pages: TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-07-23 | 10 | 7B. Review of Current Research of the Effectiveness of In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that the Transportation Commission had requested a discussion of the in-pavement lights, and to discuss whether they were the best use of City resources. He noted that the major factors considered in determining whether the lights are appropriate for a given location included an engineering evaluation, the location of the crosswalk, the volumes of pedestrians, the volume and speed of vehicular traffic, and sight distance for drivers approaching the crosswalk. He noted that considerable research had been done, and that there was an improvement in the devices' capabilities since their initial installation in Alameda in 2002. He summarized the variables studied in other cities as presented in the tables, such as driver yielding behavior; there was an increase in yielding since the crosswalks' installation; there was also one location where the yielding decreased. The second variable examined in the study was the braking distance of drivers as they approached the crosswalk; there was an increase during the daytime, and a more marked increase at night. The third variable addressed vehicle speed. Several studies also addressed the pedestrian waiting time before entering the intersection and crossing the street, with the idea that the lights would alert the drivers to the presence of pedestrians, enabling them to yield more quickly. The study found that pedestrians had an easier time crossing once the lights were in place. Staff Bergman noted that Attachment 3 summarized the results of several agencies that installed the lights, and added that it was a more qualitative evaluation. The vast majority believed the devices were effective, although concerns were expressed that no guidelines were in place. He added that was measured before guidelines had been developed. The studies consistently concluded that the devices were positively received by the public. Staff Bergman noted that a study in San Jose compared in-pavement lights with alternative devices, and added that they looked at an overhead flashing beacon, as described in Tables 5 and 6. The City has also used "Yield to Pedestrian" signs (or "paddles") in 29 locations, a less expensive device, which have been effective based on anecdotal evidence and feedback from the police. He noted that the in-pavement lights illuminated only when pedestrians were present, as opposed to the general warning about the presence of pedestrians provided by the paddles. He noted that the devices were 80-90% funded through grants, and that given the acceptability by the community and generally positive feedback received by staff, they anticipated continuing to pursue funding in this area. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding studies from other cities, Staff Bergman replied that there was a small amount of research, but there were no head-to-head comparisons. There were several studies regarding the effectiveness of the paddles; a study performed in Iowa found there was somewhat of an increase in yielding behavior, although it wasn't dramatic. Before the paddles were installed, 70% of drivers stopped for pedestrians, and after the installation, the percentage increased to 84%. In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether there had been any public education for drivers or pedestrians regarding the in-pavement lighting, Staff Khan replied that staff was looking into the creation of some in-house guidelines, as well as safe stopping distances, Page 10 of 14 | TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf |