of all 

pedestrians in that range might be a very rough estimate of delay. The field observations 

show that a vehicle interacts with pedestrians while turning either on red or on green. 

Motorists’ yielding percentage increased indicating that pedestrians do not have to wait 

longer for turning traffic. Therefore, pedestrian delay should have been reduced. It is 

unclear why pedestrian delay has increased after the installation of the sign, “Turning 

traffic must yield to pedestrians.” 
67

4.6 Statistical Results 

The before-and-after study results show that the installation of the “Turning traffic must 

yield to pedestrians” sign has increased the proportion of motorists yielding at RTOR 

from 0.61 to 0.73 percent (P=0.156). Similarly, the proportion of motorists yielding at 

right turn on green increases from 0.74 to 0.77 (P=0.615) during the after-study period. 

The installation of the sign, “Turning traffic must yield to pedestrians,” shows an increase 

in motorists yielding while turning either on red or green even though these differences 

are not statistically significant at 95 percent confidence level. 

Before the installation of the sign, “Turning traffic must yield to pedestrians,” a notable 

proportion of (0.11) of vehicles blocks the crosswalk before turning; after the sign is 

installed, the proportion of motorists blocking the crosswalk is reduced to zero (P<0.001). 

The observed stopping behavior of motorists before RTOR was installed; this 

proportional value increases to about 0.97 (P<0.001) after the sign is installed. The values 

of MOEs during before and after study periods, their difference, and statistical 

significance are shown in Table 20. 

The sign, “Turning traffic must yield to pedestrians,” is intended for motorists. However, 

the before-and-after study result indicates some positive influence on pedestrians’ 

crossing behavior. The proportion of pedestrians looking for turning vehicles at the 

beginning of the WALK signal increased from 0.54 to 0.93 (P<0.001) before and after 

the installation of the sign respectively. As the motorists’ yielding increases, motorists 

might stop upstream of the crosswalk. Therefore, more pedestrians watch for turning 

vehicles before crossing. Marginal differences are observed in the proportion of 

pedestrians who are in the crosswalk during the flashing DON’T WALK phase and 

during the all red phase before and after the installation of the sign. The proportion values 

of pedestrians who are in the crosswalk during the flashing DON’T WALK phase and at 

the all-red time are decreased by small proportion after the installation of the sign. 
68

Table 20: Statistical test results of MOEs at Harmon Avenue and Paradise Road 

Sample 

size Value Sample size Value

1 Motorists' yielding at right turn on red (in 

the presence of pedestrian at turn or 

approach), %

31 61.29 30 73.33 -12.04 0.156 Do not 

reject

2 Motorists' yielding at right turn on green 

(in the presence of pedestrians), %

102 73.53 90 76.67 -3.14 0.615 Do not 

reject

3 Percentage vehicles blocking crosswalk 129 10.85 235 0.00 10.85 0.000 Reject

4 Percentage of drivers executing right turn 

on red coming to complete stop

129 74.42 235 97.45 -23.03 0.000

Reject

5 Pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 556 44.37 355 61.09 -16.73 0.000 Reject

6 Vehicle delay at intersection (sec/veh) 1,356 66.83 1,275 75.64 -8.81 N/A N/A

7 Percentage of pedestrians who looked at 

start of the WALK phase for turning 

vehicles

542 53.69 370 93.24 -39.55 0.000

Reject

8 Percentage of pedestrians who were in the 

crosswalk during the flashing DON'T 

WALK phase

639 45.07 390 43.33 1.74 0.586 Do not 

reject

9 Percentage of pedestrians who were in the 

crosswalk at the end of all-red

639 2.66 390 2.05 0.61 0.525 Do not 

reject

10 Percentage of pedestrians who were 

trapped in the middle of crossing

618 5.50 373 3.75 1.75 0.194 Do not 

reject

11 Percentage of pedestrian/vehicle evasive 

actions, change course/slow to avoid 

motorists

609 0.82 349 7.74 -6.92 1.000 Do not 

reject

S. 

No. Measures of Effectiveness

Before After

(Before - 

After) P-value Null 

hypothesis

Note: α = 0.05 

The proportion of pedestrians who were trapped in the middle of the road while crossing 

decreases during the after-study from 0.06 to 0.04 (P=0.194). Pedestrians do not have to 

wait in the middle of the road if they have an acceptable gap for crossing. The motorists’ 

yielding behavior while turning improved. Therefore, motorists turning on permitted leftturn also yielded to pedestrians. As a result, the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the 

middle is reduced after installation of the sign. 

The proportions of evasive actions are 0.008 and 0.077 before and after condition data 

collection period, respectively. The difference of the proportion of evasive action 

between before and after period is significantly different (P<0.001) at 95 percent 

confidence level, which is unexpected. 
69

4.7 Summary 

Statistical analysis of the data collected at this location before and after the installation of 

the “Yield to Pedestrian in Crosswalk” shows benefits that improved overall pedestrian 

safety at this location. The parameters that are improved after the installation of the 

countermeasure are reduction in the percent of the vehicles blocking the crosswalk, 

improvement in percent of drivers coming to complete stop those are turning right turn on 

red, and decrease of pedestrian delay. 
70

SITE 5: HARMON AVENUE: PARADISE ROAD TO TROPICANA WASH 

5.1 Site description 

A mixed land use pattern is observed around the intersection of Harmon Avenue/Paradise 

Road. This site is within the jurisdiction of Clark County. The land use includes 

residential, commercial, and recreational (hotels and casinos). Harmon Avenue spans 

east-west and is classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The 

intersection of Harmon Avenue and Paradise Road had a total of 12 crashes during the 

period January 1996 to December 2000. About 58 percent of the crashes occurred at nonintersection location. Fifty eight percent of the crashes occurred during daytime. The 

ADT along this segment of Harmon Avenue for the year 2006 is 17,100. Figure 13 

presents the aerial photograph of the site. Implementation plans and conceptual designs 

of this site are illustrated in Site 5A, Site 5B, and Site 5C in Appendix B. 

Figure 13: Aerial Photograph of Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana 

Wash 
71

5.2 Problems Identified 

The problems identified at this site include pedestrians not waiting for signals or 

acceptable gaps before crossing the street, drivers failing to yield, and conflicts between 

vehicles and pedestrians. Being a mid-block location and since most pedestrian related 

safety issues are results of motorist driving behavior, the countermeasures are selected 

primarily to focus on motorists. 

5.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

The proposed countermeasures are “Median refuge,” “High visibility crosswalk,” 

“Advance yield markings,” and “In-roadway knockdown signs.” The proposed 

countermeasures are expected to alert motorists of the presence of pedestrians at the site, 

and to provide pedestrians a refuge in the middle of the street. The implementation plan 

for the proposed countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 21. 

Table 21: Implementation Plan for Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana 

Wash 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Median Refuge O O O 

High visibility crosswalk O O O 

Advance yield markings + warning sign for motorists O O 

In-roadway knockdown sign O 

Install RPM standard line 100 feet long at the 

upstream crosswalk O 

 O - Installed 

5.4 Countermeasures Installed 

The location of Harmon Avenue from Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash is a mid-block 

location. The countermeasures are installed in three stages at this location. The 

countermeasures deployments in various stages are as follows: 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Median refuge” and “High visibility 

crosswalk treatment.” These countermeasures are installed on February 21, 2007. After 
72

condition data for stage 1 countermeasure deployment are collected on March 8 and 9, 

2007. Figure 14 shows the countermeasures deployed in stage 1 at this location. 

Figure 14: High Visibility Crosswalk and Median Refuge installed at Site 5 

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Advanced Yield Markings.” These 

countermeasures are installed on March 9 to 11, 2007. The after condition data for stage 

2 countermeasure deployment were collected on March 30, 2007. Figure 15 shows the 

countermeasures deployed in stage 2. 

Figure 15: Yield Here to Pedestrians Sign installed at Site 5 
73

Stage 3 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “In-Roadway Knockdown Signs.” This 

countermeasure is installed on March 31, 2007. The after condition data for stage 3 

countermeasure deployment are collected on April 13, 2007. Figure 16 shows the 

countermeasure deployed in stage 3 at this location. 

Figure 16: In-roadway Knockdown Signs installed at Site 5 

Tables 22 through 24 represent the various pedestrian and motorist MOEs for safety and 

mobility. The results of the statistical tests for the safety MOEs comparing the baseline 

conditions with each stage, and between the stages are shown in Tables 25 and Table 26, 

respectively. Tables 27 and Table 28 show the analyses of statistical results for the 

mobility MOEs for pedestrians and motorists. These results and the effectiveness of the 

various countermeasures implemented are discussed next.
74

5.5 Safety MOEs 

5.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

From Table 22, for baseline, the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before 

beginning to cross and before crossing second half of the roadway are 0.77 and 0.86 

respectively. About 0.18 proportion of the pedestrians are diverted and 0.03 proportion of 

pedestrians are trapped in the roadway for the baseline period. The installation of 

countermeasures in stage 1 increases the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross and before crossing second half of the street to 1.00. The 

proportion of diverted pedestrians increases to 0.20 after stage 1. The proportion of 

pedestrians trapped in the roadway increases to 0.09. The proportion of pedestrians 

looking for vehicles before beginning to cross and before crossing second half of the 

street remains at 1.00 percent at stages 2 and 3. There are no pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway after the installation of countermeasures in stages 2 and 3. 

5.5.2 Motorist MOEs 

In Table 23, the baseline data indicate that of all observed drivers, about 0.22 of drivers 

yield to pedestrians. Since, it is a mid-block location, there are no baseline data available 

for the distance the driver stop/yield before crosswalk and proportion of drivers blocking 

crosswalk. After stage 1, the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians increases to 

0.46. Half of the drivers observed yield at a distance less than 10 feet, 0.45 proportion 

yield between 10 feet to 20 feet, and the remaining 0.05 proportion at distance greater 

than 20 feet. About 2 percent of the drivers blocked the crosswalk after stage 1. The 

installation of advance yield markings and yield here to pedestrians increases the 

proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians to 0.53. The proportion of drivers stopping at 

a distance greater than 10 feet increased to 0.71. Stage 3 data indicate that the proportion 

of drivers yielding to pedestrians is 0.22, compared to 0.53 in stage 2. The proportion of 

driver stops/yields before the crosswalk at a distance of 10 to 20 feet is 0.69 in stage 3. 

The proportion of drivers blocking the crosswalk remains relatively the same throughout 

all stages. 
75

5.6 Mobility MOEs 

5.6.1 Pedestrian Delay 

Table 24 shows the average pedestrian and vehicle delay at the various stages. For the 

baseline conditions, the average pedestrian delay is 19.3 sec/ped. After the installation of 

the countermeasures in stage 1, the average pedestrian delay decreases to approximately 

7.0 sec/ped. The deployment of advance yield markings and “Yield here to pedestrians” 

signs reduce the delay to 6.1 sec/ped. The implementation of in-roadway knockdown 

signs decreases the delay to 8.7 sec/ped. This is a decreasing delay from baseline data, 

but comparing with stages 1 and 2, there is an increase in delay. 

5.6.2 Vehicle Delay 

The baseline data are not available for this location. The vehicle delay at stage 1 is 2.5 

sec/veh, stage 2 is 2.5 sec/veh and stage 3 is 1.3 sec/veh. As the numbers suggest, there is 

no change in vehicle delay at stage 2 when compared to stage 1. At stage 3, the vehicle 

delay is reduced compared to stages 1 and 2. The results are presented in Table 24. 
76

Table 22: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana W

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample = 1951 Sample = 388 Sample = 293 Sa

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent N3 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 1510 77 388 100 293 100 297 Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 1680 86 388 100 293 100 297 Percent of captured pedestrians 1592 82 309 79 247 84 268 Percent of diverted pedestrians 359 18 79 20 46 16 29 Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 62 3 37 9 0 0 0 

Table 23: Results of motorist MOEs at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana W

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Sta

Sample = 77 Sample = 284 Sample = 158 Samp

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent N3 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 17 22 132 46 84 53 89 

Sample = 17 Sample = 132 Sample = 84 Samp

Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

< 10 ft N/A 66 50 19 23 25 

10-20 ft N/A 59 45 60 71 61 

>20 ft N/A 7 5 5 6 3 

Sample = 77 Sample = 284 Sample = 158 Samp

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk N/A 6 2 5 3 11 
77

Table 24: Delays at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash 

Measures of 

Effectiveness (Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay 

Average pedestrian 

delay (sec/ped) 1951 19.27 388 6.98 293 6.05 297 8.71 

Average vehicle delay 

(sec/veh) - - 284 2.45 158 2.48 400 1.3 

5.7 Statistical Results 

5.7.1 Safety MOEs 

Table 25 and Table 26 show the results of statistical tests for the safety MOEs. Table 25 

shows that the increase in the percent of pedestrians looking for vehicles before 

beginning to cross and before crossing second half of the street is statistically significant 

(P<0.001). There is no statistical validation for increase in captured and diverted 

pedestrians for stage 1 (P<0.05). However, the increase in percent of diverted pedestrians 

in stage 2 and captured pedestrians in stage 3 are significant compared to baseline 

conditions (P<0.001). The installation of countermeasures in stage 1 does not reduce 

significantly the percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway compared to baseline 

(P>0.05). However, stages 2 and 3 show a positive effect in reducing the percent of 

pedestrians trapped in the roadway compared to the baseline (P<0.001). The installation 

of in-roadway knockdown signs significantly reduces the percent of pedestrians trapped 

in the roadway (P<0.001). 

Analyzing driver behavior, there is a significant increase in the proportion of drivers 

yielding to pedestrians in stages 1 and 2 compared to the baseline (P<0.001). Not enough 

statistical evidence exists to support the increase in percent of drivers yielding to 

pedestrians in stage 2 compared to stage 1. Table 26 shows that there is no significant 

decrease in the percent of drivers who block the crosswalk compared between any stages 

(P>0.05). 
78

5.7.2 Mobility MOEs 

Significant decreases in the average pedestrian delay are observed in stages 1, 2 and 3, 

compared with the baseline period as shown in Table 27 (P<0.001). There is no sufficient 

evidence to prove that there is a significant decrease in the pedestrian delay between the 

stages (Table 28). The average decrease in vehicle delay in stage 2 compared to stage 1 is 

statistically significant (P<0.001).
79

Table 25: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropica

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 B

PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 P-value H0 PB – P

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross -0.22 <0.001 Reject -0.22 <0.001 Reject -0.22 Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street -0.13 <0.001 Reject -0.13 <0.001 Reject -0.13 Percent of captured pedestrians 0.019 >0.05 Do not reject -0.027 >0.05 Do not reject -0.08 Percent of diverted pedestrians -0.019 >0.05 Do not reject -0.08 0.001 Reject 0.08 Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.24 <0.001 Reject -0.31 <0.001 Reject -0.00MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway -0.06 >0.05 Do not reject 0.03 <0.001 Reject 0.03 
80

Table 26: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. Stage 

P1 – P2 P-value H0 P2 – P3 P-value 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 0.00 0.00 Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 0.00 0.00 Percent of captured pedestrians -0.04 0.057 Do not Reject -0.05 <0.05 Percent of diverted pedestrians 0.04 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.05 <0.05 Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.06 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.30 >0.05 Do Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

<10 ft 0.27 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.05 >0.05 Do 

10-20 ft -0.26 <0.001 Reject 0.02 >0.05 Do >20 ft -0.006 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.02 >0.05 Do 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent of drivers blocking crosswalk -0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.004 >0.05 Do Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.09 <0.001 Reject 0.00 

Table 27: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropic

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 Baseline v

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0 Difference in Mean P-value H0 Difference in Mean P-v

MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforeAverage pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 12.29 <0.001 Reject 13.22 <0.001 Reject 10.56 <0
81

Table 28: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs between stages at Harmon 

Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. Stage 3 

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Average pedestrian delay 

(sec/ped) 0.93 >0.05 Do not reject -2.66 >0.05 Do not reject 

Average vehicle delay 

(sec/veh) -0.03 >0.05 Do not reject 1.18 <0.001 Reject 

5.8 Summary 

The installation of Median refuge, high visibility crosswalk, advance yield markings, 

“Yield here to pedestrians” signs, and in-roadway knockdown signs have significant 

impact in increasing the percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to 

cross, before crossing second half of the street, and diverted pedestrians. This indicates 

that the countermeasures create awareness in pedestrians to look for potential threats 

before they step on to the road. Reducing the number of pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway makes the roadway much safer, and for increased usage of the crosswalk instead 

of jaywalking. 

