Pedestrian Safety - RTC · • Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report and Implementation Plan P...

Draft

Pedestrian

for Southern nevada

ACTION PLANSafety

A U G U S T 2 0 0 9

SUe Newberry

for Southern nevada

PedestrianaCtIon PLanSafety

i

Implementation Plan

I. aCknowLedgmentSTechnical Working Group (TWG)the stakeholders that will be responsible for implementing the strategies that are recom-mended in this plan have been involved throughout the creation of this plan as part of the twg. the methodologies and conclusions from each task have been developed along with the twg in order to attain a plan that is implementable. the regional transportation Commission of Southern nevada would like to thank the following individuals for their continued involve-ment in the bi-monthly working group which met as part of the alternative mode working group:

Participating Jurisdictions and Organizations:regional transportation Commission of Southern nevada �

Jerry duke, Project manager•Philip Banea•david Boocher•Polly Carolin•mary Polidoro•

nevada department of transportation �Jim Ceragioli•eric glick•david hutchinson•thomas Lightfoot•Chuck reider•

nevada department of Public Safety �Laurie anne grimes•

Clark County �kelli george•marcus majors•troy ota•

City of Las vegas �Connie diso•don eberhart•tom kruse•diane Phomninh•Steve Swanton•

working group meeting dates

September 30, 2008 november 18, 2008 January 27, 2009 march 31, 2009 July 15 , 2009

for Southern nevada


ii

Implementation Plan

City of north Las vegas �vicki adams•Stephanie Bruning•Bob hoyes•Clete kus•vidpa medisetty•Johanna murphy•

City of henderson �gloria elder•michael Johnson•alyssa reynolds•

faSt �Shital Patel•

Las vegas metropolitan Police department �Bill redfairn•

Clark County School district Police department �Jamie Brown•maggie Saunders•

Southern nevada health district �mindy meacham•

federal highway administration �Stephen ratke•

unLv transportation research Center �erin Breen•vinod vasudevan•

outside Las vegas foundation �alan o’neill•

PBS&J �kyle kubovchik•

Consultant Team:kimley-horn and associates, Inc. �

mike Colety•michael green •

Sue newberry �

for Southern nevada


iii

Implementation Plan

II. exeCutIve Summarythe executive Summary provides the key aspects of the development of this plan and the recommendations. additional details are provided within the following sections of the Implementation Plan and within the final report.

according to the unLv transportation research Center, in the past six years, more than 350 pedestrian lives have been lost on nevada roads. Because of the high pedes-trian fatality rate in nevada, the federal highway admin-istration has designated nevada as one of 13 pedestrian focus states. approximately 75 to 80 percent of these deaths have occurred in Clark County and account for more than 20 percent of all transportation related deaths, well above the national average of 11.3 percent. In 2008 there were 54 pedestrian fatalities in nevada, 45 of which occurred in Clark County.

the development of this plan was completed between September 2008 and august 2009. a summary of the specific timeline for the project and the proposed implementation schedule is shown in figure e1.

recommended strategies for this plan include:

early action Items �adopt Policies �Corridor Improvements �Signalized Intersections �unsignalized Intersections �target area �education �enforcement �

a table summarizing these recommended strategies and the associated costs is shown in figure e2. In addition, implemenation flow charts for new projects and retrofit projects are shown in figures e3 and e4, respectively.

Pedestrian Fatalities in 2008

Other Counties in Nevada

Clark County

17%

83%

for Southern nevada


iv

Implementation Plan

T i m e l i n eSEP

TWG #1 Project Overview2

00

8 OCT Gather existing GIS databases, survey crash analysis, • goals and objectives.

NOV

TWG #2 Survey/crash analysis results, goals and objectives, and priority location ranking system.

DEC Priority location analysis.•

JAN Technical Memorandum #1 sent to TWG for review.•

TWG #3 Technical Memorandum #1: results of priority location analysis and engineering strategies.

FEB Evaluate strategies for priority locations.•

MAR Technical Memorandum #2 sent to TWG for review.•

TWG #4 Technical Memorandum #2: recommend strategies.

20

09

APR Develop Implementation Plan with recommendations • and implementation strategies and consolidate Technical Memorandums #1 and #2 into a Draft Report.Send Implementation Plan and Final Report to TWG for • review and comment.

MAY

JUN

TWG #5 Implementation Plan

AUG Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report and • Implementation Plan

P R E L I M I N A R Y I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S C H E D U L E

SUMMER

RTC approval and jurisdictional adoption of plan.• Implement early action strategies.• PSAP Jurisdictional Coordinators report priority • locations and recommended strategies to Jurisdictional Decision Makers.

FALL Funding is evaluated.•

WINTER Recommended strategies are implemented starting with • least costly locations.

20

10

SPRING Process continues on a yearly cycle starting with the • review of crash data and evaluation of priority locations. See Retrofit Project Institutionalization Flow Chart on page vii.

