7A - Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Demonstrations and Warrants
CITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
(MEETING DATE: April 8, 2002)
SUBJECT: Staff briefing and TAB comment on the City of Boulder's pedestrian crossing
treatment demonstrations and future update of the "Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Warrants"
document.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Mike Sweeney, Coordinator of Transportation Operations and Planning
Bill Cowem, Transportation Operations Engineer
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is seeking input concerning our pedestrian crossing
treatment demonstrations and potential changes to our "Pedestrian Crossing Treatment
Warrants."
FISCAL IMPACT: In the proposed 2002 budget, $290,000 is allocated for pedestrian
facility enhancements (crossing treatments and missing sidewalk links).
BACKGROUND:
It is a goal of the city to promote the pedestrian mode by providing safe and efficient pedestrian
facilities. In addition to sidewalks and paths, these facilities include pedestrian crossing
treatments, such as marked and signed crosswalks, concrete median refuges, pedestrian actuated
traffic signals and grade-separated crossings. In 1996, city staff prepared a policy document,
titled "Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Warrants (PCTW)." The purpose of this document was to
define policy concerning the placement of different types of pedestrian crossing treatments. The
PCTW document was reviewed and endorsed by the TAB in the same year.
In 1998, city staff began an outreach effort with the community. The purpose of this outreach
was to identify needed pedestrian facilities. This included missing sidewalk, current social trails
and needed pedestrian crossing improvements. Requests for a pedestrian crossing treatment were
placed on a list for evaluation. From this list, staff identified 47 locations that required further
study, using the criteria outlined in the PCTW document. Based on the criteria outlined in the
PCTW document, a small number of these 47 locations were determined to need pedestrian
crossing treatments or a different type of pedestrian crossing treatment. Of the new treatments
identified, most have been striped or constructed as of this date. The remaining locations will
require additional public process and should be addressed in the near future. Attachment A
provides a summary of pedestrian crossing treatments completed to date and pending
improvements.
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page I
The construction of new pedestrian crossing treatments was beneficial to the city's goal of
promoting the pedestrian mode; however, several issues still remained. At uncontrolled crossing
locations, drivers were not yielding to pedestrians as required by law. Also, there was concern
that pedestrians crossing multiple lanes in the same direction were exposed to a multiple threat
scenario, where one vehicle stops and yields but that vehicle shields the pedestrian's line of sight
to a second vehicle that does not yield. To address these issues, staff began researching non-
standard pedestrian crossing treatments or enhancements, being used in other communities.
In 2000, city staff began demonstrating two new pedestrian crossing treatment enhancements.
The first demonstration was a new sign saying "State Law - STOP for pedestrians in crosswalk,"
placed on an orange barrel on the lane line and on the side of the street. The other demonstration
was a device called "in-pavement lighting." This demonstration involved placing lights (which
resemble runway lights at the airport) into the pavement and connecting the lights to a pedestrian
actuation button. When the pedestrian pushes the button, the lights begin to flash, long enough
for the pedestrian to cross the street. A similar flashing display was attached to gate-posted
pedestrian signs at the crosswalk.
Later in 2000, staff began to extend these demonstrations to other locations within the city. The
"State Law" signing was used with barrels, and added to median refuge islands to create the same
"gate-posting" effect. The in-pavement lighting aspect of the second demonstration was not
repeated; rather this treatment relied on the pedestrian actuated flashing beacons which bracketed
the crossing area. During the past two years, staff has placed these demonstration devices at 12
locations. A list of additional demonstration locations for future construction was also created.
Attachment B details the locations of each demonstration device and identified locations of
future demonstration devices,
Staff has studied these devices and made determinations on their relative effectiveness, safety
and impact to the roadway system, for different conditions.
Effectiveness
Attachment C documents the vehicular volume, pedestrian crossing volume and "yielding to
pedestrians" compliance, before and after the installation of each device. In summary, the results
suggest that in all locations where these demonstration devices were installed, there were
significant increases in "yielding to pedestrians" compliance. The single factor that seemed to
most influence these results was the amount of pedestrian crossing activity. Locations that had
high pedestrian crossing volumes, also had very high compliance percentages (regardless of other
factors such as roadway volume). Likewise, low pedestrian crossing volumes typically resulted
in low compliance percentages. In all cases the compliance increased significantly after the
demonstration devices were provided.
Safety
Staff reviewed accident reports for a number of these demonstration locations. Two types of
accidents seemed to be associated with the crossing area and these demonstration devices. One
type of accident was a vehicle failing to yield to a pedestrian or bicyclist and hitting them in the
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page 2
crosswalk. Fortunately, these types of accidents were very rare, and there was not a significant
increase in these types of accidents as a result of any of our demonstration devices. The other
type of accident occurred when a vehicle stopped to yield to a pedestrian, and was hit from
behind (rear-end collision) by another vehicle that did not stop in time. Unfortunately, these
types of collisions were much more common. In most locations there were very similar numbers
of these types of collisions, before and after the placement of these demonstration devices. The
one notable exception is the crossing treatment on Broadway and Pleasant Avenue. At this
location, there were almost four times as many of these types of collisions after the placement of
the pedestrian actuated flashing beacons. Attachment D summarizes the accident rates for these
types of collisions, as well as how many accidents resulted in injury.