Decreasing the pedestrian delay is a key component of enhancing pedestrian safety. By 

doing so, the pedestrian do not get frustrated waiting for an acceptable gap to cross the 

street. The increase in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians, and yielding at a 

distance greater than 10 feet improves the safety (comfort zone) for pedestrians. 
82

SITE 7: FLAMINGO ROAD / KOVAL LANE 

7.1 Site description 

This site is within the jurisdiction of Clark County. The land use pattern is a mixed type 

with shopping complexes and apartments. Flamingo Road is classified as a major arterial 

and Koval Lane as a minor arterial. Crash data show a total of 29 crashes from January 

1996 to December 2000 with 76 percent of them occurring at the intersection. Forty one 

percent of the total crashes are due to the motorists’ failure to yield. The 2006 traffic 

count show the estimated ADT on Flamingo Road near Koval Lane to be 40,500. Figure 

17 presents the aerial photograph of the site. Implementation plans and conceptual 

designs of this site are illustrated in Site 7 in Appendix B. 

Figure 17: Aerial Photograph of Flamingo Road and Koval Lane 
83

7.2 Problems Identified 

Some of the observed problems at this site are motorists’ failure to yield and a significant 

number of nighttime crashes inconspicuous crosswalks, high percent of elderly pedestrian 

involved in crashes, motorist failure to yield, pedestrians do NOT wait for 

signals/acceptable gaps and high pedestrian/right turning vehicle conflicts. 

7.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

Based on the field observation and analysis of crash data, the following countermeasures 

are selected. These countermeasures aim at addressing both pedestrians and drivers 

behavior to improve safety. By implementing “High visibility crosswalk,” a driver’s 

attention could be attracted towards pedestrians. Installation of “Pedestrian countdown 

signal” would help pedestrians to judge if they have enough time to cross the street. 

Similarly, “Pedestrian Countdown Timer with Animated Eyes” would alert the 

pedestrians to look for the oncoming traffic or turning traffic before they start crossing 

the road. Installing ITS No RTOR Signs would mitigate the pedestrian and right turning 

vehicles conflicts. The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at this 

location is shown in Table 29. 

Table 29: Implementation Plan for Flamingo Road and Koval Lane 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

High visibility crosswalk O O O 

Pedestrian countdown signal (animated eyes) O O 

ITS No-RTOR signs O 

 O - Installed 

7.4 Countermeasures Installed 

The various countermeasures proposed are installed in two stages at this signalized 

intersection location are as follows: 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “High visibility crosswalk treatment.” This 

countermeasure is installed on December 19 to 23, 2005. The after condition data for 
84

Stage 1 countermeasure deployment are collected on February 14, 2006. Figure 18 shows 

the countermeasures deployed in stage 1 at this location. 

Figure 18: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment installed at Site 7 

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “Pedestrian countdown signs with 

animated eyes.” This countermeasure is installed on June 9 to 11, 2007. The after 

condition data for stage 2 countermeasure deployment is collected on July 12 and 13, 

2007. Figure 19 shows the countermeasures deployed in stage 2. 

Figure 19: Pedestrian Countdown Timers with Animated Eyes 
85

Stage 3 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “ITS No-Turn on Red Signs.” This 

countermeasure is installed on November 26, 2007. The after condition data for stage 3 

countermeasure deployment is collected on December 17 and 19, 2007. Figure 20 shows 

the countermeasure deployed in stage 3 at this location. 

 

Figure 20: ITS No-Turn On Red – Activated 

For the intersection of Flamingo Road and Koval Lane, data collected for the pedestrian 

and motorist MOEs are summarized in Tables 30 and 31. Statistical tests were performed 

for the safety MOEs for both pedestrians and motorists comparing the baseline conditions 

with each stage and comparing the individual stages at a 95 percent confidence level. The 

results are shown in Tables 32 and 33. The effectiveness of the installed countermeasures 

is discussed below. 

7.5 Safety MOEs 

7.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

From Table 30, the percent of captured and diverted pedestrians is 100 and 0, 

respectively for both baseline condition and stage 1. The installation of high visibility 

crosswalk in stage 1 does not show any effect in increasing the percent signal cycles in 
86

which the call button was pushed, and the percent of pedestrians beginning their crossing 

during WALK phase. On the other hand, it resulted in decreasing the frequency of 

pedestrian signal violation, percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at the end of flashing 

DON’T WALK phase. However, the percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before 

beginning to cross, and percent of pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of all-red phase 

shows an increase after installation of stage 1 countermeasures. The deployment of 

pedestrian countdown with animated eyes in stage 2 shows an increase in the percent 

signal cycles in which the call button has been pushed, pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross, pedestrians beginning their crossing during the WALK phase, 

and a decrease in the percent of pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of all-red phase. 

Stage 3 results show further increase in the percent signal cycles in which the call button 

has been pushed. After installation of stage 3 countermeasures, the percent of pedestrians 

who look for vehicles before beginning cross was 96 percent, which is significant 

increase from the 86 percent observed after stage 2 countermeasure deployment. The 

above results suggest that the high visibility crosswalk and pedestrian countdown signal 

with animated eyes together have produced a positive effect in increasing the pedestrian 

safety at the intersection of Flamingo Road and Koval Lane. Also installing ITS No-Turn 

On Red also improved the overall pedestrian safety by increasing the awareness among 

pedestrians. 

7.5.2. Motorist MOEs 

According to the results of field observations, ( Table 31), installation of a high visibility 

crosswalk does not help increasing percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians, and percent 

of drivers making a right turn on red (RTOR) who come to a complete stop. On the other 

hand, the percent of drivers blocking the crosswalk is reduced by 18 percent in stage 1 

from baseline condition. However, after the installation of ITS No Turn On Red Sign, 

there is a slight increase in the percent value (stage 3 - 48 percent from stage 2 - 36 

percent) of the drivers making RTOR who come to complete stop before making their 

turn. 
87

Table 30: Results of safety MOEs for pedestrians at Flamingo Road and Koval Lane 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Samp

Percent of captured pedestrians 442 442 100 455 455 100 - Percent of diverted pedestrians 442 0 0 455 0 0 - Percent signal cycles in which call button  has been pushed 438 207 47 307 145 47 235 188 80 202 Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 419 222 53 380 240 63 235 203 86 202 Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 442 22 5 303 17 5 235 11 5 202 Percent of pedestrians beginning their crossings during the WALK phase 439 232 52 455 234 51 544 436 80 Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at the end of flashing DON’T WALK 430 127 30 455 140 31 544 269 50 Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at the end of All-Red 430 39 9 455 14 3 544 29 5 

Table 31: Results of safety MOEs for motorists at Flamingo Road and Koval Lane 

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sample 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 164 146 89 278 19 7 - Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

< 5 ft 139 112 80 19 18 95 - 

5-10 ft 139 27 20 19 1 5 - 

>10 ft 139 0 0 19 0 0 - 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 105 22 21 88 3 3 - Percent of drivers making RTOR who come to a complete stop 104 87 83 88 32 36 276 Percent of drivers violating the no RTOR (when pedestrian present) 276 Percent of drivers violating the no RTOR (when pedestrian not present) 276 
88

7.6 Statistical Results 

7.6.1 Safety MOEs 

The statistical tests show that the installation of high visibility crosswalk does not 

improve significantly the proportion of signal cycles in which a call button is pushed. 

However, the installation of pedestrian countdown signs with animated eyes shows 

significant effect in increasing the proportion of signal cycles in which the call button is 

pushed, both when compared with the baseline as well as with stage 1. A similar effect is 

seen in the percent of pedestrians beginning their crossing during the WALK phase. A 

significant increase in the percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning 

to cross is found in stage 1 as well as in stages 2 and 3, when compared to the baseline 

data (Table 32). Also when Stage 1 data are compared with stage 2 and stage 2 compared 

to stage 3 (Table 33). When compared to the baseline data, the data collected after 

installations of stages 1 and 3 do not show significant improvement in percent of drivers 

yielding to pedestrians, and in percent of drivers making RTOR who come to a complete 

stop when compared to baseline. No significant change in the proportion of drivers 

stopping at distances greater than 10 ft is observed in stage 1 in comparison to the 

baseline data. A comparison of stages 1 and 2 shows no significant difference in the 

frequency of pedestrian signal violation and percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at the 

end of flashing DON'T WALK and the percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at the end of 

All-Red. 
89

Table 32: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Flamingo Road and Koval Lane (Baseline v

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 

PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 P-value H0 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent of captured pedestrians No Change - Percent of diverted pedestrians No Change - Percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed 0.0003 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.32 <0.001 Reject Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross -0.10 <0.05 Reject -0.33 <0.001 Reject Percent of pedestrians beginning their crossings during the WALK phase 0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.27 <0.001 Reject Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 0.82 >0.05 Do not Reject - Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

< 5 ft -0.14 <0.05 Reject - 

5-10 ft 0.14 >0.05 Do not Reject - 

>10 ft No Change - 

Percent of drivers making RTOR who come to a complete stop 0.47 >0.05 Do not reject - MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforeFrequency of pedestrian signal violation -0.006 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.002 >0.05 Do not Reject Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at the end of flashing DON'T WALK -0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.19 >0.05 Do not reject Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at the end of All-Red 0.06 <0.001 Reject 0.03 <0.05 Reject Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 0.17 <0.001 Reject - 
90

Table 33: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for pedestrians between stages at 

Flamingo Road and Koval Lane 

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Safety) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. Stage 3 

P1 – P2 P-value H0 P2 – P3 P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore

Percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed -0.32 <0.001 Reject -0.05 >0.05 Do not 

Reject 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before 

beginning to cross -0.23 <0.001 Reject -0.09 <0.001 Reject 

Percent of pedestrians beginning their crossings during the 

WALK phase -0.28 <0.001 Reject - 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 0.009 >0.05 Do not 

Reject -0.06 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at the end of flashing 

DON'T WALK -0.18 >0.05 Do not Reject - 

Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at the end of All-Red -0.02 >0.05 Do not 

Reject - 

7.7 Summary 

The increment in percent of pedestrians who pushed the call button, percent of 

pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross the roadway, percent of 

pedestrians beginning their crossing during the WALK phase during after the study 

shows an indication of improving crossing behavior. The decrease in the percent of 

pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of all-red is an indication of increased safety for 

pedestrians. The decrease in the percent of drivers blocking crosswalk indicates that 

motorists are stopping/yielding far away from the pedestrians, thus increasing safety for 

pedestrians. There is a significant increase in the percent of drivers coming to complete 

stop before making a right turn on red (RTOR) after the installation of the ITS No-Turn 

On Red Sign. 
91

SITE 8: FLAMINGO ROAD / PARADISE ROAD 

Figure 21: Aerial Photograph of Flamingo Road and Paradise Road (Control Site) 
92

SITE 9 AND 10: BONANZA ROAD: D STREET AND F STREET 

9.1 Site description 

The land use pattern along Bonanza Road between D Street and F Street site is classified 

as commercial. The location is within the jurisdiction of the City of Las Vegas and the 

Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). Bonanza Road, D Street, and F Street are 

classified as minor arterials. The posted speed limit along Bonanza Road is 35 mph. D 

Street and F Street have a posted speed limits of 25 mph. Bonanza Road/D Street is a 

three-legged (T intersection), and Bonanza Road/F Street is a four-legged signalized 

intersections. D Street has only the southbound approach at the intersection. Bonanza 

Road/D Street had 6 crashes between January 1996 and December 2000. All the crashes 

had occurred at non-intersection location. Bonanza Road/F Street had a total of 12 

crashes in the same period with about 60 percent of the crashes occurring at nonintersections. As per the 2006 traffic count statistics, the estimated ADT along Bonanza 

Road at this site is 20,100. Figures 22 and 23 present the aerial photographs of the Site 9 

and Site 10 respectively. Implementation plans and conceptual designs of this site are 

illustrated in Site 9 and Site 10 in Appendix B. 

Figure 22: Aerial Photograph of Bonanza Road and D Street 
93

Figure 23: Aerial Photograph of Bonanza Road and F Street 

9.2 Problems Identified 

Some of the problems observed at Bonanza Road D Street and F Street are pedestrians 

not using the crosswalks, inconspicuous crosswalks, pedestrians trapped in the middle of 

the street while crossing, motorists failing to yield, pedestrians failing to yield, and 

pedestrians not waiting for signals or acceptable gaps.

9.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

The installation of “In-roadway knockdown signs” would inform motorists about 

pedestrian activities in the vicinity, and it would also remind them of the State law that 

motorists must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Deployment of “High visibility 

crosswalk” and “In-roadway knockdown signs” is expected to increase motorists’ 

yielding behavior to pedestrians, and more crosswalk users. The implementation plan for 

the proposed countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 34. 
94

Table 34: Implementation Plan for Bonanza Rd: D St to F St 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

In-roadway knockdown sign O O O 

High visibility crosswalk O O 

Pedestrian channelization O 

Warning sign for motorists 

 O - Installed 

9.4 Countermeasures Installed 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “In Roadway Knockdown Signs.” This 

countermeasure is installed between August 22 and 26, 2005. The after condition data for 

stage 1 countermeasure deployment are collected between September 12 and 16, 2005. 

Figure 24 shows the countermeasures deployed in Stage 1 at this location. 

Figure 24: In-roadway Knockdown Signs installed at Site 9/10 
95

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment” 

and “Warning Signs for Motorists.” These countermeasures are installed on August 4-7, 

2006. The after condition data for Stage 2 countermeasure deployment are collected on 

August 21 to 24, 2006. Figure 25 shows the high visibility crosswalk treatment installed 

at Site 9/10. Warning signs for motorists installed at the site are shown in Figure 26. 

 

Figure 25: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment installed at Site 9/10 

Figure 26: Warning Signs for Motorists installed at Site 9/10 
96

Stage 3 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasure deployed during this stage was “Pedestrian Channelization.” This 

countermeasure is installed on October 29 to November 2, 2007. The after condition data 

for Stage 3 countermeasure deployment are collected on December 20 and 21, 2007. 

Figure 27 shows the countermeasure deployed in Stage 3 at this location. 

Figure 27: Pedestrian Channelization installed at Site 9/10 

9.5 Safety MOEs 

9.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

The baseline data indicate that 100 percent of the observed pedestrians look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross the roadway and before crossing the second half of the street. 

The installation of in-roadway knockdown signs in Stage 1, high visibility crosswalk in 

Stage 2 and pedestrian Channelization in Stage 3 also maintain the “pedestrians look for 

vehicles behavior before beginning to cross the roadway and before crossing the second 

half of the street” MOE at 100 percent as shown in Table 35. An increase in the percent 
97

of captured pedestrians is observed after the installation of the in-roadway knockdown 

signs in the Stage 1. Thus the proportion of diverted pedestrians reduced. Different 

effects are seen in Stage 2 and Stage 3, with decrease in the percent of captured 

pedestrians and increase in the percent of diverted pedestrians as shown in Table 35. A 

slight increase is observed in the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway during 

stage 1. However, after the installation of the high visibility crosswalk, the proportion of 

pedestrians trapped in the roadway is reduced to zero and is maintained at a similar 

percentage even after the installation of pedestrian Channelization in Stage 3. 