Figure E1

for Southern nevada


v

Implementation Plan

Implementation Plan (Strategies)

STraTegyCOST

2009 Futureearly aCTIOn ITemSreview Signal timing at Signalized Priority Locations *

review existing Lighting at Priority Locations *

Implement Low-Cost effective Strategies from fhwa/unLv Study $50,000

adOPT POlICIeS

road Safety audit Policy $0

Complete Streets Policy $40,000

Crosswalk Policy $50,000

access management Policy $175,000

new development Policy $50,000

Lighting Study $75,000

COrrIdOr ImPrOvemenTS

Charleston Boulevard from 10th to 16th $1,000,000

Las vegas Boulevard from Convention Center drive to Sahara avenue $40,000

flamingo road from Las vegas Boulevard to howard hughes Parkway $0 $150,000

Las vegas Boulevard from tonopah avenue to Bruce Street $1,000,000

Paradise road from flamingo road to harmon avenue $1,750,000

SIgnalIzed InTerSeCTIOnS

Charleston Boulevard and maryland Parkway $60,000

Charleston Boulevard and martin Luther king Boulevard $85,000

flamingo road and decatur Boulevard $210,000

Las vegas Boulevard and Cheyenne avenue $110,000

Las vegas Boulevard and riviera Boulevard $60,000

UnSIgnalIzed InTerSeCTIOnS

Charleston Boulevard and 13th Street ***

flamingo road and Cameron Street $20,000

Lake mead Boulevard and Lamont Street $23,000

maryland Parkway and reno avenue $84,000

Stewart avenue and 1st Street $3,500,000

TargeT area (dOwnTOwn laS vegaS)Construct roadway Cross Sections per downtown traffic Capacity Study **

edUCaTIOneducation Program Coordinated with ShSP targeting Priority Locations $200,000

enFOrCemenTtargeted enforcement after each engineering Improvement at Priority Locations $100,000

TOTal $937,000 $7,845,000*Cost assumed to be agency staff time and be prioritized so it fits within existing staff hours

**Cost assumed to be incorporated into the transportation Improvement Program

***Cost for Charleston/13th Intersection included with the Charleston Corridor

Figure E2

for Southern nevada


vi

Implementation Plan

ProcessInstitutionalization refers to the process of integrating pedestrian considerations in policies and processes. Improving pedestrian facilities falls under one of two categories: new projects or retrofit projects. new projects include the construction of new roadways and developments and present an opportunity to ensure associated pedestrian facilities are designed properly. retrofit projects involve the reconstruction of existing infrastructure and can include the realignment of existing roadways and site redevelopment. these projects also present an opportunity to improve pedestrian safety by incorporating appropriate facilities in the rede-sign. recommedations for integrating pedestrian safety into new and retrofit projects follow.

new ProJeCtSroad Safety audits (rSa) are recommended for all new projects. rSas are among fhwa’s top recommended strategy and are the most direct way to identify deficiencies or potential issues and resolve them before a project is constructed. ndot has already started institution-alizing a process that involves conducting an rSa for every state project. although funding at the local level can be difficult, rSas can be very useful and are encouraged for all projects. the following flow chart outlines the recommended process for implementing a rSa.

New Project Institutionalization Flow Chart

Jurisdiction/Agency

Select Interdisciplinary Team

Pre-audit Meeting to Review Project Information

Perform Field Review Under Various Conditions

Conduct Audit Analysis and Report of Findings

Present Audit Findings to Project Owner/Design Team

Incorporate Findings into Project Where Appropriate

Construction

RSA DesignNew Project

Figure E3

for Southern nevada


vii

Implementation Plan

retrofIt ProJeCtSthe retrofit process is triggered by one of two things: an annual review or a series of related incidents/tragedy. rtC staff or a consultant perform a review, identify priority locations and present the results to the PSaP working group who review these locations and identify early implementation strategies. PSaP Jurisdictional Coordinators bring this information to their respective Jurisdictional decision makers who identify potential funding sources for early implementation strategies as well as projects planned for any of the priority locations. new projects and funding are also evaluated. the following chart outlines the process for inte-grating pedestrian safety into new projects .

Retrofit Project Institutionalization Flow Chart

RTC staff or consultant performs review of crash data and ranks

priority locations based on ranking procedures. A field review is also

performed using abbreviated RSA prompt list. RTC staff or consultant

also evaluates the effectiveness of retrofit projects constructed

in the previous year.

Series of related incidents or

tragedy

Annual review

PSAP Working Group reviews ranked locations and

observations from field reviews and identifies early

implementation opportunities such as signal timing and

pedestrian signals.

PSAP Jurisdictional Coordinators report priority locations and early

implementation opportunities to their jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional Decision Makers

Priority locations are used to identify

retrofit projects.

RTC Operations Subcommittee

How is project funded?Will RSA be funded?

Local RTC

Implement early opportunity strategies.

Figure E4

for Southern nevada


viii

Implementation Plan

Funding:rtC set aside at least $1 million per year for pedestrian specific improvement projects and that the program be administered similar to the existing traffic Capacity and Safety Improve-ments Program.

for Southern nevada


1

Implementation Plan

III. taBLe of ContentSSeCtIon Page

I. acknowledgements . . . . . . i

II. executive Summary . . . . . . iii timeline . . . . . . .. iv action Plan (Strategies) . . . . . v Process . . . . . . . vi funding . . . . . . . viii

III. Table of Contents . . . . . . 1

Iv. Project Overview . . . . . . 2

v. goals and Objectives . . . . . . 4 goals . . . . . . . . 4 objectives . . . . . . . 4

vI. recommendations . . . . . . 5 Jurisdiction . . . . . . . 5 target area . . . . . . . 14 Corridors and Spot Locations . . . . . 15

vII. Institutionalization . . . . . . 19 Process . . . . . . . 19 Cost . . . . . . . . 21 funding . . . . . . . 22

for Southern nevada


2

Implementation Plan

Iv. ProJeCt overvIewthe Pedestrian Safety action Plan for Southern nevada has two parts, the “Implementation Plan” and the “final report”. the “Implementation Plan” provides an overview of the process, but focuses on the recommended strategies and the actions necessary to implement them, including institutionalizing the implementation process. the “final report” contains detailed sections for each task that were completed towards the development of the plan and summa-rizes both technical memorandums that were distributed to the working group throughout the plan’s development. the purpose of this “Implementation Plan” is to serve as a concise guide to implementing recommendations and consists of the following sections:

goals and objectives �recommendations �Institutionalization �

according to the unLv transportation research Center, in the past six years, more than 350 pedestrian lives have been lost on nevada roads. approximately 75 to 80 percent of these deaths have occurred in Clark County and account for more than 20 percent of all transpor-tation related deaths, well above the national average of 11.3 percent. In 2008 there were 54 pedestrian fatalities in nevada, 45 of which occurred in Clark County.