Vehicular Delay
Some concern has been expressed about the impacts these crossing demonstrations have on
vehicular delay and congestion. It is important to note that none of the pedestrian crossing
treatment "demonstration" devices actually change the rules of the road at any of these crossing
locations. So any impact on vehicular delay or congestion would be the result of more
pedestrians being aggressive in taking their right-of-way at these crossings and/or more vehicle
stopping to yield to these pedestrians. Most of the information our staff has on this topic is
subjective. Staff has observed each of these crossing locations during peak and off-peak times,
and has driven through these treatments, to evaluate the impacts to delay. Staff does not believe
that significant increases in delay are occurring at the vast majority of these crossings. The one
notable exception is the crossing at Broadway and Pleasant Avenue. At this location, this high
volume pedestrian crossing is coupled with a high frequency transit stop in the immediate
vicinity, as well as traffic signals, both north and south of the crossing, within 350 feet. This
results in some very congested conditions during peak periods, at this location.
Other Factors
Some of the other factors which have been observed, are the following;
• At the I I" Street and Canyon Avenue intersection, only 14 percent of the pedestrians
crossing the street activated the flashing lights/warning system. The majority of crossings
occurred without the flashing lights to warn motorists of the pedestrians' intention to cross.
At other demonstration locations, staff has observed somewhat higher numbers of pedestrians
activating the flashing beacons. However, many crossings are occurring without the benefit
of the flashing beacon displays. It should be noted that compliance levels have increased
significantly, despite this issue.
• Where the "State Law - Yield to Pedestrians" sign is displayed with the Orange Barrel
device, significant maintenance impacts have resulted. The barrels are shifted out of position
or knocked over, quite frequently and city staff has spent a considerable amount of time
checking on and straightening out these devices. The devices are often damaged or found
missing, and at each location the barrels have had to be replaced several times.
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page 3
NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue to update the PCTW document with our findings, so that these new
demonstration devices become a more formal part of our toolbox of pedestrian crossing
treatments. In addition, staff will address a number of other issues identified with the PCTW
document. Attachment E summarizes a list of identified issues, which should be addressed with
the update to the PCTW document.
Staff would like TAB input on the issues identified for consideration in the PCTW document
update, including the demonstration devices. The briefing is intended to be informative to TAB
members and helpful to staff in identifying the steps which need to be taken as we continue our
demonstration of new pedestrian crossing treatment enhancements and as we consider changes to
our PCTW document.
If members of the TAB have questions or comments, please contact Bill Cowem at 303-441-
4054 or e-mail to CowemB('Oci.boulder.co.us.
Attachments
A - Summary of pedestrian crossing treatments constructed and future efforts
B - Summary of demonstration device locations and future efforts
C - Summary of demonstration device effectiveness
D - Summary of demonstration device accident trends
E - Summary of issues identified for consideration in PCTW document update
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page 4
Attachment A
Summary of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
(Constructed and Planned)
Crossing Treatments (implemented 1999 to present)
Striped Crosswalks
• Pearl Street and 10'h Street (with bumper block curb extensions - concrete curb extensions are
pending).
• Pearl Street and 8" Street (with concrete curb extensions).
• Poplar Avenue and Orange Court ("school" crosswalk with concrete curb extensions).
• Sumac Avenue and 17' Street ("school" crosswalk).
• 19" Street and Redwood Avenue ("school" crosswalk).
• Eisenhower Drive and Hancock Drive ("school" crosswalk).
9' Street and Cherry/Locust ("school" crosswalk).
Median Refuge Islands
■ Iris Avenue & 15'" Street - Median refuge island
(With State Law - Yield to pedestrian signing).
■ Arapahoe Avenue & 13" Street - Median refuge island
(With State Law- Yield to pedestrian signing).
• Broadway & Ash Street - Median refuge island
(NO Crosswalk or other amenities, due to 45 mph speed limit and six travel lanes).