Table 35: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Sample = 197 Sample = 333 Sample = 18 Sample = 100 

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent N3 Percent 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross 197 100 333 100 18 100 100 100 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before crossing 2nd half of street 197 100 333 100 18 100 100 100 

Percent of captured pedestrians 146 74 289 87 11 61 78 78 

Percent of diverted pedestrians 51 26 44 13 7 39 22 22 

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway 9 5 32 9 0 0 9 9 

9.5.2 Motorist MOEs 

The data collected under the MOEs related to motorists are shown in Table 36. The 

proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians shows a continuous reduction of 0.74 in the 

baseline to 0.47 in Stage 1 to 0.00 in Stage 2 and has maintained at a lower proportion of 

0.01 in stage 3. The data indicate that the installation of countermeasure in Stage 1 

resulted in a greater proportion of drivers yielding at a distance greater than 10 ft. Also, 

the percent of drivers blocking the crosswalk shows a reduction in Stage 1 compared to 

baseline period. Data from stages 2 and 3 countermeasure installation do not show 

notable effect on the motorist behavior. 
98

Table 36: Results of motorist MOEs at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Sample = 89 Sample = 106 Sample = 25 Sample = 170 

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent N3 Percent 

Percent of drivers yielding to 

pedestrians 66 74 50 47 0 0 1 0.6 

Sample = 66 Sample = 50 Sample = 0 Sample = 1 

Distance driver 

stops/yields 

before crosswalk 

< 10 ft 46 70 20 40 - - 

10-20 ft 10 15 15 30 - 1 100 

>20 ft 10 15 15 30 - - 

Sample = 77 Sample = 284 Sample = 0 Sample = 0 

Percent of drivers blocking 

crosswalk 5 7 3 6 - - 

9.6 Mobility MOEs 

9.6.1 Pedestrian Delay 

The average pedestrian delay measured at this location is shown in Table 37. An increase 

in pedestrian delay is observed during stage 1; however, it is reduced in stage 2 and 

further reduced in stage 3 after the installation of the pedestrian channelization. 

Table 37: Delay at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay 

Average pedestrian delay 

(sec/ped) 197 8.06 333 12.56 18 6.29 113 0.87 

9.7 Statistical Results 

9.7.1 Safety MOEs 

Since the proportions of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross and 

before crossing 2nd half of the street are 1.00, statistically, the null hypothesis cannot be 

accepted proving no significant changes in the results. The statistical test indicate a 

significant increase in the percent of captured pedestrians during stage 1 when compared 

to the baseline data (P<0.001). The increase is not statistically significant when stage 2 

results are compared with baseline as well as stage 1 data (P>0.05). The percent of 
99

pedestrians trapped in the roadway significantly reduced in stage 2 compared to baseline 

as well as with stage 1 data (P=0.001). The results are shown in Tables 38 and 39. 

The results show no significant increase in percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians and 

no significant decrease in percent of drivers blocking crosswalk (P<0.05). The increase in 

the proportion of drivers stopping/yielding at a distance greater than 10 ft is statistically 

significant (P<0.05). 
100

Table 38: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 

PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 P-value H0 PB – 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross No Change No Change Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street No Change No Change Percent of captured pedestrians -0.12 <0.001 Reject 0.13 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.Percent of diverted pedestrians 0.12 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.13 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 0.26 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.74 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

<10 ft 0.29 >0.05 Do not Reject - 

10-20 ft -0.26 <0.05 Reject - 

>20 ft -0.006 <0.05 Reject - 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent of drivers blocking crosswalk 0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway -0.05 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.04 0.001 Reject -0.
101

Table 39: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Bonanza Road: 

D Street to F Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Safety) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. Stage 3 

P1 – P2 P-value H0 P2 – P3 P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross No change No change 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before crossing 2nd half of street No change No change 

Percent of captured pedestrians 0.25 >0.05 Do not 

Reject -0.16 >0.05 Do not 

Reject 

Percent of diverted pedestrians -0.25 <0.05 Reject 0.16 >0.05 Do not 

Reject 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 0.47 >0.05 Do not 

Reject -0.005 >0.05 Do not 

Reject 

MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway 0.09 <0.001 Reject -0.13 >0.05 Do not 

Reject 

9.7.2 Mobility MOEs 

There is no significant reduction in the average pedestrian delay in stages 1 and 2 

compared to the baseline as shown in Table 40 (P>0.05). But a significant decrease is 

observed in stage 2 when compared to stage 1 as seen in Table 41 (P<0.05). 

Table 40: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Bonanza Road: D Street to F 

Street 

Measures of 

Effectiveness 

 (Mobility) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 Baseline vs. Stage 3 

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Average pedestrian 

delay (sec/ped) -4.50 >0.05 Do not Reject 1.77 >0.05 Do not Reject 7.19 <0.001 Reject 

Table 41: Statistical test results of mobility MOE stages 1 and 2 at Bonanza Road: 

D Street to F Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Mobility) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. Stage 3 

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 6.27 <0.05 Reject 5.22 <0.05 Reject 
102

9.8 Summary 

The installation of in-roadway knockdown signs and a high visibility crosswalk is 

effective for reducing the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway and increasing 

the proportion of pedestrians using the crosswalk to cross the street. The increase in the 

proportion of drivers yielding at a greater distance enhances safety to pedestrians crossing 

the roadway. The decrease in the average pedestrian delay in stage 2 indicates that the 

high visibility crosswalk provides improved mobility. 
103

SITE 11: TWAIN AVENUE: CAMBRIDGE STREET TO SWENSON STREET 

AND SITE 12: TWAIN AVENUE: SWENSON STREET TO PALOS VERDE 

STREET 

11.1 Site description 

Twain Avenue is classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph along 

the corridor between Cambridge Street and Palos Verde Street. Twain Avenue runs in the 

east-west direction. The location is within the jurisdiction of Clark County. Land use 

along the corridor is mixed type with some shopping centers and residential apartments. 

ADT along the corridor for the year 2006 was approximately 21,400. Figures 28 and 29 

present the aerial photographs of the Site 11 and Site 12 respectively. Implementation 

plans and conceptual designs for these sites are illustrated in Appendix B. 

Figure 28: Aerial Photograph of Site 11 
104

Figure 29: Aerial Photograph of Site 12 

11.2 Problems Identified 

The problems identified along the corridor include excessive speeding, drivers not 

yielding to pedestrians, pedestrians trapped in the roadway, and conflicts between 

vehicles and pedestrians.

11.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

The countermeasures deployed at this site include “In-roadway knockdown signs” and 

“Portable speed trailer.” The implementation plans for the proposed countermeasures at 

the above mentioned locations are shown in Tables 42 and 43. 

Table 42: Implementation Plan for Twain Avenue: Cambridge Street to Swenson 

Street 

Treatment Stage 1 

In-roadway knockdown signs O 

 O - Installed 
105

Table 43: Implementation Plan for Twain Avenue: Swenson Street to Palos Verde 

Street 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 

In-roadway knockdown signs O O 

Portable speed trailers O 

 O - Installed 

11.4 Countermeasures Installed 

The finalized countermeasures were installed at sites 11 and 12 in 2 stages. 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

The countermeasures deployed during stage 1 are “In Roadway Knockdown Signs.” 

These signs were installed between October 10 and 14, 2005. The after condition data for 

stage 1 countermeasure deployment were collected between November 1 and 4, 2005. 

Figure 30 and Figure 31 show the countermeasures deployed in Stage 1 at this location. 

Figure 30: In-Roadway Knockdown Signs installed at Sites 11 and 12 
106

Figure 31: Close-up view of “In-Roadway Knockdown Signs” installed at Sites 11 

and 12 

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment 

The countermeasure deployed during stage 2 is “Portable Speed Trailer.” This 

countermeasure was installed between August 1 and September 30, 2006. The after 

condition data for Stage 2 countermeasure deployment were collected on October 18 and 

19, 2006. Figure 32 shows the countermeasure deployed in Stage 2 at this location. 

 

Figure 32: Installation location of Speed-trailer on Twain Avenue 

Location of Speed Trailer

Eastbound Westbound 

Location of Speed Trailer 
107

Data were collected for various pedestrian and motorist MOEs and the summarized 

results are shown in Tables 44 to 47. 

11.5 Safety MOEs 

The safety MOEs identifies includes some related to pedestrians and others related to 

motorists. 

11.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

Table 44 shows that the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning 

to cross and before crossing the second half of the roadway increased from 0.80 to 1.00 

and from 0.85 to 1.00 respectively. This indicates that the in-roadway knockdown signs 

have positive impacts with respect to these MOEs. No change in the proportion of 

captured or diverted pedestrians is observed. The proportion of pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway reduced from 0.41 in baseline to 0.34 in stage 1, and to 0.37 in stage 2. This also 

suggests improved safety for pedestrians. 

11.5.2 Motorist MOEs 

Table 45 shows the percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians in different stages as a 

measure of motorist MOE. The baseline data indicate only a small proportion (0.07) of 

drivers yield to pedestrians. After the installation of in-roadway knockdown in the second 

stage, this proportion increased to 0.35. After the use of speed trailer in stage 2, the 

proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrian slightly decreased to 0.29. Since the location 

is a mid-block, the distance of drivers stopping/yielding before crosswalk and the percent 

of drivers blocking the crosswalk are not applicable.
108

Table 44: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to 

Swenson Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample = 165 Sample = 47 Sample = 156 

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross 132 80 47 100 156 100 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before crossing 2nd half of the street 141 85 47 100 156 100 

Percent of captured pedestrians 165 100 47 100 156 100 

Percent of diverted pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway 68 41 16 34 58 37 

Table 45: Results of motorist safety MOE at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to 

Swenson Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample = 141 Sample = 79 Sample = 119 

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Percent 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 10 7 28 35 35 29 

11.6 Mobility MOEs 

11.6.1 Pedestrian Delay 

The average pedestrian and vehicle delay measured at this location are shown in Table 46 

for the various deployment stages. The average pedestrian delay increased in stages 1 and 

2 compared to the baseline data.

11.6.2 Vehicle Delay 

Table 46 shows that compared to the baseline data, average vehicle delays increased in 

stages 1 and 2. 

11.6.3 Vehicle Speed 

Table 47 shows the mean vehicle speeds for the various countermeasure deployment 

stages. The existing condition mean speeds in the eastbound and westbound directions 

are 40 mph and 35 mph, respectively. The installation of in-roadway knockdown signs 
109

reduced the speeds to 34.5 mph and 28.5 mph, in the eastbound and westbound 

directions, respectively. The difference of the mean speeds between the existing 

condition and after stage 1 is approximately 6 mph. Similar trends are observed in the 

westbound direction. The deployment of speed trailer further reduced the speed in the 

eastbound direction to 31.9 mph. The mean speed in the westbound direction is reduced 

to 31.3 mph from 35 mph in the baseline period, but this was greater than the mean speed 

observed after stage 1. 

Table 46: Delays at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to Swenson Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay 

Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 164 0.81 47 12.19 156 14.72 

Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) 141 0.18 79 3.23 119 2.49 

Table 47: Vehicle speeds at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to Swenson Street 

Measures of 

Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample Mean speed 

(mph) Sample Mean speed (mph) Sample Mean speed 

(mph) 

Eastbound 150 40.0 100 34.5 250 31.9 

Westbound 200 35.0 100 28.5 250 31.3 

11.7 Statistical Results 

The results of the statistical tests for the safety MOEs for site 12 (Twain Avenue: 

Swenson Street to Palos Verde Street) comparing the baseline conditions with each stage, 

and between stages are shown in Tables 48 and 49, respectively. The analyses of 

statistical results for the mobility MOEs are shown in Tables 50 and 51. 

11.7.1 Safety MOEs 

The results of the statistical tests for safety MOEs are shown in Tables 48 and 49. The 

results, when the baseline data and stage 1 data are compared, show that the increase in 

the percentage of pedestrian who look for vehicles before beginning to cross and before 

crossing 2nd half of the street are significant at a 95 percent confidence level. These 
110

results indicate that the deployment of the countermeasures results in improvements in 

pedestrian safety. The proportion of diverted pedestrians and captured pedestrians do not 

change between the various stages. The increase in drivers yielding to pedestrians is 

found to be significant in both cases as shown in Table 50. The results were not 

statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level when the percent of pedestrians 

trapped in the roadway in stage 1 and stage 2 are compared with the baseline data. 

Comparing the data for stage 1 and stage 2, no change in the proportions of pedestrians 

who look for vehicles before crossing and before crossing the 2nd half of the street, 

captured and diverted pedestrians is seen. However, Table 51 shows that the percent of 

drivers yielding to pedestrians and the percent of pedestrians trapped in roadways are not 

significantly different statistically at a 95 percent confidence level. 
111

Table 48: Statistical test results at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to Swenson Stree

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Ba

PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross -0.20 <0.001 Reject Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street -0.14 <0.001 Reject Percent of captured pedestrians No change Percent of diverted pedestrians No change Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.28 <0.001 Reject -0.22 MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.07 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.04 

Table 49: Statistical test results between stages at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to Swens

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Safety) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 

P1 – P2 P-value 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 0.00 No changePercent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 0.00 No changePercent of captured pedestrians 0.00 No change Percent of diverted pedestrians 0.00 No change Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 0.06 >0.05 Do nMOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway -0.03 >0.05 Do n
112

11.7.2 Mobility MOEs 

The results of statistical tests for the significance of the mobility MOE is shown in Tables 

50 and 51. Statistical tests revealed no significant difference in results obtained for 

average pedestrian delay and average vehicle delay. The decrease in eastbound mean 

speed is found to be significant for all three cases as seen in Tables 52 and 53. The 

decrease in the westbound mean speed, when baseline data is compared with stage 1 and 

stage 2 is found to be significantly different. However, difference obtained when the 

westbound mean speed for stage 1 and stage 2 is compared is not statistically significant 

as seen in Table 53. 

Table 50: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde 

Street to Swenson Street 

Measures of 

Effectiveness 

 (Mobility) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Average pedestrian 

delay (sec/ped) -11.38 >0.05 Do not Reject -13.91 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Average vehicle delay 

(sec/veh) -3.05 >0.05 Do not Reject -2.31 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Table 51: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs between stages at Twain Avenue: 

Palos Verde Street to Swenson Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 

Difference in Mean P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) -2.53 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) 0.74 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Table 52: Statistical test results of speed at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street to 

Swenson Street 

Measures of 

Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 

Difference in 

Mean Speed P-value H0

Difference in 

Mean Speed P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Eastbound (mph) 5.50 <0.001 Reject 8.10 <0.001 Reject 

Westbound (mph) 6.50 <0.001 Reject 3.70 <0.001 Reject 
113

Table 53: Comparison of speed between stages at Twain Avenue: Palos Verde Street 

to Swenson Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 

Difference in Mean P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Eastbound (mph) 2.60 <0.001 Reject 

Westbound (mph) -2.80 >0.05 Do not Reject 

11.8 Summary 

The installation of in-roadway knockdown signs and portable speed trailer has improved 

the yielding behavior of drivers to pedestrians. This makes roadway safer for the 

pedestrians crossing the street. The decreases in the vehicle travel speeds at this location 

suggest that these countermeasures are very effective strategy wherever speeding is an 

issue. 
114

SITE 13: LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD / LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD 

13.1 Site description 

The land use at this location is mainly a mixture of commercial and residential. This site 

is an intersection of a six lane minor arterial (Lake Mead Boulevard) with two left turning 

lanes and with a speed limit 35 mph, and a four lane minor arterial (Las Vegas 

Boulevard) with a left turning lane and with speed limit of 35 mph. This site is in the 

jurisdiction of City of North Las Vegas. It is one of the 4 selected sites along the Lake 

Mead Boulevard corridor between Las Vegas Boulevard and Pecos Road. There were a 

total of 8 crashes recorded at the intersection; with all of them reported as injury crashes. 

Almost 75 percent of the total crashes occurred at the intersection locations. Figure 33 

presents the aerial photograph of this site. Site 13 in Appendix B presents implementation 

plan and the conceptual design of this location. 

Figure 33: Aerial Photograph of Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas Boulevard 
115

13.2 Problems Identified 

Some of the problems identified at this location are pedestrians do NOT use the 

crosswalks, inconspicuous crosswalks, high percent of elderly pedestrian involved in 

crashes, and inconspicuous pedestrian signals due to wide streets 

13.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

A “High visibility crosswalk” treatment is proposed at this location to help reduce the 

problem of inconspicuous crosswalks at the location. Enlarged Pedestrian Signal Heads 

are also proposed as a countermeasure deployment. The implementation plan for the 

proposed countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 54. 

Table 54: Implementation Plan for Lake Mead Boulevard and Lake Mead 

Boulevard 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 

High visibility crosswalk O O 

High visibility crosswalk from island to sidewalk O O 

Enlarged Pedestrian Signal Heads X 

 O - Installed 

 X - Not installed due to non-availability 

 

13.4 Countermeasures Installed 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “high visibility crosswalk treatment.” This 

countermeasure is installed between October 3 and 7, 2005. The after condition data for 

stage 1 countermeasure deployment are collected on November 7, 2005. Figure 34 shows 

the countermeasures deployed at this location. 
116

Figure 34: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment installed at Lake Mead Boulevard 

and Las Vegas Boulevard 

Implementation of stage 2 countermeasure is cancelled due to the non-availability of 

vendors to fabricate and manufacture “Enlarged Pedestrians Signal Head” 

countermeasure. 