Pedestrian safety has become an area of concern for many jurisdictions throughout Southern nevada and many have worked towards the implementation of countermeasures aimed at reducing pedestrian crashes. however, this is the first unified plan that involves all local jurisdictions and guides them through a systematic approach towards improving pedestrian safety, following the recommended procedure published by the federal highway administra-tion (fhwa). the regional transportation Commission of Southern nevada has teamed with kimley-horn and associates, Inc. along with Sue newberry, pedestrian safety expert and community involvement specialist, to develop a coordinated and tailored safety action plan that can be uniformly utilized by local jurisdictions and interested parties to identify recurring areas of conflicts and apply various infrastructure, operational, and/or policy countermea-sures to mitigate problem areas for pedestrians.

the american association of State highway transportation officials (aaShto) and the federal highway administration (fhwa) have responded to our country’s upward trend in fatal crashes by documenting their vision for an improved process in “aaShto Strategic highway Safety Plan.” they also encourage states to develop their own Strategic highway Safety Plans based on the following guiding principles: comprehensive, systematic, integrated, stakeholder involved, and data driven. nevada has prepared a statewide plan which used crash records to identify five emphasis areas based on fatal crashes. the Pedestrian Safety action Plan will be a good fit for the vision of the pedestrian emphasis area of the “nevada Strategic highway Safety Plan”.

for Southern nevada


3

Implementation Plan

the federal highway administration report titled “how to develop a Pedestrian Safety action Plan”, outlines the nationally accepted process that the most effective safety action plan should follow. the guide emphasizes stakeholder involvement as an essential part of identifying accepted and supported countermeasures and policies. therefore, this project has involved stakeholders through a bi-monthly working group that met throughout plan development. these meetings helped define a process for ongoing analysis and countermea-sure implementation. the working group provided input from the beginning of the planning process. the plan includes the following tasks:

existing Conditions �this task included the collection of gIS databases from local jurisdictions that repre-•sent existing conditions including sidewalks, crosswalks, bus stops, and pedestrian crashes. a survey was also conducted that involved the members of the technical working group.

Crash analysis �arcgIS was utilized to spatially analyze pedestrian crash data and identify high-crash •intersections, corridors, and regions.

goals and objectives �the goals and objectives of the plan were established after reviewing issues specific •to Southern nevada.

Pedestrian Safety Priorities �a ranking system was established using criteria related to pedestrian demand, geo-•metrics, and pedestrian crashes. arcgIS was utilized to evaluate the highest-ranking intersections and corridors.

Safety Strategies �the highest-ranking intersections and corridors were further evaluated and a number •of safety strategies have been identified for each location.

action Plan �

the recommendations have been summarized into the action Plan and detailed expla-•nations of each process have been documented in the reference manual.

this plan is a guide that demonstrates the steps from start to finish for identifying problem areas and implementing countermeasures. this plan identifies a number of high priority inter-sections and corridors using a defined methodology. In implementing their own plans, juris-dictions can use locations that have already been identified, or use corridors along with their own methodology to identify key locations. the intention is to set the framework that lays a strong foundation upon which momentum can be built.

for Southern nevada


4

Implementation Plan

v. goaLS and oBJeCtIveSthe following goals and objectives were developed with input from the working group.

Goals:develop a system-wide approach for education, enforcement, engineering and emergency response improvements to increase pedestrian safety that improves safer pedestrian and driver behavior in the Las vegas valley.

encourage improvements in the consistency of crash data. �develop a methodology to identify and prioritize focus areas. �develop a methodology to select data specific crash countermeasures using all four �Safety es (education, emergency medical Services, engineering, and enforcement (see explanation of page 49).develop policies and guidelines that improve pedestrian safety for new construction and �development.

Objectives:encourage local jurisdictions to adopt the pedestrian safety action plan upon its completion and institutionalize the outlined process for both new projects and retrofit projects within one year.

reduce pedestrian crashes by 33% in the next three years by implementing the process defined by the plan along with the continuous evaluation of the effectiveness of countermeasures.

for Southern nevada


5

Implementation Plan

vI. reCommendatIonSrecommendations are divided into the following categories:

Jurisdiction �target areas �Corridors �Spot Locations �

the first step in identifying appropriate strategies is to evaluate the problem and determine if it is a spot problem, a problem present along a corridor or targeted area, or a broader and more general problem throughout an entire jurisdiction. Spot locations include both signal-ized and unsignalized intersections and have problems that are unique to one location. Conversely, corridors can vary in length and usually contain characteristics that are similar at numerous locations. Strategies can be replicated along corridors. fixing only one location along a corridor may leave other locations untreated. targeted areas are general areas from as small as a neighborhood or a downtown to an even larger area that has a higher number of pedestrian crashes, higher pedestrian activity, and geometry issues. Similar to corridor prob-lems, the solutions are likely to be the same throughout the area and implementing strategies at spot locations may leave other areas untreated. usually problems in a targeted area are due to unique circumstances such as a university, commercial or business district, or another neighborhood characteristic. Lastly, some problems are frequent throughout a jurisdiction or an even larger region and are often caused by lack of standard practices. Such issues can be addressed through valley wide policy changes.

the following sections summarize the recommended strategies for the four categories.

