HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Beacon Signal · 1 HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Beacon Signal APWA Congress...
19
1 HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian Crossing Beacon Signal APWA Congress September 2009 “Certainly this is indicative of a substantial need for the establishment and adoption of a pedestrian crossing signal ITE, Traffic Engineering, June 1965 “…The lack of a generally accepted standard, designed to fit this problem (pedestrian crossings) has left a vacuum which can only result in the continued use of non- uniform traffic control devices.” standard to solve this particular problem” ITE JOURNAL - JANUARY 1990 “In summary, national literature and local experience in Phoenix, Arizona, show that flashers offer no benefit for intermittent pedestrian crossings in an urban environment. In addition, the longer the flasher operates, the more it becomes part of the scenery and eventually loses any effectiveness.”
Transcript of HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Beacon Signal · 1 HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Beacon Signal APWA Congress...
1
HAWKPedestrian Crossing Pedestrian Crossing Beacon SignalAPWA Congress September 2009
“Certainly this is indicative of a substantial need for theestablishment and adoption of a pedestrian crossing signal
ITE, Traffic Engineering, June 1965 “…The lack of a generally accepted standard, designed to fit this problem (pedestrian crossings) has left a vacuum which can only result in the continued use of non-uniform traffic control devices.”
standard to solve this particular problem”
ITE JOURNAL - JANUARY 1990
“In summary, national literature and local experience in Phoenix, Arizona, show that flashers offer no benefit for intermittent pedestrian crossings in an urban environment. In addition, the longer the flasher operates, the more it becomes part of the scenery and eventually loses any effectiveness.”
2
ITE Journal December 2006ITE Journal, December 2006“One of the challenges faced by engineers working on pedestrian improvements is the status of (conflicting) research and the absence of clear guidance.”
Development of DeviceResponding to a need to provide a safe pedestrian crossing device on high speed multilane urban arterials
Studied by TCRP/NCHRP and found to be a very effective device
Developed by a Public Agency Traffic Engineer
HAWK (High intensity Activated crossWalK)(Double RED over YELLOW)
3
HAWK Operation
97 97 94 88
6447
34 33 3140
60
80
100
t Com
plia
nce
Innovative Crosswalk Treatments
0
20
Perc
en
Source: Texas Transportation Institute, 2006
Issues with the HAWK
1. Dark Beacon May be Confusing2. Drivers on Side Street May be Confused
3. Will Cause Proliferation of Devices
4. Creates Non-Uniform Designs
4
1. Dark Beacon Confuses DriversHas not Been Observed During Scientific Studies by UNC & TTIExperience Shows that Vehicles do not Stop at a Dark BeaconDark Beacon Critical to Overcome 1/2 Signal ConcernsSimilar Device Used in Europe for last 60 Years
European Beacon, Newcastle
4M Pedestrian Beacon(MUTCD Standard Signal Face 4D-3e without green Lens)
5
2. Drivers on Side Street May be Confused
Drivers on Side Street do not Know who has the Right-of-WayD i i Lik “H lf Si l” Device is Like a “Half-Signal” Operation (Not Approved by MUTCD where signal rests in GREEN on main street with STOP signs on the side street)
Portland “Half-Signal”
4M Pedestrian Beacon
6
2004: Canadian Study: found issues minimal and it (1/2 signal) is an appropriate traffic control device
1999: Seattle Study found no significant driver 1999: Seattle Study found no significant driver confusion issues
2006: Tucson HDR Study: found no significant driver confusion issues and Normal Right of Way codes apply at a Pedestrian Beacon
Uniform Vehicle Code:Normal Crosswalk Right of Way
Compliance 17-20%
Flashing Beacon CrossingRight of Way: NO CHANGE
Compliance 47-49%
7
Flashing In-Road Lights Right of Way: NO CHANGE
Compliance 66%
4M Pedestrian Beacon Right of Way: NO CHANGE
Compliance 97%
The HAWK device, acts basically as a supplement to the crosswalk, does not
change the Right of Way thus acts more as change the Right-of-Way, thus acts more as a beacon, not an intersection traffic signal
8
3. Proliferation of DevicesBeacons Normally do not have a Numeric Warrant
Pedestrian Level of Warrant 4 is Greater Than Pedestrian Level of Warrant 4 is Greater Than the Pedestrian Beacon Warrant by 30 peds/hr (1 pedestrian every 2 minutes)
Pedestrian Beacon Warrant Level Matches Requirements for the Currently Approved School Crossing Warrant 5 (20 peds/hr)
Proliferation of Devices (cont.)