13.5 Safety MOEs 

The results of the safety MOEs are summarized in Tables 55 and 56. Table 55 shows the 

pedestrian MOEs that are percent of the pedestrians who look for vehicles before 

beginning to cross, percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed, frequency 

of pedestrian signal violation, percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK, and 

percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway. The motorist MOES are summarized in 

Table 56. These motorist MOEs are percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians, yielding 

distance, drivers blocking the crosswalk, and drivers making a complete stop. 

 
117

13.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

Table 55 summarizes the data collected for pedestrian MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard 

and Las Vegas Boulevard. It can be seen that the “percent of the pedestrians who look for 

vehicles before beginning to cross” increased slightly from 38% to 43% after the 

installation of Stage 1 countermeasure. Percent of signal cycles in which call button has 

been pushed remained almost the same (58% and 54% respectively) even after the 

installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment countermeasure. However, 

frequency of pedestrian signal violation was increased from 4% in Baseline to 12% in 

Stage 1 after the installation of the countermeasure. The impact of countermeasure 

installation on “percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at DON’T WALK” and on “percent 

of pedestrians trapped in the roadway” remained almost the same in the baseline and the 

stage 1 conditions. 

Table 55: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas 

Boulevard 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample NB Percent Sample N1 Percent 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross 411 159 38 377 162 43 

Percent signal cycles in which call button has 

been pushed 411 237 58 377 205 54 

Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 411 19 4 377 48 12 

Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at 

DON’T WALK 411 11 2 377 17 5 

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 411 16 3 377 8 2 

13.5.2 Motorist MOEs 

It is evident from Table 56, that there is not positive impact on the motorists as a result of 

the installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment. All the MOEs collected before 

and after installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment showed negative impact. 
118

Table 56: Results of motorist MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas 

Boulevard 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample NB Percent Sample N1 Percent 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 68 24 35 247 67 27 

Distance driver stops/yields 

before crosswalk 

< 5 ft 24 11 46 67 20 30 

5-10 ft 24 9 38 67 37 55 

>10 ft 24 4 16 67 10 15 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 68 14 21 247 47 19 

Percent of drivers making a complete stop 67 50 75 247 82 33 

13.6 Mobility MOEs 

From Table 57, it is seen that average pedestrian delay increased from 36.6 seconds to 

41.3 seconds per pedestrian after the installation of the high visibility crosswalk 

treatment. However, on the contrary, vehicle delays decreased slightly from 26.7 seconds 

to 20.8 seconds after the stage 1 countermeasure installation. 

Table 57: Delay at Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas Boulevard 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample Delay Sample Delay 

Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 411 36.64 377 41.31 

Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) 774 26.69 864 20.76 

13.7 Statistical Results 

13.7.1 Safety MOEs 

The statistical results of the safety MOEs for Lake Mead Boulevard and Las Vegas 

Boulevard are shown in Table 58. It is evident from the results table; none of the 

parameters (either pedestrian related or motorist related) showed statistically significant 

improvement after the installation of the high visibility crosswalk treatment at Lake Mead 

Boulevard and Las Vegas Boulevard. 
119

Table 58: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard and Las 

Vegas Boulevard 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 

PB – P1 P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross -0.04 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent signal cycles in which call button has 

been pushed 0.03 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 0.08 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Distance driver stops/yields 

before crosswalk 

<5 ft 0.15 >0.05 Do not Reject 

5-10 ft -0.17 >0.05 Do not Reject 

>10 ft 0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of drivers making a complete stop 0.41 >0.05 Do not Reject 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.017 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Frequency of pedestrian signal violation -0.08 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of pedestrians in crosswalk at 

DON’T WALK -0.018 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject 

13.8 Summary 

The data collected before and after the installation of the High Visibility Crosswalk 

Treatment at this location does not show significant improvement in safety for 

pedestrians as anticipated. The other problems identified at this location such as “high 

percent of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes,” and “inconspicuous pedestrian signals 

due to wide streets” would have been addressed by installation of Enlarge Pedestrians 

Signal Heads. However, vendor unavailability hampered the process of installation of this 

countermeasure. 
120

SITE 14: LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD / MCDANIEL STREET 

Figure 35: Aerial Photograph of Lake Mead Boulevard and McDaniel Street 

(Control Site) 
121

SITE 15: LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD: BELMONT STREET TO MCCARRAN 

STREET 

15.1 Site description 

The location is within the jurisdiction of the City of North Las Vegas. Land use is 

primarily residential. Lake Mead Boulevard is a major arterial with a posted speed limit 

of 45 mph. As per 2006 traffic count statistics, the AADT on Lake Mead Boulevard 

between Belmont Street and McCarran Street is 44,000. Figure 36 presents the aerial 

photograph of the site. Implementation plans and conceptual designs of this site are 

illustrated in Site 15A and Site 15B in Appendix B. 

Figure 36: Aerial Photograph of Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to 

McCarran Street 
122

15.2 Problems Identified 

Some of the identified problems are high percentage of elderly pedestrian crashes, 

motorists failing to yield, pedestrians not waiting for signals/acceptable gaps, and high 

proportions of nighttime crashes.

15.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

The proposed countermeasures to address these problems are “Danish offset,” “Median 

refuge,” “High visibility crosswalk,” “Advance yield markings,” “Yield here to 

pedestrians signs,” “ITS Automatic Detection Devices,” “Smart Lighting” and “Enhancer 

Pedestrians LED Signal.” The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at 

this location is shown in Table 59. 

Table 59: Implementation Plan for Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to 

McCarran Street 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Relocated bus stop locations and crosswalks O O O 

High visibility crosswalk O O O 

Median refuge O O O 

Danish offsets O O O 

Advance yield markings + sign yield to pedestrians O O O 

Smart Lighting X X 

ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices X X 

Enhancer Pedestrian LED signal X 

 O - Installed 

 X - Not Installed 

15.4 Countermeasures Installed 

The Lake Mead Boulevard site from Belmont Street to McCarran Street is a mid-block 

location. Multiple countermeasures were installed in a single stage at this location 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are Danish offset, Median refuge, High 

visibility crosswalk, Advance yield markings and “Yield Here to Pedestrian” signs. These 

countermeasures are installed between January 29 and February 2, 2007. The after 

condition data for Stage 1 countermeasure deployment are collected between February 26 
123

and March 2, 2007. Figure 37 and Figure 38 show the countermeasures deployed in stage 

1 at this location. 

Figure 37: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment, Danish Offset and Median Refuge 

 

Figure 38: Advanced Yield Markings installed at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont 

Street to McCarran Street 
124

The various pedestrian and motorist MOEs and the summarized results are shown in 

Tables 60 and 61 respectively. The mobility MOEs are shown in Table 62. The results of 

the statistical tests for the safety and mobility MOEs comparing the baseline conditions 

with stage 1 are shown in Table 63 and 64, respectively. 

15.5 Safety MOEs 

15.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

From Table 60, it is clear that the percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before 

beginning to cross and before crossing second half of the street increased from 0.96 and 

0.92 to 1.00, and 1.00, respectively. The percent of captured pedestrians decreased from 

100 percent to 84 percent, but the percent of diverted pedestrians increased from zero to 

16 percent. There is drastic a decrease in the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway from 0.62 to 0.05 after stage 1. 

Table 60: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to 

McCarran Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample = 61 Sample = 123 

NB Percent N1 Percent 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross 59 96 123 100 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before crossing 2nd half of street 56 92 123 100 

Percent of captured pedestrians 61 100 103 84 

Percent of diverted pedestrians 0 0 20 16 

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 38 62 7 5 

15.5.2 Motorist MOEs 

Table 61 shows that proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians from baseline to stage 1 

increase from 0.03 to 0.40. There is an increase in the proportion of drivers 

stopping/yielding at a distance less than 10 feet. A nominal increase is also observed in 

the percent of drivers blocking the crosswalk in stage 1 compared to baseline period. 
125

Table 61: Results of motorist MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to 

McCarran Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample = 296 Sample = 117 

NB Percent N1 Percent 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 8 03 46 40 

Sample = 8 Sample = 46 

Distance driver stops/yields 

before crosswalk 

< 10 ft 2 25 15 39 

10-20 ft 6 75 22 49 

>20 ft 0 0 9 19 

Sample = 296 Sample = 117 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk - 3 6 

15.6 Mobility MOEs 

15.6.1 Pedestrian Delay 

The baseline data indicates that the average pedestrian delay is 21.43 sec/ped. The 

average pedestrian delay is reduced by 11.90 sec/ped from baseline conditions to stage 1. 

15.6.2 Vehicle Delay 

The average vehicle delay in the baseline period is 0.24 sec/veh and in stage 1, the delay 

is 2.16 sec/veh. Table 62 shows the comparison of average vehicle delay at stage 1 and 

baseline. 

Table 62: Delays at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample Delay Sample Delay 

Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 61 21.43 84 9.53 

Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) 296 0.24 117 2.16 

15.7 Statistical Results 

15.7.1 Safety MOEs 

There is no significant increase in the percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before 

beginning to cross and percent of captured pedestrians in stage 1 compared with baseline 

data (P>0.05). The MOEs that have significant effect include the following: increase in 
126

the percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing second half of the street, 

and the percent of diverted pedestrians in stage 1 compared with baseline (P<0.05). The 

reduction in the percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway in stage 1 is also 

statistically significant (P<0.001). 

The results provide evidence that there is a significant increase in the percent of drivers 

yielding to pedestrians in stage 1 compared to the baseline period (P<0.001). There is a 

significant increase in the number of drivers stopping/yielding at a distance greater than 

20 feet after the installation of countermeasures mentioned in stage 1 (P<0.001). The 

complete results of the statistical analyses of safety MOEs for pedestrians and drivers are 

shown in Table 63.

15.7.2 Mobility MOEs 

Table 64 provides the summary of the tests for statistical significance of the results 

obtained for pedestrian and vehicle delays. This table shows that there is a significant 

decrease in the average pedestrian delay in stage 1 compared to baseline (P=0.001). 

There is no statistical evidence that the decrease in average vehicle delay is significant 

(P>0.05). 

Table 63: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont 

Street to McCarran Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 

PB – P1 P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross -0.03 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before crossing 2nd half of street -0.08 <0.05 Reject 

Percent of captured pedestrians 0.16 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of diverted pedestrians -0.16 <0.001 Reject 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.36 <0.001 Reject 

Distance driver stops/yields 

before crosswalk 

<10 ft -0.07 >0.05 Do not Reject 

10-20 ft 0.27 >0.05 Do not Reject 

>20 ft -0.19 <0.001 Reject 

MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.56 <0.001 Reject 
127

Table 64: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs at Lake Mead Boulevard: 

Belmont Street to McCarran Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Mobility) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 

PB – P1 P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore

Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 11.90 0.001 Reject 

Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) -1.92 >0.05 Do not Reject 

15.8 Summary 

The results clearly show the impact of the deployed countermeasures in reducing the 

waiting time of the pedestrians before beginning to cross and the time spent in the middle 

of the roadway. Maryland Parkway and Dumont Street is a location with similar 

countermeasures installed without advance yield markings and “Yield Here to 

Pedestrian” signs in stage 1. The results at both the sites indicate that the 

countermeasures are effective in increasing the safety of the pedestrians by decreasing the 

percent of trapped pedestrians in roadway and increasing the drivers yielding behavior. 
128

SITE 16: LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD / PECOS ROAD 

16.1 Site description 

The land use at this location is mainly residential. This site is an intersection of a six lane 

minor arterial (Lake Mead Boulevard) with two left turning lanes and with a speed limit 

45 mph, and a six lane minor arterial (Pecos Road) with speed limit of 45 mph. This site 

is within the jurisdiction of City of North Las Vegas. There are a total of 9 crashes 

recorded at this intersection from 1996-2000. All the crashes that occurred at this location 

were injury crashes. The percentage of the motorist’s failure to yield (67 percent) is 

double the percentage of the pedestrian’s failure to yield (33 percent). Day time crashes 

account for 78 percent of the crashes. Figure 39 presents the aerial photograph of the site. 

Implementation plans and conceptual designs of this site are illustrated in Site 16 in 

Appendix B. 

Figure 39: Aerial Photograph of Lake Mead Boulevard and Pecos Road 
129

16.2 Problems Identified 

After analyzing crash data and field observation data, some of the problems identified at 

this location include: motorist failure to yield, pedestrian failure to yield, pedestrians do 

NOT wait for signals/acceptable gaps, and high pedestrian/right turning vehicle conflicts. 

16.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

Countermeasures proposed at this location are “turning vehicles yield for pedestrian sign” 

and “warning sign for motorists.” The implementation plan for the proposed 

countermeasures at this location is shown in Table 65.

Table 65: Implementation Plan for Lake Mead Boulevard and Pecos Road 

Treatment Stage 1 

Warning sign for motorists O 

Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians O 

 O - Installed 

16.4 Countermeasures Installed 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment: 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Warning Signs for Motorists” and 

“Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians.” These countermeasures were installed between 

May 16 and 20, 2005. The after condition data for Stage 1 countermeasure deployment 

was collected from June 6 to 10, 2005. Figure 40 shows the countermeasure deployed in 

Stage 1 at this location. 
130

Figure 40: “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrian” signs installed at Lake Mead 

Boulevard and Pecos Road 

16.5 Safety MOEs 

The average vehicle delay increased marginally from 25.4 seconds/vehicle to 26.1 

seconds/vehicle, before and after the installation of the sign, respectively. Similar trends 

were observed both morning and evening peak hours during both of the study periods. 

The percentage of motorists yielding also increases so that more vehicles yielded to 

pedestrians. Consequently, the vehicle delay also increases. Pedestrian delay increased 

from 42 seconds/pedestrian to 45 seconds/pedestrian before and after the installation of 

the sign respectively. 

16.6 Statistical Results 

The before-and-after study results show that the installation of the “Turning traffic must 

yield to pedestrians” sign has increased the proportion of motorists yielding at RTOR 

from 0.51 to 0.92 (P<0.001). On the contrary, the proportion of motorists yielding at right 
131

turn on green decreased marginally from 0.82 to 0.80 (P=0.566) during the after-study 

period. However, this difference is not statistically different at the 95 percent confidence 

level. The installation of the sign “Turning traffic must yield to pedestrians” shows an 

increase in motorists yielding while turning on red. The values of MOEs during before 

and after study periods, their difference and statistical significance are shown in Table 66. 

Before the installation of the sign, “Turning traffic must yield to pedestrians,” proportion 

of vehicles which block the crosswalk while turning increases from 0.39 before 

installation to 0.82 after installation (P<0.001). The observed stopping behavior of 

motorists before RTOR indicates that the proportion of motorists completely stopped 

before the sign is installed decreases from 0.75 before to 0.58 (P<0.001) after the sign is 

installed. 