Jurisdictionthe jurisdictional location for this study is the Las vegas valley. to meet the objective of reducing pedestrian crashes by 33% in three years, the action Plan needs to provide engineering, enforce-ment and education measures that address the common causes of pedestrian crashes. the following are the top contributing factors for pedestrian crashes in the Las vegas valley:

motorist failure to yield to Pedestrian �Improper Crossing by Pedestrian �

Based on the evaluation of local crashes, the following are some of the main factors that cause motorists to fail to yield to pedestrians:

distracted driving (cell phones, etc.) �excessive speed �Poor visibility of pedestrian crossing or �

for Southern nevada


6

Implementation Plan

pedestrians waiting to crossLack of adequate lighting �Concentration on other traffic/congestion �Lack of knowledge by motorists that nevada revised Statutes specifies that motorists must �yield to pedestrians crossing at all intersections, both marked and unmarked crosswalkswide streets designed for high speeds �Lack of access control �

when it comes to pedestrians not yielding to motorists, it is important to note that nevada revised Statute 484.327 states that “every pedestrian crossing a highway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall

yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the highway.” one exception noted to this is “between adjacent intersections at which official traffic-control devices are in operation.” therefore, it is typically legal for a pedestrian to cross a roadway at any location as long as they yield the right-of-way to traffic and are not crossing at a

location between traffic-controlled intersections. thus, the countermeasures recommended in this plan intend to reduce the number of pedestrians making unsafe crossings. Based on the evaluation of local crashes, the following are some main factors that influence pedestrians to cross in front of oncoming traffic:

Lack of convenient and/or enhanced crossing locations �delay at controlled locations �trying to catch a transit connection �distracted walking (cell phone, talking to other pedestrians, listening to music, etc) �wide streets designed for high speeds makes it difficult for pedestrians to judge whether �gaps in traffic are adequate for crossingLack of access control makes it difficult for pedestrians see potential conflicts �

Safety StrategIeS

engineeringthe following strategies are recommended to address jurisdiction-wide issues:

road Safety audits �raised medians �

roundabouts �Pedestrian Crossing Islands �

for Southern nevada


7

Implementation Plan

In addition, the following are general recommended strategies that could help improve valley-wide pedestrian safety:

Slowing vehicle speeds �reducing street crossing distances �Improving the visibility of both pedestrians and motorists �advanced yield lines at all unsignalized marked crosswalks �Pedestrian signs with rectangular rapid flashing beacons �Providing pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks and crossing islands, where the �needs and potential crash reductions are the greatest

education education includes a variety of strategies to influence driver and pedestrian behavior by providing information on the law and their responsibilities, the risks associated with certain behaviors, the benefits of safe behavior, or other messages intended to reduce crashes. efforts might include television, radio, print media distributed in a variety of forms and multiple languages, presentations at group meetings and schools, handouts at transportation fairs, etc. recent research (nChrP research results digest 322, Public Information and educa-tion in the Promotion of highway Safety) shows that many traditional approaches to public

Roundabout

Walkway

Pedestrian Crossing Island

Pedestrian Sign with Beacon

for Southern nevada


8

Implementation Plan

information and education programs do not result in behavior change or crash reduction. Ineffective approaches include dissemination of passive print messages, slogans to behave in certain ways, lecture-style education, and the use of extreme fear or scare techniques without communicating concrete steps to avoid the danger. although there are many ready-made programs and educational materials available for little or no cost, very few have been measured for effectiveness. according to nChrP research results digest 322, public infor-mation and education efforts are most likely to result in safer behavior and reduced crashes if:

they are of a high quality and are conducted in conjunction with other prevention activi- �ties, such as law enforcement, engineering treatments, or other community-based pro-grams.messages are relevant to the target group. �messages are pre-tested by focus groups. �Children’s education involves parents and includes practicing the desired behavior. �

education could be designed to address specific target groups in each of the implementa-tion areas. this could be by age, or by other common characteristics, such as shift workers or tourists. existing program targeting these groups can then be reviewed or new ones devel-oped. Children could learn and practice safe walking and bicycling behavior even if data does not show a predominance of youth involved in pedestrian crashes. traffic safety education is usually included in Safe routes to School Programs. developing partnerships with schools, hospitals, and others can help create a broader, community-based program.

review of the pedestrian crash data for Southern nevada is consistent with national data in that it affects both males and females of all ages in all areas. review of the local data has shown a higher concentration of crashes in dense urban areas.

the following are recommended education strategies for all of the Las vegas valley area:

a targeted program that builds upon the messages in the nevada Strategic highway �Safety Plan (ShSP) and focuses on increasing safe pedestrian behavior as well as driv-er’s tendency to yield to pedestrians through avoiding distractions and reducing speeds. Such a program must be consistent (at least every 3 months) and coordinated with engineering and enforcement. It must also have a target audience and address a relevant issue. for example, approximately 1/3 of all crashes from 2005-2007 occurred while a pedestrian �was in a crosswalk, marked or unmarked. although the data does not specify if the pe-destrian had a “walk” signal at signalized intersections, this data indicates that a number of drivers are not yielding to pedestrians crossing a crosswalk. a potential campaign to address this issue could be a message that targets driver awareness and encourages pedestrians to be attentive regardless of where they are crossing.