Traffic Signals
• Canyon Boulevard and 6" Street (Intersection Signal)
■ 3900 block of Table Mesa Drive (Pedestrian only Signal)
■ 4500 block of Table Mesa Drive (Pedestrian only Signal)
Crossing Treatments (planned for future implementation)
■ 9" Street and Mapleton Avenue (possible median refuge)
• Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln Avenue (possible median refuge)
■ 17' Street and Marine Street ("school" crosswalk w/ possible median refuge)
• Broadway and Norwood Avenue (possible median refuge)
3000 block of Arapahoe Avenue (possible Pedestrian only signal)
■ 27" Way and Moorhead Avenue (possible median refuge)
• Canyon Boulevard and 19" Street (possible Intersection Signal)
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page 5
Attachment B
Crossing Treatment "demonstration" Locations
(Constructed or Planned)
Demonstration Locations (implemented 2000 to present)
Pedestrian actuated flashing beacons
• Canyon Boulevard and 11" Street (WITH in-pavement lighting)
• 2800 block of Pearl Street (NO in-pavement lighting)
■ Broadway and Pleasant Avenue (NO in-pavement lighting)
Broadway and 18" Street (NO in-pavement lighting)
Pearl Parkway and 48" Street (NO in-pavement lighting)
"State Law - Yield to Pedestrians" signing
9" Street and Walnut Avenue (with Orange Barrel device)
I I' Street and Arapahoe Avenue (with Orange Barrel device)
■ 15' Street and University Avenue (with Orange Barrel device)
17' Street and University Avenue (with Median Refuge island)
• 19' Street and Sumac Avenue ("school' crosswalk with Orange Barrel device)
9" Street and Hawthorn Avenue ("school" crosswalk - No Orange Barrel)
■ Iris Avenue and 15" Street (with Median Refuge island)
■ Arapahoe Avenue and 13'h Street (with Median Refuge island)
• Alpine Avenue west of Broadway (with Orange Barrel device)
Demonstration Locations (planned for future implementation)
■ Folsom Avenue and Walnut Avenue (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
Broadway and Norwood Avenue (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
■ 27" Way and Moorhead Drive (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
28" Street south of Iris Avenue (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
Valmont Road and Centergreen Drive (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
Folsom Avenue and Grove Street (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
Baseline east of Broadway (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
Baseline west of 30t' Street (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
Canyon Boulevard & 21" Street (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
• Valmont Road and 34" Street (Ped actuated flashing beacons)
■ Mapleton Avenue and 8t' Street (State Law signs w/ median)
• 19' Street and Upland Drive (State Law signs w/ Orange Barrel)
• 19" Street and Norwood Avenue (State Law signs w/ Orange Barrel)
• 13" Street and North Street (State Law signs w/ Orange Barrel)
• 9" Street and Mapleton Avenue (State Law signs w/ Orange Barrel or median)
■ College Avenue west of Broadway (State Law signs w/ Orange Barrel)
■ Pearl Street and 16' Street (State Law signs w/ Orange Barrel)
■ Pearl Street and 19" Street (State Law signs w/ Orange Barrel)
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page 6
Attachment C
Pedestrian Crossing Treatment "Demonstrations"
Summary of Effectiveness Results
Table A: Compliance Results -Pedestrian actuated flashing beacons
Vehicle Pedestrian
Location Volume Volume Compliance Compliance Percent
(per day) (three hours) (Before) (After) Increase
Canyon & 11th 20,000 vpd 460 38 percent 74 percent +95 percent
2900 Pearl Street 22,000 vpd 70 26 percent 54 percent +108 percent
Broadway & 18' 35,000 vpd 330 23 percent 70 percent +204 percent
Broadway & Pleasant 35,000 vpd 500 16 percent 70 gercent +338 percent
Table 13: Compliance Results - "State Law -Yield to Pedestrians" signing
Vehicle Pedestrian
Location Volume Volume Compliance Compliance Percent
(per day) (three hours) (Before) (After) Increase
9' & Walnut 10,000 vpd 190 54 percent 93 percent +72 percent
15" & University 10,000 vpd 180 47 percent 69 percent +47 percent
17'h& University 10,000 vpd 170 68 percent 89 percent +31 percent
11' & Arapahoe 12,000 vpd 110 (a) 38 percent 89 percent +134 percent
13` & Arapahoe 14,000 vpd 140 34 percent 65 percent +91 percent
15'" & Iris 20,000 vpd 10 5 percent 50 percent +900 percent
(a) Only one hour of Pedestrian data was collected at 11" and Arapahoe. There were 110
crossings in the one hour time period.
NOTE: Many of the daily traffic volumes have been estimated from peak hour turning movement
counts and should be considered approximations.
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page 7
Attachment D
Pedestrian Crossing Treatment "Demonstrations"
Summary of Accident Trends
Accident Descriptions
Rear-end: This accident involved a vehicle stopping for a pedestrian or bicyclist in the crosswalk
and getting hit from behind by another vehicle.
Bike/Ped: This accident involved a pedestrian or bicyclist entering the crosswalk and getting hit
by a motor vehicle that did not yield to them.
Injury: This accident resulted in at least one person being injured. These accidents were either
"rear-end" collisions or " Bike/Ped" collisions.