There is a need for a device at crosswalks that is more than a flasher, but a full signal is not warranted or appropriate.not warranted or appropriate.
Avoid Side Street “Defacto Arterial”Allows for Progression½ Cycle Operations, Flashing Red Reduces Delay
Proliferation of Devices (cont.)
Pedestrian Beacon can reduce the pressures to install unwarranted full traffic signals
Warrant produced as a result of scientific study by TTI
9
4. Creates Greater Number of Non-Uniform Pedestrian Designs
A. Current Traffic Control Standards are Adequate to Meet the Pedestrian Adequate to Meet the Pedestrian Needs
B. Further Proliferate Non-Uniform Designs and Installations
A. Current Traffic Control Standards are Adequate
Innovative Crosswalk Treatments
97 97 94 88
6480
100
lianc
e
4734 33 31
0
2040
60
Half Signa
l
HAWK
Mid Blk
Signal
In-St S
top Sign
Flags
Beaco
n-Acti
vated
Zebra
Refuge Is
land
Beaco
n-Con
stant
Perc
ent C
omp
B. Further Proliferate Non-Uniform Designs and Installations
However, there are numerous i i i h h h variations in use throughout the
nation currently now.
10
AASHTO, Florida& San Jose
“STUDDER”Flash
(3 flashes per Second per lamp)
Boulder, Colorado
Florida Crossing Eyes
11
Seattle Flashing Beacon
King County Flashing Beacon
Massachusetts Flashing Yield Sign and Beacons
12
Utah Flashing Double Beacon
Ohio Flashing Yield Sign
Ohio Yield Sign
13
California Flashing Beacon
California Flashing Beacon
Louisiana Crossing Flasher
14
In-Pavement Lights, New Jersey
Portland 1/2 Signals (Not Approved by MUTCD)
Seattle 1/2 Signals (Not Approved by MUTCD)
15
L.A. Midblock Signals(Signal rests in GREEN UPWARD ARROW)
Santa Monica Midblock Signals(Signal Rests in GREEN)
Section 4M Pedestrian Beacon Overcomes the Half Signal issues (Never Gives a Thru GREEN Indication, Rests in the Same Dark Mode as a Beacon)
16
Section 4M Pedestrian Beacon Overcomes the Half Signal issues (Local Street Minor Traffic or Right Turn Only)
TCRP Report 112,NCHRP Report 562, Fall, 2006
Now a scientifically tested and proven Now a scientifically tested and proven solution is available via Section 4M Pedestrian Beacon
Necessity is the Mother of Invention:
Approval of Section 4M, will fill the “V ” d i th P f i “Vacuum” and give the Profession
Clear Guidance for a Standard Device to Assist Pedestrians
17
1
2Flashing
4
5Wig-Wag
Pedestrian Beacon Sequence
3 Returnto 1
Texas Transportation Institute Study, 2006
Five Crossings Reviewed
Two Further Reviewed in Depth by HDR Engineering Consultants
Speedway / Plumer
9th / Irvington
1123
2205 2223
2211 2231
N PLU
MER AV
N PLU
MER AV
N P LU
ME R AV
N P LU
ME R AV
N P LU
ME R AV
Speedway/ Plumer
2200
2230
E SPEEDWAY BLE SPEEDWAY BLE SPEEDWAY BLE SPEEDWAY BLE SPEEDWAY BLE SPEEDWAY BLE SPEEDWAY BLE SPEEDWAY BLE SPEEDWAY BLE SPEEDWAY BL
18
Pedestrian Accidents: NonePedestrian Accidents: None
156168 164
222
S 9 TH A V
S 9T H AV
S 9T H AV
S 9T H AV
S 9T H AV
9th/ Irvington
175205
225
W IRVINGTON RDW IRVINGTON RDW IRVINGTON RDW IRVINGTON RDW IRVINGTON RD W IRVINGTON RDW IRVINGTON RDW IRVINGTON RDW IRVINGTON RDW IRVINGTON RD
Pedestrian Accidents: NonePedestrian Accidents: None
19
Tucson’s National Recognition
•Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2000•Walkable America 2000
•Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2005
•Federal Highway Administration 2002
•American PublicWorks Association 2004
Questions and Additional Information
Richard B. Nassi, P.E., [email protected]
Michael J. Barton, P.E., [email protected]