enforcementthere are many approaches to enforcing pedestrian and motorist laws related to pedestrians. Some agencies target pedestrians who are crossing outside of a crosswalk, while others

for Southern nevada


9

Implementation Plan

focus on motorists who fail to yield for pedestrians. according to fhwa’s “how to develop a Pedestrian Safety action Plan”, efforts focusing on driver behavior are more likely to reduce crashes than those focusing on pedestrian “anti-jaywalking” laws. Jaywalking is a term often used to describe people who are crossing streets where there is no marked crosswalk. however, it is legal in nevada (and most states) for a pedestrian to cross the road in most mid-block locations as long as they do not get in the way of traffic. It is only illegal to cross the street outside of a crosswalk when there are traffic controls at the adjacent intersections.

one difficulty in enforcing and prosecuting motorist behavior in nevada is that there is only a “yield” law and not a “stop” law. many judges interpret the yield law that as long as the motorist does not hit the pedestrian, they have not violated this law. more information on nevada legislature can be found starting on page 25.

Pedestrian “decoy” operations in which the majority of tickets and warnings are issued to drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians in marked, unsignalized crosswalks have resulted in a sustained increase in driver yield rates. this approach involves a carefully controlled environ-ment in which a decoy enters the crosswalk while officers observe driver behavior and write tickets and/or warnings to violators. Judicial support is needed to ensure prosecutors and judges understand the safety potential for the operation. where there are many mid-block pedestrian crossings concentrated in one area, or where pedestrians are crossing against red lights, an assessment of the facilities could reveal needed engineering changes. the most successful decoy operations incorporate positive media coverage into the program.

the following are recommended enforcement strategies for all of the Las vegas valley area:

Local law enforcement including the Las vegas metropolitan Police department, City of �north Las vegas Police department, City of henderson Police department, and nevada highway Patrol seek funding through the Joining forces grant in order to conduct joint agency enforcement efforts aimed at bringing awareness to both motorists and pedestri-ans. officers involved should receive training to include the existing laws as they pertain to pedestrians.Implement signage improvements at priority locations, reinforced with education in the �form of radio and news coverage, followed with warnings and citations.

for Southern nevada


10

Implementation Plan

emergency medical Servicesemergency medical Services (emS) includes a network of care providers, including medical response to a crash and transportation to a care facility. Quick response to crashes improves victim survival rates. the nevada Strategic highway Safety Plan includes two Critical Strate-gies to help ensure quick response to crashes.

Strategy 17 recommends highway maintenance workers, state patrol, and others who �may reach the scene first are trained as first responders. first responders can provide basic medical care while waiting for emS. Strategy 18 recommends using technology and improved communication systems to �reduce emergency response time.

the greatest benefit for these strategies may be in rural areas, but more congested areas can also benefit. the university medical Center (umC) has been promoting injury prevention through education. through their comprehensive trauma registry, umC is able to identify trends and aim education efforts at a targeted audience. umC also works with the Southern nevada Injury Prevention Partnership (SnIPP) and Safe kids Clark County. SnIPP is a group comprised of professionals from a number of different fields involved in injury prevention which meets quarterly to share resources and ideas and create coordinated efforts. the group also works with the regional trauma advisory Board in reviewing trauma plans. these efforts are an example of how each of the “4 Safety es” could be used together in order to serve as a comprehensive approach towards addressing safety issues.

PoLICIeSthe rtC study “Pedestrian oriented Strategies for the regional transportation Commission of Southern nevada”, prepared by orth-rodgers & assocaties, identifies recommended strate-gies for smart growth, environmental awareness and community health, community safety, multi-transportation system mobility, and pedestrian consideration in fiscal policy. In addition to these policies, the followings are recommended policies to guide the institutionalization of jurisdictional safety strategies:

road Safety audit (rSa) Policya rSa is a formal safety performance evaluation of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multi-disciplinary team and is useful in identifying potential road safety issues and opportunities for improvements. rSas are fhwa’s top recommended strategy and they have been working with the nevada department of transportation (ndot) to conduct a rSa for all new state projects. It is recommended that a policy be developed that encourages local jurisdictions to conduct a rSa for all new projects.

Complete Streets Policythe Complete the Street movement is encouraging all states, cities, and towns to plan and

for Southern nevada


11

Implementation Plan

design roads that accommodate all users. many streets across the country primarily empha-size the movement of vehicles and are not pedestrian friendly. every city needs arterials that move traffic, therefore certain streets may have a particular modal emphasis. however, the goal is that every street should still accommodate all modes of transportation.