Intersection: Canyon Boulevard and 11`h Street
Installation Date: January, 2000
Before Condition studied: 1998 and 1999 (24 months)
After Condition studied: 2000 and 2001 (24 months)
Before Condition After Condition
Total Collisions / Total Collisions /
[Collisions per month] [Collisions per month] Difference (Percentage)
Rear-end Collisions 12 [0.50] 8 [0.33] -34 percent
Bike/Ped Collisions 2 [0.08] 2 [0.08] 0 percent
Total 14 [0.58] 10 [0.42] -28 percent
Injury Collisions 5 [0.21] 4 [0.17] -19 percent
Intersection: 91n Street and Walnut Avenue
Installation Date: January, 2000
Before Condition studied: 1998 and 1999 (24 months)
After Condition studied: 2000 and 2001 (24 months)
Before Condition After Condition
Total Collisions / Total Collisions /
[Collisions per month] [Collisions per month] Difference (Percentage)
Rear-end Collisions 2 [0.08] 1 [0.04] -50 percent
Bike/Ped Collisions 1 [0.04] 0 [0.00] -100 percent
Total 3 [0.12] 1 [0.04] -67 percent
Injury Collisions 2 [0.08] 0 [0.00] -100 percent
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page 8
Intersection: Broadway & 18' Street
Installation Date: August, 2001
Before Condition studied: Jan, 2000 through August, 2001 (19 months)
After Condition studied: Sept, 2001 through mid-March, 2002 (7.5 months)
Before Condition After Condition
Total Collisions / Total Collisions /
[Collisions per month] [Collisions per month] Difference (Percentage)
Rear-end Collisions 8 [0.42] 4 [0.53] +26 percent
Bike/Ped Collisions 1 [0.05] 1 [0.13] +160 percent
Total 9 [0.47] 5 [0.67] +43 percent
Injury Collisions 4 [0.21] 2 [0.26] +24 percent
Intersection: Broadway & Pleasant
Installation Date: August, 2001
Before Condition studied: Jan, 2000 through August, 2001 (19 months)
After Condition studied: Sept, 2001 through mid-March, 2002 (7.5 months)
Before Condition After Condition
Total Collisions / Total Collisions /
[Collisions per month] [Collisions per month] Difference (Percentage)
Rear-end Collisions 5 [0.26] 9 [1.20] +360 percent
Bike/Ped Collisions 0 [0.00] 2 [0.26] Infinite Increase
Total 5 [0.26] 11 [1.47] +465 percent
Injury Collisions 2 [0.11] 4 [0.53] +382 percent
Of the remaining demonstration locations, there were no significant accident trends associated
with the pedestrian crossing devices. Most locations had no collisions associated with the
crosswalk area. The following accident trends were of interest:
• The median at the intersection of Iris Avenue and 15th Street was installed approximately 6
months ago. Since then it has been hit twice by motor vehicles and the signs in the median
have had to be replaced.
• In the year prior to the construction of the median and ped-actuated flashing beacons, in the
2900 block of Pearl Street, there was one pedestrian hit crossing the roadway (with no
crosswalk present). In the year following the placement of this device, there was also one
pedestrian hit crossing in the crosswalk.
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page 9
~s
a
Attachment E
Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Warrants
Issues to consider during document update
The following is a summation of several issues which have been brought to staff's attention,
pertaining to the City of Boulder's Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Warrants (PCTW) document.
• The PCTW document specifies 50 pedestrian crossings per hour as the minimum for
placement of a striped, marked crosswalk. Should this threshold be lower?
• When the City of Boulder, Safe Access to Schools policies were adopted, there were
references to several pedestrian crossing treatments which were school crossings. These
treatments and their warrants for installation need to be included in the PCTW.
• The term "Over-riding Need" is somewhat nebulous. Some better definition of this term is
needed. Also, does there need to be a proviso for Over-riding Need, or should locations
always meet a pedestrian crossing threshold before installation is considered? Some
examples include pedestrian signals constructed on Table Mesa Drive and crosswalks
requested along the College Avenue corridor.
• On roadways where the traffic volume conditions are so harsh that minimum pedestrian
crossing volumes will not likely be met, due to safety concerns, should there be a different
threshold or evaluation criteria? Examples would be high volume, four lane roadways like
Broadway, Table Mesa or 30th Street.
• Should there be a standardization of marked crosswalks? What role do brick or concrete
treatments have in delineating a pedestrian crossing location? Can there be crossing
treatments like brick crosswalks which are not striped and marked crosswalks?
• Are there circumstances where an unprotected crosswalk would not be considered safe? In
such situations, what can be done to allow pedestrians the best crossing opportunity without
creating a legal crosswalk? An example would be the current crossing on the south leg of the
Broadway and Ash Street intersection,
TAB AGENDA ITEM-April 8, 2002 Page 10