The proportion of pedestrians looking for turning vehicles at the beginning of the WALK 

signal decreases from 0.88 to 0.58 (P<0.001) before and after the installation of the sign 

respectively. The proportion of pedestrians who are stuck in the crosswalk during the 

flashing DON’T WALK phase and at the end of all red time decreased from 0.62 to 0.21 

(P<0.001) and 0.031 to 0.027 (P=0.393) respectively during after study period. 
132

Table 66: Statistical Test Results at Lake Mead Boulevard/Pecos Road 

Sample 

size Value

Sample 

size Value

1 Motorists' yielding at right turn on red 

(in the presence of pedestrian at turn or 

approach), %

76 51.32 55 90.91 -39.59 <0.001 Reject

2 Motorists' yielding at right turn on 

green (in the presence of pedestrians), 

%

73 81.94 64 79.69 2.26 0.566 Do not 

reject

3 Percentage vehicles blocked the 

crosswalk, % 267 39.33 198 82.32 -43.00 1.000 Do not 

reject

4 Percentage of drivers executing right 

turn on red coming to complete stop, % 268 75.37 200 58.00 17.37 1.000 Do not 

reject

5 Pedestrian delay (sec/ped)

362 42.08 388 45.31 -3.23 0.914 Do not 

reject

6 Vehicle delay at intersection (sec/veh)

 AM 812 18.60 1,243 19.82 N/A N/A

 PM 1,642 28.77 1,384 31.78 N/A N/A

 Total 2,454 25.40 2,627 26.12 N/A N/A

7 Percentage of pedestrians who looked 

at start of the WALK phase for turning 

vehicles, %

331 87.61 412 58.25 29.36 1.000 Do not 

reject

8 Percentage of pedestrians who were in 

the crosswalk during the flashing 

DON'T WALK phase, %

354 61.86 432 20.60 41.26 <0.001 Reject

9 Percentage of pedestrians who were in 

the crosswalk at the end of all-red, % 354 3.11 432 2.78 0.33 0.393 Do not 

reject

10 Percentage of pedestrians who were 

trapped in the middle of crossing, % 338 5.33 432 2.78 2.55 0.040 Reject

11 Percentage of pedestrian/vehicle 

evasive actions, change course/slow to 

avoid motorists, %

345 1.74 432 0.23 1.51 0.021 Reject

12 Vehicle speed (mph)

 Eastbound 75 33.68 99 36.14 -2.46 0.963 Do not 

reject

 Westbound 50 40.53 75 29.66 10.87 <0.001 Reject

 Northbound 50 37.72 60 26.96 10.75 <0.001 Reject

 Southbound 50 35.94 60 31.16 4.78 <0.001 Reject

Null 

hypothesis

(Before - 

After) P-value S. No. Measures of Effectiveness

Before After 

Note: α = 0.05 

The proportion of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the road while crossing decreases 

significantly during the after-condition from 0.05 to 0.03 (P=0.040). The motorists’ 

yielding behavior while turning also shows an improvement. As a result, the percentage 

of pedestrians trapped in the middle decreases after installation of the sign. 
133

The proportion of evasive actions decreases from 0.017 to 0.002 for the before and after 

study periods respectively. The difference of the proportion of evasive action between 

before and after period is significantly different (P=0.021) at the 95 percent confidence 

level. The average vehicle speeds decreases (P<0.001) significantly during the after study 

period in the northbound, southbound, and westbound directions. On the other hand, the 

average vehicle speeds shows an increase in the eastbound direction. 

16.7 Summary 

Statistical analysis of the data collected at this location before and after the installation of 

the “Yield to Pedestrian in Crosswalk” shows significant benefits that improved overall 

pedestrian safety at this location. The parameters that were improved after the installation 

of the countermeasure include, increase in the number of vehicles yielding to pedestrians 

in crosswalk, reduction in the percent of the vehicles blocking the crosswalk, and 

decrease of pedestrian delay. 
134

SITE 17: FREMONT STREET: 11TH STREET AND 8TH STREET 

Figure 41: Aerial Photograph of Fremont Street: 11th Street to 8th Street (Control 

Site)
135

SITE 18: FREMONT STREET: 6TH STREET AND 8TH STREET 

18.1 Site description 

Land use adjacent to the corridor includes hotels, casinos and other commercial activities. 

The location is within the jurisdiction of the City of Las Vegas. Fremont Street is 

classified as a minor arterial and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. As per 2006 traffic 

count statistics, the ADT at Fremont Street is 13,800 along this corridor. Figure 42 

presents the aerial photograph of the site. Implementation plan and conceptual designs of 

this site are presented in Site 18 in Appendix B. 

Figure 42: Aerial Photograph of Fremont Street: 8th Street to 6th Street 
136

18.2 Problems Identified 

Some of the problems identified at Fremont Street from 8th Street to 6th Street are 

pedestrians not using the crosswalks, a high percentage of elderly pedestrians involved in 

crashes, and pedestrians failing to yield. Speeding is a key observed problem at this 

corridor. 

18.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

A “Portable speed trailer” is proposed for this location. The installation of portable speed 

trailers is expected to make motorists aware of the posted speed limit and their current 

speed. The speed trailers are intended to help motorists to reduce their speed. The other 

countermeasures at this site include “In-roadway knockdown signs” and “Pedestrian call 

button that confirm press.” The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at 

this location is shown in Table 67. 

Table 67: Implementation Plan for Fremont Street: 8th Street to 6th Street 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Portable speed trailers O X X 

In-roadway knockdown signs O O 

Pedestrian call buttons that light up O 

 O - Installed 

 X - Countermeasure removed 

18.4 Countermeasures Installed 

Various countermeasures are deployed in three stages and data are collected on weekdays 

at Fremont Street between 6th Street and 8th Street. 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasure deployed during this stage is “Portable speed trailer.” This 

countermeasure is installed between January 1 and 28, 2006. The after condition data for 

stage 1 countermeasure deployment is collected on February 16, 2006. Figure 43 shows 

the countermeasures deployed in stage 1 at this location. 
137

Figure 43: Portable Speed Trailer on Fremont Street 

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “In-roadway knockdown signs.” This 

countermeasure is installed on April 25, 2006. The after condition data for stage 2 

countermeasure deployment are collected on May 16, 2006. Figure 44 shows the 

countermeasures deployed in stage 2 at this location. 

Figure 44: In-Roadway Knockdown Signs 
138

Stage 3 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “Pedestrian button that confirm press.” 

This countermeasure is installed between September 25 and 29, 2006. The after condition 

data for stage 3 countermeasure deployment is collected on December 19, 2006. Figure 

45 shows the countermeasures deployed in Stage 3 at this location. 

Figure 45: Pedestrian Push Button that Confirm Press 

The results of the pedestrian and motorist MOEs are summarized in Tables 68, and 69 

respectively. The average pedestrian delay at this site for each stage is shown in Table 70. 

The statistical significance of the results obtained for all the stages is shown in Tables 71 

and 72. 

18.5 Safety MOEs 

18.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

Table 68 shows that all of the observed pedestrians look for vehicles before beginning to 

cross the roadway during all the stages including baseline period. No pedestrians are 

observed as trapped in the roadway in the baseline period. The proportion of the 

pedestrians violated the signal in the baseline condition is about 0.17. The proportion of 

pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase during the baseline period is 
139

almost negligible. The deployment of portable speed trailer increases the proportion of 

pedestrians trapped very slightly. The proportion of pedestrians violating the signal 

reduced to 0.15 percent in stage 1 compared to the baseline. The installation of inroadway knockdown signs in stage 2 increases the proportion of pedestrians who begin 

their crossing during WALK phase to 0.79. However, stage 1 data are not available for 

this MOE to compare the incremental effect from stage 1 to stage 2. Proportion of signal 

cycles in which the call button has been pushed is 0.18 in stage 2. The installation of 

pedestrian push button that confirm press increases the proportion of signal cycles in 

which call button has been pushed to 0.39 percent. The proportion of pedestrian signal 

violation decreases to 0.09 in stage 3 compared to other stages. Proportion of pedestrians 

are trapped in the roadway in stage 3 is negligibly small. 

18.5.2 Motorist MOEs 

From Table 69, the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians is 0.67 during baseline 

period. About 0.06 proportions of the observed drivers blocks the crosswalk during the 

same period. Proportion of the drivers stop/yield to pedestrians away from the stop bar is 

about 0.20. The installation of the speed trailer in stage 1 eliminates all the drivers from 

blocking the crosswalk. The proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians decreased to 

0.43 in stage 1. In stage 2, almost all of the drivers yield to pedestrians, and only 0. 16 

proportions of the drivers block the crosswalk. There are no pedestrians observed to have 

trapped in the roadway in stage 3. 
140

Table 68: Results of safety MOEs for pedestrians at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Str

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sam

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 716 0 0 517 5 1 437 9 2 2Percent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 716 716 100 517 517 100 437 437 100 2Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 716 125 17 517 78 15 437 63 14 2Percent of pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase 1013 11 1 - - - 202 159 79 2Percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed - - - - - - 202 36 18 1

Table 69: Results of safety MOEs for motorist at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Stree

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sample NB Percent Sa

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 96 64 67 28 12 43 26 25 96 Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

at crosswalk 64 41 64 12 0 0 25 13 52 

between crosswalk and stop bar 64 10 16 12 11 92 25 7 28 away from stop bar 64 13 20 12 1 8 25 5 20 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 161 10 6 12 0 0 25 4 16 
141

18.6 Mobility MOEs 

18.6.1 Pedestrian Delay 

Table 70 shows the results and a comparison of the average pedestrian delay at this 

location for various stages. The average pedestrian delay at baseline period is 9.8 sec/ped. 

There is a reduction in average pedestrian delay in stage 1 compared to baseline data. The 

installation of in-roadway knockdown signs in stage 2 increased the pedestrian delay to 

56.3 sec/ped. A reduction in this MOE is observed in stage 3 compared to stage 2, but 

increased compared to baseline and stage 1 data.

Table 70: Delay at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Street 

Measures of 

Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay

Average Pedestrian 

Delay (sec/ped) 716 9.79 517 7.29 437 56.25 275 11.62 

18.7 Statistical Results 

18.7.1 Safety MOEs 

The results of the statistical analyses are summarized in Table 71. They show that there is 

no significant change in the proportion of pedestrians who look for vehicles before 

beginning to cross in stage 1 compared to baseline period. There is no significant 

decrease in the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway and frequency of 

pedestrian signal violation in stages 1 and 2 compared to the baseline results (P>0.05). 

The implementation of “pedestrian push button that confirm press” in stage 3 has a 

significant impact in increasing the percent of pedestrians who begin their crossing 

during WALK phase (P<0.001). This in turn resulted in decreasing the frequency of 

pedestrian signal violation (P<0.001) compared to the baseline data. It is also observed 

that there is a significant increase in the percent of signal cycles in which the call button 

has been pushed from stage 2 to stage 3 as shown in Table 73 (P<0.001). The percent of 

signal cycles in which call button has been pushed increased significantly in stage 3 

compared to stage 2. There is a significant decrease in the percent of pedestrians trapped 

in the roadway and pedestrian signal violation in stage 3 compared to stage 2. 
142

From Table 73, it is clear that there is no significant increase in the proportion of drivers 

yielding to pedestrians in stage 1 compared to baseline (P>0.05). However, there is a 

significant decrease in the proportion of drivers blocking crosswalk (P=0.001). 

Installation of in-roadway knockdown signs in stage 2 significantly increases the yielding 

behavior of drivers to pedestrians (P<0.001). There is not sufficient evidence to suggest 

the decrease in the percent of drivers stopping/yielding at crosswalk, and between 

crosswalk and stop bar in stage 2 compared to baseline conditions. However, the decrease 

in the percent of drivers stopping/yielding between crosswalk and stop bar in stage 2 

compared to stage 1 is significant as shown in Table 75 (P<0.001). 
143

Table 71: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for pedestrians at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 Baseline 

PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 P-value H0 PB – P3 P-v

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 

No 

change 

No 

change 

N

Ch

Percent of pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase - - - -0.77 <0.001 Reject -0.69 <0MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway -0.009 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.02 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.003 >0Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 0.02 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.03 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.08 <0

Table 72: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for pedestrian between stages at Fremont Street: 6th S

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. S

P1 – P2 P-value H0 P2 – P3 P-value 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent of pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 

No 

Change 

No 

Change 

Percent of pedestrians who begin their crossing during WALK phase - - - 0.07 >0.05 Percent signal cycles in which call button has been pushed - - - -0.20 <0.001 MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforePercent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway -0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.01 <0.05 Frequency of pedestrian signal violation 0.006 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.05 <0.05 
144

Table 73: Statistical test results of safety MOEs for motorists at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 Ba

PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 P-value H0 PB – P3 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 0.23 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.29 <0.001 Reject -0.15 Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

Away from stop bar 0.11 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.003 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.01 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforeDistance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

at crosswalk 0.64 <0.001 Reject 0.12 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.14 

Between crosswalk and stop bar 

-0.76 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.12 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.12 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk 0.06 0.001 Reject -0.09 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.06 

Table 74: Statistical significance of safety MOEs for motorist between stages at Fremont Street: 6th St

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 

P1 – P2 P-value H0 P2 – P3 P-valu

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > PbeforePercent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.53 <0.001 Reject 0.14 >0.05 Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk away from stop bar -0.11 >0.05 Do not Reject -0.02 >0.05 MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforeDistance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

at crosswalk -0.52 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.02 >0.05 

Between crosswalk and stop bar 0.63 <0.001 Reject 0.002 >0.05 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk -0.16 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.16 <0.05 
145

18.7.2 Mobility MOEs 

Results from Table 75 indicates that there is a significant decrease in the average 

pedestrian delay in stage 1 compared to baseline data (P<0.001). There is no significant 

reduction in pedestrian delay in any other stages compared with baseline as well as 

comparison between stages (Tables 75 and 76). 

18.8 Summary 

Installation of the countermeasures mentioned at this location has significant effect in 

improving some of the pedestrian safety MOEs. The installation of the portable speed 

trailer, in-roadway knockdown signs and pedestrian push button that confirm press has 

significant impacts in increasing drivers’ yielding behavior to pedestrians and reducing 

the drivers blocking the crosswalk in one or the other stages at this location. 
146

Table 75: Statistical test results of mobility MOE at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 8th Str

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 Baseline vs. 

PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 P-value H0 PB – P3 P-valu

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforeAverage Pedestrian Delay (sec/ped) 2.5 <0.001 Reject -46.5 >0.05 Do not Reject -1.83 >0.05 

Table 76: Statistical test results of mobility MOE between stages at Fremont Street: 6th Street to 

Measures of Effectiveness (Mobility) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Stage 2 vs. Stage 3 

P1 – P2 P-value H0 P2 – P3 P-value H

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< PbeforeAverage Pedestrian Delay (sec/ped) -49.0 >0.05 Do not Reject 44.60 >0.05 Do not 
147

SITE 19: CHARLESTON BOULEVARD: SPENCER STREET TO 17TH STREET 

19.1 Site description 

Land use classification along Charleston Boulevard corridor includes office complexes, 

several small commercial activity units, restaurants, and apartments. The location is 

within the jurisdiction of the City of Las Vegas and the Nevada Department of 

Transportation (NDOT). Charleston Boulevard between Spencer Street and 17th Street is 

a mid-block location. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. The ADT along Charleston 

Boulevard in the study area is estimated to be 37,500 in the year 2006. Figure 46 presents 

the aerial photograph of the site. 

CHARLESTON

17TH

SPENCER

17TH

SITE#19 Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street/ 17th Street

0 50 100 150 200 25

Miles

SEVERITY Pedestrian fatal crash locations

Pedestrian injury crash locations

N

Figure 46: Aerial Photograph of Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Street 
148

19.2 Problems Identified 

Some of the problems identified are pedestrians not using the crosswalks, high 

proportions of elderly pedestrian crashes, motorists failing to yield, pedestrians not 

waiting for signals/acceptable gaps, and high proportions of nighttime crashes. This midblock site does not have a crosswalk present. Therefore, pedestrians are expected to use 

crosswalks located at nearby intersections. However, crash data show several pedestrian 

crashes occurring away from the intersections. 

19.3 Countermeasures Proposed 

A “High visibility crosswalk” treatment is proposed at this location to help reduce 

jaywalking in the vicinity. “Advance yield markings” upstream of the crosswalk alert 

motorists to yield for pedestrians. “Automatic pedestrian detection devices” and “Smart 

lighting” help to detect the presence of a pedestrian and brighten up the crosswalk with 

high intensity lights. These countermeasures are intended to address a significant number 

of nighttime crashes at this site. Because of the automatic pedestrian detection system, 

pedestrians are expected to be detected even if they do not press the button to activate 

smart lighting. The implementation plan for the proposed countermeasures at this 

location is shown in Table 77. 

Table 77: Implementation Plan for Charleston Boulevard/Spencer Street 

Treatments Stage 1 Stage 2 

Warning signs for motorists O O 

High visibility crosswalk O O 

Advance yield markings + sign yield to pedestrians O O 

ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices O 

Smart Lighting O 

 O - Installed 

19.4 Countermeasures Installed 

The study site of Charleston Boulevard from Spencer Street to 17th Street is a mid-block 

location. Countermeasures are installed in two stages at this location. 