In march 2009, representative doris matsui and Senator thomas harkin introduced house bill h.r. 1443 and Senate bill S. 584 as part of the “Complete Streets act of 2009.” Its passage would require all states and metropolitan Planning organizations to adopt Complete Street policies and apply them to transportation improvement projects as well as incorporate the principles of such policies into design guidelines and manuals.

regardless of whether or not the bills passes, it is recommended that all local jurisdictions adopt a Complete Street policy. the nation Complete Streets organization can host a develop-ment workshop to help develop policies (~$40,000). when developing policies, the following can be taken into consideration. Complete Street policies:

aim to create a comprehensive and integrated transportation network; �recognize that all streets are unique and need to accommodate different users; �Can be adopted by all agencies and apply to all roads; �apply to new and retrofit projects; �Clearly state any exceptions; �Specify the use of the most current design standards; �Include solutions appropriate to the community; and �Incorporate measures of effectiveness and performance. �

Crosswalk Policyaccording to the nevada revised Statues, a crosswalk exists where two streets intersect, and regulations apply to both marked and unmarked crosswalks. however, there has been ongoing discussion on where and when to mark a crosswalk and whether marking a cross-walk increases pedestrian safety. Pedestrians often prefer more marked crosswalks, as they feel it provides a safe place to cross. however, numerous studies have been completed since the 1970s, some of which found an increase in the number of crashes at marked locations, some were inconclusive, and others found that marked crosswalks helped alleviate crashes. the general findings are that simply providing a marked crosswalk is not a proven strategy to improve safety, however more enhanced treatments that include pedestrian refuges and/or additional traffic control devices can improve safety. the table on the following page presents recommendations for installing marked crosswalks according to “Safety effects of marked versus unmarked Crosswalks at uncontrolled Locations” (fhwa - September 2005).

Since many jurisdictions do not have policies on where and when to mark a crosswalks, engi-neers often use their best judgment which can lead to inconsistencies throughout an area. In general, most cities mark crosswalks at the following locations:

for Southern nevada


12

Implementation Plan

Signalized intersections �Stop controlled intersections �School crossings �

Crosswalks marked at uncontrolled intersections tend to be at select pedestrian locations, especially downtowns. mid block marked crosswalks are often accompanied by a number of other treatments including advanced warning signs and overhead flashers.

the following are a few examples of crosswalk policies from other cities:

It is the City of Irvine’s policy not to mark crosswalks at mid block locations where traffic �is not controlled by stop signs or traffic signals. Painted crosswalks should only be used where necessary to direct pedestrians along the safest route.the City of Palo alto has adopted policies for marking crosswalks at both mid block loca- �tions and at uncontrolled intersections. the mid block crosswalk policy specifies criteria that should be met including traffic volume, speed, pedestrian volume, and location. they also specify what types of treatment should be used. the uncontrolled intersection cross-walk policy specifies four basic warrants including pedestrian volume, approach speed, visibility, and illumination.

for Southern nevada


13

Implementation Plan

Safety effects of marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled locations (FHwa September 2005)

roadway Type (number of Travel lanes and median

Type)

VehicleADT≤9,000 vehicle adt >9,000 to 12,000vehicle adt

>12,000 to 15,000vehicle adt >15,000

Speed limit**

≤48.3km/h

(30 mi/h)

56.4 km/h

(35 mi/h)

64.4 km/h

(40 mi/h)

≤48.3km/h

(30 mi/h)

56.4 km/h

(35 mi/h)

64.4 km/h

(40 mi/h)

≤48.3km/h

(30 mi/h)

56.4 km/h

(35 mi/h)

64.4 km/h

(40 mi/h)

≤48.3km/h

(30 mi/h)

56.4 km/h

(35 mi/h)

64.4 km/h

(40 mi/h)

two Lanes C C P C C P C C n C P n

three Lanes C C P C P P P P n P n n

multilane (four or more lanes) with raised median*** C C P C P n P P n n n n

multilane (four or more lanes) without raised median C P n P P n n n n n n n

* these guidelines include intersection and midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. they do not apply to school crossings. a two-way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy traffic, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devised. adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, not will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. these are general recommendations; good engineering judgement should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install crosswalks.

** where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h), marked crosswalks alone should be used at unsignalized locations.

*** the raised median or crossing island must be at least 1.2 m (4 ft) wide and 1.8 m (6 ft) long to serve adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with mutCd and american association of State highway and transportation officials (aaShto) guidelines.

C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. for an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some liocation, while a more indepth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, and other factors may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossing per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before place a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone.

P = Possible increase in pedestian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestiran facility enhancements. these locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian corssing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked corsswalk.

n = marked crosswalks alone or insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, to other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians.

for Southern nevada


14

Implementation Plan

new development areasalthough growth in the Las vegas valley has slowed down, when new master planned devel-opments on Bureau of Land management (BLm) auctioned land return, it is recommended that all new street networks be designed with collector streets and arterials as complete streets with an offset sidewalk, bicycle lanes, to have a maximum speed of 35 miles per hour and no more than two travel lanes in each direction, with the exception of controlled access freeways and expressways.

Target Areadowntown Las vegas has been identified as a target area having been illustrated as a “hot spot” in the crash analysis. one of the primary reasons that it has been chosen as a target area is the number of crashes that have occurred within such a close proximity of each other. this area has lower speed limits, relatively narrow roadways, a good grid network, and many conditions that are consistent with a good pedestrian envi-ronment. however, the high number of pedestrian crashed

in this area can be attributed to the high volume of pedestrians and the fact that many existing roadway cross sections dedicate a high portion of right-of-way to motorized vehicles. Issued in 2008 by the regional transportation Commission of Southern nevada (rtC), the “Las vegas downtown Pedestrian Circulation Study” contains an evaluation of existing pedestrian facilities as well as recommended strategies. the rtC also issued the “downtown traffic Capacity, transit and Parking needs Study” which evaluates both existing and antici-pated roadway operating conditions and presents street hierarchy recommendations for the downtown area. Both of these studies recommend roadway cross sections for downtown that will provide more emphasis on pedestrian, transit, and bicycle facilities, resulting in more complete streets. It is recommended that the roadway cross sections recommended in these studies be implemented with future improvements downtown.

