Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Treatments in Santa Monica

ITE 2012 Western District Annual MeetingSession 8CWednesday June 27, 2012

Sam Morrissey, P.E.City Traffic EngineerCity of Santa Monica

Introduction

2

Introduction (Cont’d)

3

Introduction (Cont’d)

4

Introduction (Cont’d)

5

Background

July 2008

September 2008

December 2010

6

City Request to Experiment

7

Evaluation Locations

In-Roadway Warning Light Systems• Santa Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street• Pico Boulevard/3rd Street• Pico Boulevard/10th Street• 2114 Colorado Avenue (Midblock crosswalk)

8

Evaluation Locations (Cont’d)

Flashing Beacon SystemsSanta Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street• 2 lanes ea. dir.• Center TWLTL• Spd. Lmt. 30 mph• 85th %tile ~32 mph• 28,000 ADT

9

Evaluation Locations (Cont’d)

Flashing Beacon SystemsSanta Monica Boulevard/Stanford Street • 2 lanes ea. dir.• Center TWLTL• Spd. Lmt. 30 mph• 85th %tile ~32 mph• 28,000 ADT

10

Deployment

2114 Colorado Avenue (Midblock crosswalk)

11

Deployment (Cont’d)

Pico Boulevard/10th Street

12

Deployment (Cont’d)

Pico Boulevard/3rd Street

13

Deployment (Cont’d)

Santa Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street

14

Deployment (Cont’d)

Santa Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street

15

Deployment (Cont’d)

Santa Monica Boulevard/Stanford Street

16

Evaluation

17

In-Roadway Warning Lights – Daytime

Evaluation (Cont’d)

18

In-Roadway Warning Lights – Summary

Location: Santa

Monica/Princeton Pico/3rd Pico/10th Colorado Midblock

Device: IRWL IRWL IRWL IRWL Time of Day

State of Operation

Yielding Response (Approx.)

AM Off 91% 95% 86% 85% On 86% 88% 86% 95%

Change -5% -7% 0% +10% Dusk Off 77% 62% 81% 75% On 91% 100% 100% 77%

Change +14% +38% +19% +2% Night Off 45% 95% 81% 27% On 95% 95% 95% 73%

Change +50% 0% +14% +46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Perc

ent D

river

s th

at Y

ield

ed to

Ped

estr

ian

Average Distance Brake Lights Were Observed (feet)

Data Comparison for Study AM Session (9-11AM) Average

Santa Monica/Princeton - ON (RRFB)

Santa Monica/Princeton - OFF

Santa Monica/Stanford - ON (CRFB)

Santa Monica/Stanford - OFF

Evaluation (Cont’d)

19

Flashing Beacons – Daytime

Evaluation (Cont’d)

20

Flashing Beacons – Summary

Location: Santa Monica/Princeton

Santa Monica/Stanford

Device: RRFB CRFB Time of Day

State of Operation

Yielding Response (Approx.)

AM Off 65% 85% On 80% 90% Change +15% +5%

Midday Off 70% 90% On 90% 95% Change +20% +5%

PM Off 85% 75% On 85% 90% Change 0% +15%

Dusk Off 85% 75% On 80% 100% Change -5% +25%

Night Off 60% 80% On 95% 90% Change +35% +10%

Comparisons

1. Generally, both systems increase driver yielding response rates

2. The RRFB seems to result in a greater increase in driver yielding response than the CRFB

3. Compared to IRWL systems, both systems appear to be as effective as IRWL systems

21

Next Steps

• City’s experiment still ongoing

• Continue through 2013• Periodic updates to

CTCDC & FHWA• Alternate locations of

C/RRFBs• Investigate “human

factors”• Testing other devices

22

Questions?

Sam MorrisseyCity Traffic EngineerCity of Santa Monica1685 Main Street, Room 115Santa Monica, CA 90401T: 310.458.8955sam.morrissey@smgov.net

Steve WeinbergerW-Trans490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201Santa Rosa, CA 95401T: 707.542.9500sweinberger@w-trans.com

23