Stage 1 Countermeasure Deployment 
149

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are High visibility crosswalk treatment, 

Advance yield markings and Warning signs for motorists. These countermeasures are 

installed between August 22 and 26, 2005. The after condition data for stage 1 

countermeasures deployment are collected on September 12 and 16, 2005. Figure 47 and 

Figure 48 show the countermeasures deployed in stage 1 at this location. 

 

Figure 47: High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment at Charleston Boulevard and 17th

Street 
150

Figure 48: “Advanced Yield Markings” installed at Site 19 

Stage 2 Countermeasure Deployment 

Countermeasures deployed during this stage are “ITS Pedestrian detection device, Smart 

lighting.” These countermeasures are installed between January 16 and 19, 2007. The 

after condition data for Stage 2 countermeasure deployment are collected on February 22 

and 26, 2007. Figure 49 and Figure 50 show the countermeasures deployed in stage 2. 
151

Figure 49: Smart Lighting 

Figure 50: Automatic Pedestrian Detection 

The results of the safety MOEs are summarized in Tables 78 and 79. At this location, 

innovative ITS pedestrian detection device with smart lighting is installed to address the 

high proportion of nighttime crashes. Results of the statistical tests for the safety MOEs 
152

comparing the baseline conditions with each stage and between stages are shown in 

Tables 82 and 83 respectively. The overall summary and results of statistical analyses of 

delays and vehicle speed are shown in Tables 80 and 81, and Tables 84 to 85, 

respectively. 

19.5 Safety MOEs 

19.5.1 Pedestrian MOEs 

During all the data collection periods, such as, baseline, and stages 1 and 2, all the 

observed pedestrians look for vehicles before beginning to cross and before crossing 

second half of the roadway as shown in Table 78. Data show that the countermeasures 

installed in stage 2 results in increase in the number of diverted pedestrians. In addition, 

the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway reduces for each stage of the 

installation of the countermeasures.

19.5.2 Motorist MOEs 

Data collected for the evaluation of motorist MOEs are summarized in Table 79. The 

deployment of countermeasures in stages 1 and 2 increases the proportion of drivers 

yielding to pedestrians compared to the baseline period. Also, an increase in the 

proportion of drivers who stop/yield to pedestrians at a distance greater than 20 feet is 

observed in stage 2. However, a notable proportion of drivers blocked the crosswalk 

during stage 2 data collection. 
153

Table 78: Results of pedestrian MOEs at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th St

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample = 24 Sample = 44 Sample = 

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Perc

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before beginning to cross 24 100 44 100 84 10Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 24 100 44 100 84 10Percent of captured pedestrians 24 100 44 100 70 83 Percent of diverted pedestrians 0 0 0 0 14 17 Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 9 38 13 30 12 14 

Table 79: Results of motorist MOEs at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Str

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Safety) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample = 50 Sample = 91 Sample = 11

NB Percent N1 Percent N2 Perce

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians 3 6 20 22 41 35 

Sample = 3 Sample = 20 Sample = 4

Distance driver stops/yields before crosswalk 

< 10 ft 2 67 8 40 16 39 

10-20 ft 0 0 10 50 16 39 

>20 ft 1 33 2 10 9 22 

Sample = N/A Sample = 20 Sample = 4

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk N/A N/A 0 0 5 12 
154

19.6 Mobility MOEs 

The average pedestrian and vehicle delay measured at this location is shown in Table 80 

for different stages. The average travel speed of the vehicle is shown in Table 81. 

19.6.1 Pedestrian Delay 

The average pedestrian delay for the baseline conditions is 15.42 sec/ped. After the 

installation of the countermeasure in stage 1, the average pedestrian delay decreased to 

7.52 sec/ped. The average pedestrian delay further decrease to 3.82 sec/ped in stage 2. 

19.6.2 Vehicle Delay 

Average vehicle delay increased in stage 1 as well as in stage 2. The increase in vehicle 

delay is greater in stage 2. 

19.6.3 Vehicle Speed 

The mean of the observed speeds on eastbound and westbound direction, at the baseline 

conditions is 32.2 mph and 24.9 mph, respectively. An increase in the mean speed is 

observed in both directions during stage 1 when compared to baseline. 

Table 80: Delays at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 Stage 2 

Sample Delay Sample Delay Sample Delay 

Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 24 15.42 44 7.52 84 3.82 

Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) 50 0.34 91 0.74 116 2.16 

Table 81: Speeds at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline Stage 1 

Sample Mean speed Sample Mean speed 

Eastbound (mph) 266 32.2 172 33.4 

Westbound (mph) 250 24.9 223 30.7 
155

19.7 Statistical Results 

19.7.1 Safety MOEs 

The increase in the percent of captured pedestrian is statistically significant when stage 2 

is compared with baseline. The percent of increase in the diverted pedestrians from 

baseline to stage 2, and stage 1 to stage 2 is statistically significant (P<0.001). There is a 

significant decrease in the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway in stage 2 

from baseline condition and 15 percent in stage 2 from stage 1 (P<0.05). 

From Tables 82 and 83, it can be seen that there is a significant increase in the proportion 

of drivers yielding to pedestrians from the baseline to stage 1 (P<0.05), the baseline to 

stage 2 (P<0.001), and stage 1 to stage 2 (P<0.05). Therefore, there is sufficient evidence 

to reject the null hypothesis at a 95 percent confidence level. The increase in the 

proportion of drivers yielding distance (10 feet to 20 feet) in stage 1 and stage 2, 

respectively from the baseline are statistically significant (P<0.001). There is no 

significant increase in the proportion of drivers blocking the crosswalk from stage 1 to 

stage 2 at this location as shown in Table 83 (P>0.05). 

Table 82: Statistical test results of safety MOEs at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer 

Street to 17th Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Safety) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 

PB – P1 P-value H0 PB – P2 P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore

Percent pedestrians who look for 

vehicles before beginning to cross 

No 

Change 

No 

Change 

Percent pedestrians who look for 

vehicles before crossing 2nd half of street 

No 

Change 

No 

Change 

Percent of captured pedestrians No 

Change 0.16 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of diverted pedestrians No 

Change -0.16 <0.001 Reject 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.15 <0.05 Reject -0.29 <0.001 Reject 

Distance driver stops/yields 

before crosswalk 

< 10 ft 0.27 >0.05 Do not 

Reject 0.28 >0.05 Do not Reject 

10-20 ft -0.50 <0.001 Reject -0.39 <0.001 Reject 

>20 ft 0.23 >0.05 Do not 

Reject 0.11 >0.05 Do not Reject 

MOE below is tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the 

roadway 0.07 >0.05 Do not Reject 0.23 <0.05 Reject 
156

Table 83: Statistical test results of safety MOEs between stages at Charleston 

Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Safety) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 

P1 – P2 P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter > Pbefore

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before beginning to cross No Change 

Percent pedestrians who look for vehicles 

before crossing 2nd half of street No Change 

Percent of captured pedestrians 0.16 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Percent of diverted pedestrians -0.16 <0.001 Reject 

Percent of drivers yielding to pedestrians -0.13 <0.05 Reject 

Distance driver stops/yields 

before crosswalk 

< 10 ft 0.01 >0.05 Do not Reject 

10-20 ft 0.11 >0.05 Do not Reject 

>20 ft -0.12 <0.05 Reject 

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Percent of pedestrians trapped in the roadway 0.15 <0.05 Reject 

Percent of drivers blocking crosswalk -0.12 >0.05 Do not Reject 

19.7.2 Mobility MOEs 

Even though there is a reduction in pedestrian delay from stage 1 to stage 2, it is not 

statistically significant (P>0.05). There is no significant change in the average vehicle 

delay in baseline, stage 1 and stage 2 as shown in Tables 84 and 85 (P>0.05). Therefore, 

the effectiveness of the countermeasures installed at this location has no significant effect 

in reducing the average vehicle delay. The statistical significance of change in the 

average speed of the vehicle in stage 1 to baseline is shown in Table 86. 

Table 84: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs at Charleston Boulevard: 

Spencer Street to 17th Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

 (Mobility) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 Baseline vs. Stage 2 

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

Difference 

in Mean P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Average pedestrian delay 

(sec/ped) 7.90 >0.05 Do not Reject 11.60 <0.05 Reject 

Average vehicle delay 

(sec/veh) -0.40 >0.05 Do not Reject -1.82 >0.05 Do not Reject 
157

Table 85: Statistical test results of mobility MOEs between stages at Charleston 

Boulevard: Spencer Street to 17th Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 

Difference in Mean P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Average pedestrian delay (sec/ped) 3.70 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Average vehicle delay (sec/veh) -1.42 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Table 86: Statistical test results of vehicle speed at Charleston Boulevard: Spencer 

Street to 17th Street 

Measures of Effectiveness 

(Mobility) 

Baseline vs. Stage 1 

Difference in 

Mean Speed P-value H0

MOEs below are tested for H0: Pbefore= Pafter vs. Ha: Pafter< Pbefore

Eastbound (mph) -1.20 >0.05 Do not Reject 

Westbound (mph) -5.80 >0.05 Do not Reject 

19.8 Summary 

It is clear that implementation of ITS pedestrian detection device and smart lighting has a 

significant effect in increasing the proportion of diverted pedestrians and decreasing the 

proportion of pedestrians trapped in the roadway, thereby increasing the pedestrian 

safety. The installation of warning signs for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, and 

advance yield markings do not show significant effect in reducing the vehicles speed at 

this location. 
158

CHAPTER 6 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
159

CHAPTER 6 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This report summarizes the results of fifteen countermeasures installed at fourteen sites 

across the Las Vegas metropolitan to evaluate their effectiveness in enhancing pedestrian 

safety. Some the countermeasures were aimed at changing motorists’ behavior whereas 

the others were aimed at improving pedestrians’ crossing behavior. The summary of the 

effectiveness of various countermeasures are described as follows. 

Initially seventeen countermeasures are selected to evaluate in this study. However, due 

to the unavailability of vendors to manufacture custom make countermeasures, it is later 

reduced to fifteen. The summary of the effectiveness of these countermeasures are as 

follows: 

1. “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians” signs: Significant improvement in 

motorists’ yielding behavior, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians 

trapped in the middle of the street. 

2. Advance yield markings for Motorists: Significant improvement in motorists’ 

yielding behavior. 

3. In roadway knockdown signs: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding 

behavior, reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street. 

4. ITS “No-Turn on Red” signs: Significant improvement in pedestrians’ 

compliance. 

5. Pedestrian call button that light up: Significant improvement in pedestrians’ 

compliance, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle 

of the street. 

6. Warning signs for motorists: No significant improvement in either motorist or 

pedestrian MOEs. 

7. High visibility crosswalk treatment: Significant increase in yielding distance by 

motorists, significant improvement in pedestrians’ yielding behavior. 
160

8. Median refuge: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, 

significant increase in motorists’ yielding distance, significant improvement in 

pedestrians’ yielding behavior. 

9. Smart lighting: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, 

significant reduction in percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street, 

significant increase in percent of “diverted” pedestrians. 

10. ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices: Significant improvement in 

motorists’ yielding behavior, significant reduction in percent of pedestrians 

trapped in the middle of the street, significant increase in percent of “diverted” 

pedestrians. 

11. Portable speed trailer: Significant increase in motorists’ yielding distance. 

12. Pedestrian activated flashing yellow: Significant increase in motorists’ yielding 

distance, significant reduction in percent of drivers blocking crosswalk, 

significant improvement in pedestrian yielding behavior. 

13. Pedestrian countdown signals with animated eyes: Significant improvement in 

pedestrians’ looking for turning vehicles. 

14. Danish offset: Significant improvement in motorists’ yielding behavior, 

significant increase in motorists’ yielding distance, significant reduction in 

percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street, significant increase in 

percent of “diverted” pedestrians. 

15. Pedestrian channelization: No significant improvement in either motorists’ or 

pedestrians’ MOEs 

These results indicate that while most of the countermeasures helped to enhance the 

safety, some others were not that effective in improving safety. In this study, several 

countermeasures were implemented together during same stage. Even though they 

showed significant safety improvements, since they were implemented as a group, the 

effects of individual countermeasures could not be evaluated. However, several of these 
161

countermeasures in the combination are relatively inexpensive. Therefore, if these were 

to be deployed at any other locations, it would be economically feasible. 
162

CHAPTER 7 

 APPENDIX LITERATURE REVIEW 
163

CHAPTER 7 

APPENDIX: LITERATURE REVIEW 

A summarized review of the literature on different pedestrian safety countermeasures is 

presented in this chapter. It focuses primarily on documentation related to the various and 

their effectiveness. 

Advance Yield Markings, and Yield Here to Pedestrian Signs 

Van Houten and Malenfant (1992) evaluated the effectiveness of signs reading “STOP 

HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS” alone 50 feet upstream of crosswalk and in conjunction 

with advance stop lines at multilane crosswalks with pedestrian activated amber flashing 

lights [1]. The type of motor vehicle conflicts, distance the motorists stopped upstream of 

the crosswalk when yielding to pedestrians, and the percentage of motorists yielding to 

pedestrians are determined from field observations. Results indicated that signs alone 

increased the distance that motorists stopped upstream of the crosswalk when yielding to 

pedestrians and also decreased the percentage of motor vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. The 

addition of advance stop lines produced a further increase in the distance that motorists 

stopped upstream of the crosswalk and further reductions in the percentage of motorvehicle conflicts. These results are observed under conditions when pedestrians activated 

and did not activate the amber flashing crosswalk light. It is also observed that the 

percentage of pedestrians activating the light seemed to be a function of the amount of 

traffic on the street. 

Van Houten, Malenfant and McCusker (2001) studied two problems; the difference 

between the ‘yield’ and ‘stop’ situation while using the advance stop lines, and the use of 

text rather than symbol sign to support the markings [2]. The advance yield markings and 

signs are placed at different distances in advance of the crosswalks to determine their 

effectiveness. Motorist and pedestrian behaviors measured included the occurrence of 

motor vehicle/pedestrian conflicts such as evasive action, the distance motorists stopped 

before the crosswalk when yielding to pedestrians, and the percentage of motorists 

yielding to pedestrians. It is found that placing the advance yield markings and signs as 

close as 10 m upstream the crosswalk and as far back as 15 m or even 25 m in advance of 
164

the crosswalk is effective. Although not all vehicles stopped at or near the yield lines, 

many motorists stopped 9 m or more upstream the crosswalk. It is noted that motorists 

tended to stop closer to the crosswalk during the treatment condition when traffic is 

heavy and vehicles are traveling slowly. Much of the improved yielding is likely the 

result of improved visibility of pedestrians crossing in front of vehicles stopped in 

advance of the crosswalk. 

Van Houten (1998) studied the effect of specific signs and stop line bars designed to 

influence motorists to stop further upstream from the crosswalk when yielding right of 

way to pedestrians [3]. Results indicated that such a simple, inexpensive prompting 

intervention could reduce conflicts between motorists and pedestrians. The introduction 

of the prompt and stop line reduced motor-vehicle-pedestrian conflicts by almost 80%. 

Abdulsattar, Tarawneh, McCoy, and Kachman (1996) evaluated the effectiveness of the 

“turning traffic must yield to pedestrians” sign. Such signs are installed at 12 marked 

crosswalks and data are collected before and after the installation of the signs. The 

measure of effectiveness considered is vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. The results showed 

that the sign is effective in reducing left-turn conflicts by 20 to 65 percent, and right-turn 

conflicts by 15 to 30 percent. Both reductions are statistically significant at the 0.05 level 

[4]. 

Abdulsattar and McCoy (1999) conducted drivers’ comprehension of a “turning traffic 

must yield to pedestrians” sign among different age groups during turning maneuvers. 

For the left-turn situation, younger drivers (under 56 years) paid more attention to the 

sign than older drivers. During right-turn movements, drivers and pedestrians always are 

in interaction, unless exclusive right-turn phase is provided. However, this research lacks 

info on other measures of effectiveness such as motorists’ yielding behaviors, pedestrian 

and vehicle delay, and vehicle speed [5]. 