for Southern nevada


15

Implementation Plan

Corridors and Spot Locationsfive signalized intersections, unsignal-ized intersections and corridors have been identified as priority spot locations and corridors through a prioritization analysis which included a ranking system of criteria that were intended to highlight pedes-trian demand, geometry, and pedestrian crashes. Crash types for each location were analyzed as well as other site characteris-tics including speed limit, traffic volume,

and geometry in order to evaluate inad-equate pedestrian facilities. a field review was also performed in order to observe pedestrian and motorist behavior. the following table presents the recommended engineering strategies and an approximate cost for each of these locations. more detailed information can be found in the PSaP final report.

for Southern nevada


16

Implementation Plan

recommended Strategies and Conceptual Costlocation Type location Strategy Cost

Corridor

Charleston Boulevard from 10th to 16th

C1.a – raised median, narrow travel lanes, add bicycle lanes $1,000,000

C1.b – danish offset Crossings $30,000

C1.c – review Signal timing ** $0

C1.d – review Lighting * tBd

Las vegas Boulevard from Convention Center drive to

Sahara avenue

C2.a – evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented fence ** $0

C2.b – Improve lighting, signal timing, signing and striping at crossings Lighting ($24,000)/re-Stripe Cross-walks ($12,000)



flamingo road from Las vegas Boulevard to howard hughes

Parkway

C3.a – Pedestrian Phasing Improvements ** $0

C3.b – after reviewing the effectiveness of the fence implemented along the Las vegas Boulevard priority corridor, evaluate potential implemen-tation along median near intersections

$150 per linear foot of 6 foot metal railing



Las vegas Boulevard from tonopah avenue to Bruce

Street

C4.a – Install raised median, narrow travel lanes, bicycle lanes $1,000,000

C4.b – review Signal timing ** $0

C4.c – review Lighting * tBd

Paradise road from flamingo road to harmon avenue

C5.a – Convert to one-way couplet with Swenson Street $1,000,000

C5.b – mid-block crossings with refuge medians and flashing beacons $75,000 each

C5.c – raised median, bicycle lanes, lane narrowing $1,000,000

C5.d – review Signal timing ** $0

C5.e – review Lighting * tBd

for Southern nevada


17

Implementation Plan

recommended Strategies and Conceptual Cost, cont.location Type location Strategy Cost

Signalized Intersection

Charleston Boulevard and maryland Parkway

SI.1.a – Bulb-outs (southeast corner) $10,000

SI.1.b – right-turn Slip-Lane (southwest corner) $50,000

SI.1.c – access management * tBd

SI.1.d – review Signal timing ** $0

SI.1.e – review Lighting * tBd

Charleston Boulevard and martin Luther king Boulevard

SI.2.a – right-turn Slip-Lane (southwest corner) $50,000

SI.2.b – reduce Curb radii (all other corners) $30,000

SI.2.c – Install “turning traffic must yield to Pedestrians” sign (eastbound) $1,500

SI.2.d – restripe crosswalks $4,000

SI.2.e – review Signal timing ** $0

SI.2.f – review Lighting * tBd

flamingo road and decatur Boulevard

SI.3.a – right-turn Slip-Lanes (all four corners) $200,000

SI.3.b – Speed trailer (flamingo road eastbound west of intersection) $10,000

SI.3.c – review Signal timing ** $0

SI.3.d – review Lighting * tBd

Las vegas Boulevard and Cheyenne avenue

SI.4.a – relocate Crosswalk (southern leg closer to intersection) $10,000

SI.4.b – re-Construct right-turn Slip-Lanes $100,000



Las vegas Boulevard and riviera Boulevard

SI.5.a – right-turn Slip Lane (northeast corner) $50,000

SI.5.b – reduce Curb radius (southeast corner) $10,000



SI.5.e – evaluate effectiveness of implemented fence in median ** $0

for Southern nevada


18

Implementation Plan

recommended Strategies and Conceptual Cost, cont.location Type location Strategy Cost

Unsignalized Intersection

Charleston Boulevard and 13th Street

uI.1.a – raised median, narrow travel lanes, add bicycle lanes *** $1,000,000

uI.1.b – review Lighting * tBd

flamingo road and Cameron Street

uI.2.a – extend median (south leg) $10,000

uI.2.b – reduce Curb radius (southeast corner) $10,000

uI.2.c – review Lighting * tBd

Lake mead Boulevard and Lamont Street

uI.3.a – Sign with Led rapid flash beacon (3) and wireless detection $15,000


uI.3.c – radar Speed Sign (2) $8,000

maryland Parkway and reno avenue

uI.4.a – Sign with Led rapid flash beacon (3) and wireless detection $15,000

uI.4.b – Bulb-out (southwest and southeast corner) $30,000

uI.4.c – Bicycle Lane $1,000

uI.4.d – Pedestrian refuge (southern leg crosswalk) $30,000

uI.4.e – review Lighting * tBd

uI.4.f – radar Speed Sign (2) $8,000

Stewart avenue and 1st Street

uI.5.a – Convert Stewart avenue into a multi-modal emphasis roadway as recommended in the downtown traffic Capacity, transit, and Parking needs Study (rtC) and the Las vegas downtown Pedestrian Circulation Study (rtC)

$3,500,000


uI.5.c – radar Speed Sign (2) $8,000 note: all engineering strategies should be coordinating with educational and enforcement measures.

* tBd - Cost based on results of proposed study and resulting recommendations.

** Cost assumed to be agency staff time and be prioritized so it fits within existing staff hours.

*** Cost associated with Charleston Boulevard from 10th to 16th corridor improvements.

for Southern nevada


19

Implementation Plan

vII. InStItutIonaLIzatIon ProcessInstitutionalization refers to the process of integrating pedestrian considerations in policies and processes. Improving pedestrian facilities falls under one of two categories: new projects or retrofit projects. new projects include the construction of new roadways and developments and present an opportunity to ensure associated pedestrian facilities are designed properly. retrofit projects involve the reconstruction of existing infrastructure and can include the realignment of existing roadways and site redevelopment. these projects also present an opportunity to improve pedestrian safety by incorporating appropriate facilities in the rede-sign. recommedations for integrating pedestrian safety into new and retrofit projects follow.

new ProJeCtSroad Safety audits (rSa) are recommended for all new projects. rSas are among fhwa’s top recommended strategy and are the most direct way to identify deficiencies or potential issues and resolve them before a project is constructed. ndot has already started institution-alizing a process that involves conducting an rSa for every state project. although funding at the local level can be difficult, rSas can be very useful and are encouraged for all projects. the following flow chart outlines the recommended process for implementing a rSa.

New Project Institutionalization Flow Chart

Jurisdiction/Agency

Select Interdisciplinary Team

Pre-audit Meeting to Review Project Information

Perform Field Review Under Various Conditions

Conduct Audit Analysis and Report of Findings

Present Audit Findings to Project Owner/Design Team

Incorporate Findings into Project Where Appropriate

Construction

RSA DesignNew Project

Figure E3

for Southern nevada


20

Implementation Plan

retrofIt ProJeCtSthe retrofit process is triggered by one of two things: an annual review or a series of related incidents/tragedy. rtC staff or a consultant perform a review, identify priority locations and present the results to the PSaP working group who review these locations and identify early implementation strategies. PSaP Jurisdictional Coordinators bring this information to their respective Jurisdictional decision makers who identify potential funding sources for early implementation strategies as well as projects planned for any of the priority locations. new projects and funding are also evaluated. the following chart outlines the process for inte-grating pedestrian safety into new projects .

Retrofit Project Institutionalization Flow Chart

RTC staff or consultant performs review of crash data and ranks

priority locations based on ranking procedures. A field review is also

performed using abbreviated RSA prompt list. RTC staff or consultant

also evaluates the effectiveness of retrofit projects constructed

in the previous year.

Series of related incidents or

tragedy

Annual review

PSAP Working Group reviews ranked locations and

observations from field reviews and identifies early

implementation opportunities such as signal timing and

pedestrian signals.

PSAP Jurisdictional Coordinators report priority locations and early

implementation opportunities to their jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional Decision Makers

Priority locations are used to identify

retrofit projects.

RTC Operations Subcommittee

How is project funded?Will RSA be funded?

Local RTC

Implement early opportunity strategies.

Figure E4

for Southern nevada


21

Implementation Plan

Costthe following table provides a breakdown of the approximate cost for each of the individual recommended safety strategies identified in this plan.

Strategy CostBulb-outs $5,000 to $20,000

reduce Curb radii $5,000 to $40,000

right-turn Slip-Lanes $50,000 to $200,000

access management * tBd

review Signal timing ** $0

review Lighting * tBd

“turning traffic must yield to Pedestrians” sign $1,500

restripe crosswalks $4,000 per intersection

Speed trailer $10,000

raised median, narrow travel lanes, add bicycle lanes $1,000,000

Sign with Led rapid flash beacon and wireless detection $5,000 each

radar Speed Sign $3500 to $7500 each

Bicycle Lane $1 per linear foot

Pedestrian refuge $30,000

Signalize Intersection $200,000 to $400,000

Convert Stewart avenue into a multi-modal emphasis roadway as recommended in the downtown traffic Capacity, transit, and Park-ing needs Study (rtC) and the Las vegas downtown Pedestrian Circulation Study (rtC)

$3,500,000

danish offset Crossing $20,000 to $50,000

Convert Swenson and Paradise (between harmon and flamingo) to one-way couplet

$600,000 to $800,000

mid-block crossings with refuge medians and flashing beacons $75,000 each* tBd - Cost based on results of proposed study and resulting recommendations.

** Cost assumed to be agency staff time and be prioritized so it fits within existing staff hours.

for Southern nevada


22

Implementation Plan

Fundingthere are numerous potential funding sources for the various recommendations of this study. It is recommended that the rtC set aside at least $1 million per year for pedestrian specific improvement projects and that the program be administered similar to the existing traffic Capacity and Safety Improvements Program. ndot and the Surface transportation Program (StP) could also help fund engineering strategies. ndot Safety division may also be able to provide funding. the office of traffic Safety (otS) is a potential funding source for education and enforcement programs including the Joining forces grant. also, the national highway transportation Safety administration (nhtSa) may provide funding to evaluate the effective-ness of a combination of strategies implemented at a particular location.

StP funding can go to projects relating to intersections that have disproportionately high crash rates and are part of the Safe, accountable, flexible, efficient transportation equity act: a Legacy for users (Safetea-Lu). otS selects projects each year to receive funding through otS grants. otS has a workbook that helps determine if a project is eligible. nhtSa also funds projects with grants in accordance with Safetea-Lu.

Date post:	09-Jun-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongthu
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Pedestrian Safety - RTC · • Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report and Implementation Plan P...

Documents