Huybers, Van Houten and Malenfant (2004) studied the effects of a symbolic ‘‘yield here 

to pedestrians’’ sign and advance yield pavement markings on pedestrian/motor vehicle 

conflicts, motorists’ yielding behavior, and the distance motorists’ yield in advance of 

crosswalks at multilane crosswalks at uncontrolled T intersections [6]. When the sign 

symbolic is used alone, there is a reduction in pedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts and 

increased motorist yielding distance. The use of fluorescent yellow-green sheeting as the 
165

background of the sign did not increase the effectiveness of the sign. Further reductions 

in pedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts and further increases in yielding distance are 

associated with the addition of advance yield pavement markings. Advance yield 

pavement markings, when used alone, are as effective in reducing pedestrian/motor 

vehicle conflicts and increasing yielding distance as the sign combined with pavement 

markings. 

Retting, Van Houten, Malenfant, Van Houten and Farmer (1996) discussed an 

experiment in which special signs and pavement markings are used to prompt pedestrians 

to look for turning vehicles [7]. Three signalized intersections are chosen, two in Nova 

Scotia, Canada, and one in Clearwater, Florida for the study. All sites are studied before, 

immediately after, and approximately one year after prompts are introduced. At Nova 

Scotia, signs which says “Pedestrians: LOOK FOR TURNING VEHICLES” are installed 

at one site and painted prompts that read “WATCH TURNING VEHICLES” are installed 

at the second site. After observations are recorded, painted prompts are added to the signs 

and vice versa. At Clearwater, signs and painted prompts are installed together. The 

introduction of either sign or painted prompts alone increased the percentage of 

pedestrians looking for turning vehicles. With the introduction of second prompt, a 

further improvement in the percentage of pedestrians looking for vehicles is observed. 

Introduction of both prompts together led to a large increase in the percentage of 

pedestrians looking for vehicles. It is also noted that the conflicts are nearly eliminated by 

the prompting interventions. 

Van Houten, Malenfant, Van Houten, and Retting (1997) evaluated auditory pedestrian 

signals and their effect in reducing vehicle and pedestrian conflicts [8]. The percentage of 

pedestrians not looking for potential threats and conflicts are reduced after the 

implementation of an auditory signal. 

Turner, Fitzpatrick, Brewer and Park (2006) evaluated engineering treatments that can be 

used to improve the safety of pedestrians crossing in marked crosswalks on busy arterials 

[9]. They also discussed the analysis of street and traffic characteristics that influenced 

motorist yielding at un-signalized intersections. The devices that showed red indication to 

the motorist had a more significant compliance rate than the devices that did not show a 

red indication. The measured motorist yielding distance for many crossing treatments 
166

varied considerably among sites. A statistical analysis did not find any significant 

differences between many of the crossing treatments even though the difference in 

average compliance rates appeared to be practically significant. The number of lanes 

crossed by the pedestrians and the posted speed limit had an effect on the performance of 

treatments. 

Huang, Zegeer, and Nassi (2000) studied a behavioral evaluation of three devices at a 

eleven locations under different conditions [10]. Pedestrian safety cones in New York 

and an overhead crosswalk sign in Seattle appeared to be promising tools for enhancing 

pedestrian safety at mid-block crosswalks on low-speed two-lane roads. The pedestrianactivated signs in Tucson are not as effective in increasing compliance with other devices 

as they are installed on four and six-lane high speed arterials. None of the treatments had 

a clear effect on whether people crossed in the crosswalk. The devices by themselves did 

not ensure that motorists will slow down and yield to pedestrians. 

Hakkert, Gitelman, and Ben-Shabat (2002) conducted a study on crosswalk warning 

systems. Vehicle speeds about 30 m upstream of the crosswalk and near the crosswalk 

are measured. Drivers’ yielding behavior to pedestrians is considered in three situations: 

when a pedestrian is on the sidewalk; when a pedestrian is on the road at the beginning of 

crosswalk on crossing maneuver; and when a pedestrian is in the middle of crosswalk on 

a crossing maneuver. Pedestrians crossing within 5 to 30 m of crosswalk are counted. 

Conflict rates of vehicles and pedestrians are reduced significantly to less than 1 percent. 

A reduction to 10 percent in the proportion of pedestrians crossing outside the crosswalk 

is observed [11]. 

Nasar (2003) conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of written signs with social 

assistance to increase the proportion of drivers stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks. 

The written signs with social assistance are “Thank you for stopping” “Please stop next 

time.” If the driver stopped, the pedestrian crosser held up a green “Thank you for 

stopping” signs to drivers. If the driver did not stop, a confederate held up a pink “Please 

stop next time.” In weeks 1 and 3, baseline data on the proportion of drivers stopping for 

pedestrians at two sites are obtained. In week 2, the stopping behavior of motorists is 

observed with social assistance signs. An ABA reversal design is used to evaluate the 

effectiveness of strategies. The analysis showed a significant increase in stopping 
167

behavior of drivers during the treatment condition (50.9 percent) from the baseline 

conditions (46 percent and 37.3 percent) [12]. 

Pedestrian Countdown Signals 

Eccles, Tao, and Mangum (2004) evaluated the pedestrian countdown signals in 

Montgomery County, Maryland [13]. A “Before and after” study technique is used to 

evaluate motorists’ and pedestrians’ behavior and vehicle speed. The results revealed a 

significant positive effect on pedestrian behavior and did not have any negative effect on 

motorist behavior. No effect on vehicle approach speed is observed due to the presence of 

countdown signals while vehicles entered intersections during clearance intervals [13]. 

The presence of pedestrian countdown signals caused more pedestrians to enter the 

crosswalk during the flashing DON’T WALK phase. A larger proportion of pedestrians 

completed crossing on the flashing DON’T WALK. This, in turn, reduces the chance of 

more pedestrians completing the crossing maneuver before DON’T WALK [14]. The 

pre- and post-installation research showed that an addition informational, a numerical 

descending countdown timer during the flashing DON’T WALK clearance interval, is 

intuitively understood and used successfully by pedestrians. Pedestrians of over the age 

of 16 well understood countdown pedestrian indication and used the information 

appropriately [15]. 

Van Houten, Retting, Van Houten, Farmer, and Malenfant (1999) evaluated a LED 

pedestrian signal head with animated eyes that scan from side to side at the start of the 

WALK indication. The study was conducted at two signalized intersections in downtown 

Clearwater, Florida, U.S.A. The results demonstrated that the experimental signal 

decreased the percentage of pedestrians not looking for turning vehicles and vehiclepedestrian conflicts; similar results were obtained during a follow up study after six 

months. 

Van Houten, Van Houten, Malenfant, and Andrus (1999) conducted a study to evaluate 

the effectiveness of animated eyes on drivers’ behavior. Observers scored data on 

whether motorist looked right and left before crossing the sidewalk and vehiclepedestrian conflict. They found a significant reduction in vehicle-pedestrian conflict and 

an increase in percentage of pedestrians and motorists cautionary for particular threats. 
168

Van Houten and Malenfant (2001) conducted a study on an ITS animated LED signal 

designed to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians crossing in front of them at the 

exit to an indoor parking garage and a mid-block-crosswalk location. Data are collected 

on each of 25 drivers per daily session at the parking-garage exit and two sets of 20 

pedestrians and at least as many drivers during each daily session of the experiment. The 

study demonstrated that the introduction of the ITS signs are associated with an increase 

in the percentage of motorists yielding to pedestrians at both the garage exit and midblock crosswalk locations, and the eyes produced a significantly larger increase than the 

flashing beacon at the mid-block crossing. Although conflicts are lower when the ITS 

signal is in place, the number of conflicts occurring during the baseline condition are not 

significantly high enough to detect an effect. At the mid-block site, both the ITS signal 

and the yellow beacon are associated with a reduction in the percentage of pedestrians 

stranded in the center of the road, and the number of conflicts. The ITS ‘eyes’ display 

produced a significantly larger increase in the percentage of drivers yielding to 

pedestrians than the flashing beacon even though both devices only operated when a 

pedestrian is crossing the street. Specifically, the pedestrian icon showed the direction of 

the pedestrian who is crossing the street, and the searching ‘eyes’ display provided a 

specific request of the drivers to look for the pedestrian. Analysis of the data revealed that 

the ITS eyes display is inherently understood by drivers and produced a significant 

increase in yielding behavior and a reduction in conflicts [16]. 

Van Houten, Malenfant, Van Houten and Andrus (1999) evaluated the effectiveness of 

animated eyes display as a possible countermeasure at an indoor parking garage exit. The 

analysis of the study indicated an increase in the number of motorists who look for 

pedestrians in either direction leaving the garage exit. The increase is maintained three 

months after the animated eyes are introduced. The use of large electronic displays 

offered several advantages over incandescent light, including low power requirements 

and low cost. The use of animated EYES displays directed at drivers might prove a 

helpful tool in reducing the crashes. The study demonstrated that animated eyes also can 

increase motorist observing behavior [17]. 

Carsten, Sherborne, and Rothengatter (1998) evaluated innovative pedestrian signalized 

crossings as a part of DRIVE II project VRU-TOO (Vulnerable Road User Traffic 
169

Observation and Optimization). Signals are designed to make timings more responsive to 

pedestrian needs, i.e., to affect signal timings. As a part of innovative signalized 

pedestrian crossings, microwave detectors are mounted on traffic signals to register the 

approach of pedestrians. Microwave detection can be applied to replace the normal pushbutton on signalized pedestrian crossings, provide an earlier activation of the pedestrian 

phase, provide an extension of the pedestrian phase for late arrivals, and provide longer 

pedestrian phases when there are large numbers of pedestrians. These signals are installed 

in three European countries. The site one is in Leeds, England, and flows are up to 6,000 

pedestrians an hour. The other two sites, one in Portugal and the other in Greece, had 

comparatively lower pedestrian flows. Some of the criteria used for evaluation are 

pedestrian-to-vehicle conflicts, percentage of pedestrians arriving on red who violated the 

red light (especially the percentage violating red when motorists had green), pedestrian 

comfort, and the number of encounters between pedestrians and vehicles (an encounter is 

defined as an interaction between a pedestrian and a vehicle where one needs to change 

course or speed due to others behavior). They found that pedestrian-to-vehicle conflicts 

are reduced in the after studies in most of the sites. However, the reduction in conflict in 

all of the sites is not statistically significant. At site two in Leeds, conflicts are also 

analyzed in relation to pedestrian flow. The conflict to flow ratio decreased from 1:2,034 

in the before study to 1:2,300 in the after study. There is a reduction in the proportion of 

pedestrians who experienced long waiting times (>30 seconds). Mean queue length 

decreased at all three sites in Leeds. However, maximum queue lengths went up at two 

sites [18]. 

ITS-No Turn on Red Signs 

Retting, Nitzburg, Farmer, and Knoblauch (2002) reported finding from a field evaluation 

of two methods for restricting right turn on red (RTOR) to promote pedestrian safety. The 

implementation of signs prohibiting RTOR during specified hours yields better results 

than signs giving drivers discretion to determine whether pedestrians are present [19]. 

Van Houten and Malenfant (2001) analyzed the effectiveness of an ITS LED at parking 

garage exit and mid-block locations. The main purpose of the study was to assess the 

effectiveness of an ITS signal that included animated eyes and pedestrian symbols at a 
170

garage exit with limited visibility. The result of the study showed that the introduction of 

ITS signs increased the percentage of motorists yielding to pedestrians at the garage exit 

and mid-block crosswalk location. The ITS eyes sign produced a significantly larger 

increase in driver’s yielding behavior than a flashing beacon at the mid-block crossing. 

High Visibility Crosswalk Treatment, Refuge Islands and Danish Offsets 

Nitzburg and Knoblauch (2001) conducted a study to evaluate high-visibility ladder style 

crosswalk with illuminated overhead crosswalk sign treatment in low volume and low 

speed un-signalized intersections in Clearwater, Florida. Traffic volumes, traffic gaps, 

and drivers’ and pedestrians’ behavior at control sites and experimental sites are 

observed. Yielding behavior of drivers in daytime at first half, second half, and both 

halves of crossing are found is statistically better in experimental sites as compared to 

comparison sites [20]. 

Huang and Cynecki (2000) evaluated the effectiveness of various traffic calming 

treatments on pedestrian and motorist behavior at different locations. The treatments 

included bulb-outs, raised intersection, and Refuge Island. Before and after data are 

collected and analyzed for their statistical significance. It is found that the raised 

intersections and refuge islands are likely to direct more pedestrians to cross within the 

crosswalk. At most other sites, traffic calming devices did not appear to have significant 

effects on pedestrians. The bulb-outs in Seattle are associated with increased wait times 

and a lower percentage of those who crossed in the crosswalk, both undesirable effects 

from a pedestrian standpoint. These devices by themselves neither ensured that motorists 

will slow down and yield to pedestrians, nor those pedestrians will cross in the crosswalk. 

Sometimes these treatments hindered the activities such as street cleaning and 

snowplowing, impeding emergency vehicle access, and might affect drainage. In 

addition, the noise of vehicles going over speed humps, raised crosswalks, or raised 

intersections might disturb nearby residents [21]. 

Lalani (2001) discussed comprehensive information about the effectiveness of various 

treatments for pedestrian safety. The information is gathered from different sources 

including experts, internet surveys and references throughout the world. Based on the 

information reviewed, it is found that marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations on 
171

higher-volume, multilane facilities using traditional treatments leads to higher pedestrianrelated collision rates than at unmarked crosswalks on similar facilities. Installing marked 

crosswalks, especially at uncontrolled locations, by striping two lines across the roadway 

and posting a single sign in advance of and at the crossing did not improve pedestrian 

safety. A variety of low-cost signing and striping techniques are currently being used to 

improve the safety. A number of higher-cost geometric design features, such as curb 

extensions and pedestrian refuge islands are used to improve the safety of marked 

crosswalks. Some studies indicated that removing uncontrolled marked crosswalks from 

higher-volume, multilane facilities at some locations showed reductions in the rate of 

pedestrian related collisions. It is also suggested that different intelligent transportation 

systems based techniques could be employed for improving pedestrian safety [22]. 

The literature includes documents on the effectiveness of crossing refuge islands as 

relatively inexpensive devices to protect pedestrians. Pedestrian refuges or crossing 

islands are raised islands in the center of roadways, allowing pedestrians to cross one half 

of the street, with a safe place to stop before crossing to the other side of the street. They 

are typically constructed at marked crosswalks, either at a mid-block location or at an 

intersection. The crossing islands are best employed when traffic volumes result in few 

gaps for pedestrians to safely cross the entire street at one shot. Also, they can be 

deployed when there is little demand to make left turns, and the roadway is particularly 

wide. A series of studies on the effect of traffic calming measures in six German cities 

concluded that, “the modification of streets has proven to be more effective than reducing 

the speed limit. The weaker road users children, pedestrians, and cyclists benefited more 

from the measures [23].” 

Pedestrian refuge islands are particularly suitable for wide two-way streets with four or 

more lanes of moving traffic traveling at higher speeds. They are particularly useful to 

persons with mobility disabilities, very old or very young pedestrians who walk at slower 

speeds, and persons who are in wheelchairs. Wheelchair users need adequate width and 

level areas for waiting on the refuge. Split Pedestrian Cross-Overs or Danish Offsets are 

laid out in a staggered configuration at uncontrolled or signalized intersections, requiring 

pedestrians to walk toward traffic to reach the second half of the crosswalk. These are 

useful at skewed intersections. It enables pedestrians to focus on crossing each direction 
172

of traffic separately and provides a “refuge” in the middle of the street. By requiring 

pedestrians to walk facing oncoming traffic, the refuge provides them a better view of 

oncoming traffic and allows drivers to clearly see pedestrians. Previous studies on 

pedestrian refuge islands found significance effect of this countermeasure on motorist 

and pedestrian behavior [21, 22, 24]. The literatures provide evidence that the drivers are 

more likely to yield at high-visibility crosswalk, and advance yield marking locations. 

Bergman, Gray, Moffat, Simpson, and Rivara (2002) conducted a study on inducing city 

authorities to apply for state funds for creating a model pedestrian refuge in their 

communities. Ten demonstration sites are funded; seven of them are built or are under 

construction. There is no guarantee, however, that the presence of the model refuges 

would lead to community-wide application of these safety enhancements. First, progress 

in pedestrian safety occurred in small steps. Limited and realistic goals had to be set. The 

work group is able to meet all the goals established at the outset of the project. Second, 

the importance of bringing decision makers into the process early and providing them 

with regular updates is reinforced. Third, media coverage is critical to raising the 

awareness of public officials. An emotional link is created between the public and the 

families of trauma victims. Centering kick-off on the events surrounding the death of a 

child gave the campaign vital energy. The knowledge and energy mobilized by these 

individuals are needed to continue working with the local engineering staff as the 

pedestrian safety measures are designed for construction [24]. 

Speed Trailers 

Speeding is attributed to thousands of crashes in work zones each year leading to 

numerous fatalities and injuries. Sizeable portion of these crashes due to excessive speed 

emphasizes the need to motivate drivers to comply with speed limits especially in work 

zones. Studies have shown that most drivers do not slow down in response to the standard 

regulatory or advisory speed signs that are customarily used to regulate speeds at 

temporary traffic control zones (work zones) [25]. Research conducted to determine 

effectiveness of speed trailer to motivate and encourage drivers to observe posted speed 

limits in work zones indicated that devices with the ability to display drivers' speeds have 

considerable potential for reducing speeds and improving compliance [25-29]. A study in 
173

Netherlands showed that local automatic speed warning at an urban intersection reduced 

the mean speed by 5 km/hr [30]. Also, on a two-lane rural road, the percentage of 

speeders decreased from 40 to 10 percent. The total number of crashes is reduced by 35 

percent. This effect is almost the same three years after concluding the experiment [30]. 

One case study showed that the efficacy of using radar as a speed reduction strategy is a 

function of congestion and radar detector density, with the strategy being most effective 

for volumes levels between 200 and 1,400 vehicles per hour per lane [31]. However, one 

of the researchers found that speed trailer did not influence the speed of the fastest 15 

percent of the speeding vehicles. Also, it did not affect the heavy vehicle speeds [32]. 

Even though it is observed by some of the investigators that increasing the speed limit 

reduces the crash rate [33-38], the severity of a pedestrian-related-vehicle-crash 

dramatically increases with the increase in speed [39, 40]. Newton's laws dictate that a 

doubling in vehicle speed results in a stopping distance four times as long and four times 

as much kinetic energy absorbed during an impact. Higher driver response times further 

increase stopping distances. As a result, a small increase in roadway traffic speeds results 

in a disproportionately large increase in pedestrian fatalities. 

According to the studies conducted by two different agencies, the probability of a 

pedestrian fatality increases at an alarming rate i.e., from 5 percent to 40 percent when 

the speed at impact with a pedestrian increases from 20 to 30 mph and to about 85 

percent for a speed of 40 mph [41, 42]. These data showed that the likelihood of a 

pedestrian fatality increases in a nonlinear fashion, much faster than the percentage 

increase in vehicle speed. Hence, speed control plays an important role in the improving 

pedestrian safety of a region. Traffic calming uses geometric changes to influence travel 

speed and to perhaps cause drivers to select another route for travel. It is intended to 

restore local streets to their intended function, thus providing a more livable environment 

for residents. In most cases, problems on local streets are caused by through traffic, 

speeding, and/or noise. Speed management goes a step beyond traffic calming by also 

looking at higher speed facilities, including collectors and arterials. Many of the typical 

traffic calming techniques used in residential areas to control volume and speed would be 

difficult to implement on these roadways. However, other techniques need only 
174

modifications or a different approach to be effective. The most frequently used 

techniques on collectors and arterials are: 

• Increased enforcement 

• Flashing beacons 

• Speed limit signing 

• Speed trailers, and 

• Rumble strips 

Speed or radar trailers are mobile roadside devices that use radar to measure the speed of 

approaching vehicles and display the speed to passing drivers in an effort to decrease 

speed [43]. The portable units show the posted speed limit of the roadway and display the 

current speed of the approaching vehicle. Speed trailers have been used as an 

enforcement tool in some areas when police officers enforce the speeds. However, they 

are mainly used as a public relations measure to inform motorists of their speeds with the 

assumption that the speeding motorists would voluntarily reduce their speed. Speed 

trailers are also used for automated enforcement in a few states, where speeds and license 

plate numbers are recorded by hidden cameras and citations are issued by the local law 

enforcement agency. Equipment to collect traffic volumes may also be used within the 

speed trailer. 

A study conducted by Brown (1992) on concentrated police enforcement had shown to 

positively influence driver behavior, but is difficult to apply to rural contexts. Signs of 

police enforcement in high crash-risk areas are placed in two rural locations in South 

Australia. The effects of these signs on vehicle speed are evaluated by conducting radar 

surveys of mean speeds on the approaches to, and exits from, the sign locations before 

and after their erection. A minor speed reduction on the exit from one of the signs is 

observed, but this is not observed in the speeds of the fastest 15 percent of vehicles. This 

suggested that the highest risk group of speeders is not affected by the signs. The signs 

did not affect heavy vehicle speeds. It is not considered likely that the signs had a 

substantial effect on road safety in rural areas [32]. 
175

Automated Pedestrian Detection device 

In the United Kingdom, Puffin (Pedestrian User-Friendly Intelligent) crossings respond 

to pedestrian demand and do not delay traffic unnecessarily when no pedestrians are 

present [44]. Pedestrian presence is sensed either by use of a pressure-sensitive mat or by 

an infrared detector mounted above the crossing location. Pressure on the mat is used 

both for initial detection as well as to confirm that the pedestrian has not departed the 

crossing zone before the Walk signal appears. If the pedestrian departs the crossing zone 

prior to the appearance of the Walk signal, the call will be canceled. 

Puffin crossings may also utilize an additional sensor to detect the continued presence of 

pedestrians in the crosswalk, thereby allowing the signal phase to be extended for those 

requiring additional time to cross. The conversion of a standard signal to a Puffin 

crossing in Victoria, Australia, reduced by 10 percent the number of pedestrians who 

started to cross before the pedestrian Walk signal is presented [45]. Similar results are 

reported in Växjö, Sweden [46]. The Swedish results also showed that the number of 

vehicle-pedestrian conflicts decreased after the microwave detectors are in place. 

The Dutch PUSSYCATS (Pedestrian Urban Safety System and Comfort At Traffic 

Signals) system consists of a pressure-sensitive mat to detect pedestrians waiting to cross, 

infrared sensors to detect pedestrians within the crossing, and a near-side pedestrian 

display [47]. Although pedestrians perceived PUSSYCATS to be at least as safe as the 

old system, many pedestrians reported that they did not understand the function of the 

mat. As many as half of all pedestrians refuse to use the system. Similar applications are 

being used in the United Kingdom and France [48]. 

Summary 

Various research efforts have reported on the evaluation of the pedestrian safety 

countermeasures. Literature related to countermeasures evaluation includes “smart 

lighting,” “pedestrian countdown signals,” “portable speed trailers,” “turning traffic must 

yield to pedestrians signs,” “in-roadway knockdown signs,” “high visibility crosswalks,” 

“warning signs for motorists,” “regulatory signs for motorists,” and “advance yield 

markings.” However, the literature review identified a need to improve on systematic 

evaluation of the countermeasures. Identifying potential MOEs for safety 
176

countermeasures and evaluating the effectiveness of key countermeasures in a systematic 

way is the main focus of this research. 
177

REFERENCES 

1. Van Houten, R., & Malenfant, J.E.L. (1992). The influence of signs prompting 

motorists to yield before marked crosswalks on motor vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at 

crosswalks with flashing amber. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 24(3), 217-225. 

2. Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J.E.L., & McCusker, D. (2001). Advance yield markings 

reduce motor vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at multilane crosswalks with an 

uncontrolled approach. Transportation Research Record Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy 

Press. Washington, D.C., 1773, 69-74. 

3. Van Houten, R. (1988). The effects of advance stop lines and sign prompts on 

pedestrian safety in a crosswalk on a multilane highway. Journal of Applied Behavior 

Analysis, 21(3), 245-251. 

4. Abdulsattar, H. N., Tarawneh, M. S., McCoy, P. T., & Kachman, S. D. (1996). Effect 

on vehicle-pedestrian conflicts of 'turning traffic must yield to pedestrians' sign. 

Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 

National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1553, 38-45. 

5. Abdulsattar, H. N., & McCoy, P T. (1999). Effects of drivers' age on the 

comprehension of a pedestrian right-of-way warning sign. Transportation Research 

Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 

National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1674, 27-31. 

6. Huybers, S., Van Houten, R., & Malenfant, J.E.L. (2004). Reducing conflicts between 

motor vehicles and pedestrians: The separate and combined effects of pavement 

markings and a sign prompt. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(4), 445-456. 

7. Retting, R.A., Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J.E.L., Van Houten, J., & Farmer, C.M. 

(1996). Special signs and pavement markings improve pedestrian safety. ITE Journal, 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 66(12), 28-35. 

8. Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J. E. L., Van Houten, J., & Retting, R. (1997). Using 

auditory pedestrian signals to reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. Transportation 

Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Research 

Council, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1578, 20-22. 
178

9. Turner, S., Fitzpatrick, K., Brewer, M., & Park, E.S. (2006). Motorist yielding to 

pedestrians at unsignalized intersections. Findings from a national study on 

improving pedestrian safety. Transportation Research Record Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy 

Press. Washington, D.C., 1982, 1-12. 

10. Huang, H., Zegeer, C., & Nassi, R. (2000). Effects of innovative pedestrian signs at 

unsignalized locations: Three treatments. Transportation Research Record Journal of 

the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy 

Press. Washington, D.C., 1705, 43-52. 

11. Hakkert, A. S., Gitelman, V., & Ben-Shabat, E. (2002). An evaluation of crosswalk 

warning systems: effects on pedestrian and vehicle behavior. Transportation 

Research Part F (5), 275-292. 

12. Nasar, J. L. (2003). Prompting drivers to stop for crossing pedestrians. Transportation 

Research Part F (6), 175-182. 

13. Eccles, A. K., Tao, R., & Mangum, B. C. (2004). Evaluation of pedestrian countdown 

signals in Montgomery County, Maryland. Transportation Research Board, National 

Research Council, Washington, D.C., 83rd Annual Meeting CD-ROM. 

14. Botha, J. L., Zabyshny, A. A., Day, J.E., et al. (2002). Pedestrian Countdown 

Signals: An Experimental Evaluation Volume 1. Retrieved August 09, 2005, from 

http://www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/dot/forms/report_pedcountdown.pdf. 

15. Farraher, B. A. B. Pedestrian countdown indication-market research and evaluation. 

Retrieved August 09, 2005 from 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/trafficeng/signals/files/ compendium.pdf. 

16. Van Houten, R., & Malenfant, J.E.L. (2001). ITS animated LED signals alert drivers 

to pedestrian threats. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 71(7), 

42-47. 

17. Van Houten, R., Van Houten, J., Malenfant, J.E.L., & Andrus, D. (1999). Use of 

animated eyes so that motorists leaving an indoor parking garage look for pedestrians. 

Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 

National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1674, 57-60. 
179

18. Carsten, O. M. J., Sherborne, D. J., & Rothengatter, J. A. (1998). Intelligent traffic 

signals for pedestrians: evaluation of trials in three countries. Transportation Research 

Part C, 6, 213-229. 

19. Retting, R., Nitzburg, M. S., Farmer, C. M., & Knoblauch, R. L. (2002). Field 

evaluation of two methods for restricting right turn on red to promote pedestrian 

safety. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 72(1), 32-36. 

20. Nitzburg, M., & Knoblauch, R. L. (2001). An evaluation of high-visibility crosswalk 

treatments- Clearwater, Florida (Report No. FHWA-RD-00-105). U. S. Department 

of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 

21. Huang, H. F., & Cynecki, M. J. (2000). Effects of traffic calming measures on 

pedestrian and motorist behavior. Transportation Research Record Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy 

Press. Washington, D.C., 1705, 26-31. 

22. Lalani, N. (2001). Alternative treatments for at-grade pedestrian crossings. ITE 

Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 71(9), 36-40. 

23. Brilon W, & Blanke, H. (1993). Extensive traffic calming: results of the accident 

analysis in 6 model towns. UTE 1993 compendium of technical papers. Washington, 

D.C., Institute of Transportation Engineers, 119-23. 

24. Bergman, A.B., Gray, B., Moffat, J.M., Simpson, E.S., & Rivara, F.P. (2002). 

Mobilizing for pedestrian safety: an experiment in community action. Injury 

Prevention, 8, 264-267. 

25. Garber, N. J., & Patel, S. T. (1995). Control of vehicle speeds in temporary traffic 

control zones (work zones) using changeable message signs with radar. 

Transportation Research Record. No. 1509, 73-81. 

26. Brewer, M. A., Pesti, G., & Schneide IV, W. (2006). Improving compliance with 

work zone speed limits: Effectiveness of selected devices. Transportation Research 

Record, n 1948, 67-76. 

27. Garber, N. J., & Srinivasan, S. (1998). Influence of exposure duration on the 

effectiveness of changeable-message signs in controlling vehicle speeds at work 

zones. Transportation Research Record. N 1650, 62-70. 
180

28. Fontaine, M. D., & Carlson, P. J. (2001). Evaluation of speed displays and rumble 

strips at rural-maintenance work zones. Transportation Research Record. n 1745, 27-

38. 

29. Wang, C., Dixon, K. K., & Jared, D. (2003). Evaluating speed-reduction strategies for 

highway work zones. Transportation Research Record. n 1824, 44-53. 

30. Oei, H. (1996). Automatic speed management in the Netherlands. Transportation 

Research Record. n 1560, 57-64. 

31. Simas de Oliveira, M. G., Williams, B., & Leonard, J. D. (2003). Determining traffic 

stream impacts of radar detectors using microscopic simulation. Journal of 

Transportation Engineering. Vol 129, n 1, 7-15. 

32. Brown, S.L. (1995). Effect on vehicle speeds of signs warning of police enforcement 

in rural areas of South Australia. Road and Transport Research, Australian Road 

Research Board Ltd., Victoria, Australia. Vol. 4, No. 1, 86-90. 

33. Solomon, D. Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and 

Vehicle. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 1964 (Reprinted 

1974). 

34. Cirillo, J. A. (1968). Interstate System Accident Research Study II. Interim Report II, 

Public Roads. Vol. 35, No. 3. 

35. Research Triangle Institute, Speed and Accident. Volume II, Report No. FH-11-6965, 

National Highway Safety Bureau, June 1970. 

36. West, Jr., L. B. & Dunn, J. W. (1971). Accidents, Speed Deviation and Speed Limits. 

Traffic Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 10. 

37. Munden, J. M. (1967). The Relation between a Driver's Speed and His Accident Rate. 

Report LR 88, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England. 

38. Fildes, B. N., Rumbold, G., & Leening, A. (1991). Speed Behavior and Drivers' 

Attitude to Speeding. Report No. 16, Monash University Accident Research Centre, 

Victoria, Australia. 

39. Bowie, Jr., N. N. & Waltz, M. (1994). Data Analysis of the Speed-Related Crash 

Issue. Auto and Traffic Safety, Vol. 2. 

40. Garber, N. J. & Gadiraju, R. (1998). Speed Variance and its Influence on Accidents. 

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C. 
181

41. Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction and Cause Analysis. 4th Edition. 

Charlottesville, VA. The Michie Company, 1994, p 663. 

42. Vehicle Speeds and the Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions prepared by the 

Australian Federal Office of Road Safety, Report CR 146, October 1994. 

43. Perillo, K. V. (1997). Effectiveness of Speed Trailers on Low-Speed Urban 

Roadways. Master’s Thesis, Texas A & M University. 

44. UK Department of Transport. Network Management Advisory Leaflet: The Use of 

Puffin Pedestrian Crossings. Network Management and Driver Information Division, 

1993. 

45. Catchpole, J. (1996). Further Development of the Puffin Pedestrian Crossing. 

VicRoads, Victoria, Australia. 

46. Ekman, L., & Draskocsky, M. (1992). Trials with Microwave Detection of Vulnerable 

Road Users and Preliminary Empirical Model Test. University of Leeds, Institute for 

Transport Studies Working Paper No 336, Leeds England. 

47. Tan, C., & Zegeer, C. V. (1995). European Practices and Innovations for Pedestrian 

Crossings. ITE Journal, Vol. 65, No. 11, 24-31. 

48. Levelt, P. B. M. (1992). Improvement of Pedestrian Safety and Comfort at Traffic 

Lights: Results from French, British, and Dutch Field Tests. Institute for Road Safety 

Research, Leidschendam, Netherlands.