Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 01-14-2014 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 14, 2014) 5:00 p.m. MEDICINE LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. TOPICS A. Update on Hollydale 115kV Project and substation site B. Crosswalk signing and marking C. Update on Plymouth Ice Center training facility D. Set Future Study Sessions 3. ADJOURN Special Council Meeting 1 of 1 January 14, 2014 rp)City of Agenda 2APlymouthNumber: Adding Quality to Life To: Dave Callister, City Manager SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Prepared by: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works January 14, 2014 Reviewed by: Item: Update on Xcel Energy Hollydale 115 Project 1. ACTION REQUESTED: N/A. 2. BACKGROUND: On December 10, 2013, Xcel Energy submitted a petition to withdraw their proposed Hollydale 115kV project for reasons cited in their petition without prejudice (Attachment 1). The opponents of the project are skeptical that Xcel Energy may simply propose another 115kV transmission line and simply relocate it to a slightly different route in the same general vicinity thus circumventing the recent legislation authored by Senator Bonoff and Representative Anderson (Attachment 2). This law was intended to prohibit consideration of a transmission alternative to Xcel's energy upgrade needs unless no other viable alternatives can be proven to exist. Since December 10, 2013, a number of comments and proposed orders granting the Xcel's request to withdraw with prejudice have been submitted by opponents to the Hollydale project (Attachment 3). On December 23, 2013, Xcel Energy submitted their own proposed order citing lack of precedence or law supporting the imposition of conditions on their withdrawal (Attachment 4). There has been no final order from the Administrative Law Judge granting the withdrawal as of the writing of this report. 3. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A. 4. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments 1 through 4 Page 1 f XcelEnergyo t . December 10, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND U.S. MAIL Hon. Eric L. Lipman Administrative Law Judge State of Minnesota, Office of Administrative Hearings PO Sox 64620 St. Paul, MN 55164-0620 Mara N. Koeller Associate Attorney 414 Nicollet Mall, 5th Floor Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.215.4605 Fax: 612.215.4544 Re: In the Matter of the Route PermitApplication for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-152 OAH Docket No. 8-2500-22806-2 In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate ofNeedfor the Holl dale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina MPUC Docket No. E002, ET2/CN-12-113 OAH Docket No.: 8-2500-23147-2 Dear Judge Lipman: Enclosed please find Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, and Great River Energy's Petition to Withdraw Pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications filed today through www.edockets.state.mmus. A copy of this filing is also being served via e-mail or mail upon the persons on the Official Service Lists. Thank you. Sincerely, A(IA40&L. Mara N. Koeller cc: Service Lists 5869119v1 Page 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Beverly Jones Heydinger Chair David Boyd Commissioner Nancy Lange J. Dennis O'Brien Betsy Wergin IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, AND GREAT RIVER ENERGY, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT COOPERATIVE, FOR A ROUTE PERMIT FOR THE HOLLYDALE 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT IN THE CITIES OF PLYMOUTH AND MEDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR THE HOLLYDALE 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT IN THE CITIES OF PLYMOUTH AND MEDINA Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-152 OAH Docket No. 8-2500-22806-2 MPUC Docket No. E002,ET2/CN-12-113 OAH Docket No. 8-2500-23147-2 PETITION TO WITHDRAW PENDING CERTIFICATE OF NEED AND ROUTE PERMIT APPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, on behalf of itself and its co -applicant Great River Energy, a cooperative corporation, (collectively the Applicants), respectfully submits this Petition to Withdraw the pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit applications for the Hollydale Project in the above -referenced dockets. As these dockets progressed, we received feedback from our customers in the project area and other key stakeholders expressing concern over our preferred route alternative. While we should have foreseen the concerns of our stakeholders, we now appreciate that our preferred route is very problematic. With that said, we believe there remains a need for additional infrastructure that will allow us to continue to reliably serve our customers, but there may be better alternatives to meet that need. Because additional time is needed to develop those alternatives and, more Page 3 importantly, to build a consensus around a solution that can be supported by more of our stakeholders, we submit this request to withdraw our initial petitions. Withdrawal will allow time for the Applicants to work collaboratively with residents and other stakeholders on an infrastructure solution and route for this community. After this public outreach and broader acceptance of a solution is complete, we intend to seek the necessary regulatory approvals, which we believe, at this time, would involve submitting new Certificate of Need and Route Permit applications. This past year the Hollydale Law, 2013 Minn. Laws Chapter 57 Section 2, which is applicable to our currently pending applications, was passed. While the law, as currently written, would not apply to the new applications, we fully intend to comply with the intention of the law by carrying forward in our new Certificate of Need application all the system alternatives, including distribution alternatives, which were developed during this proceeding. We believe this will allow a robust examination of numerous distribution alternatives and will address the concerns implicated by the Hollydale Law. We respectfully request that the Administrative Law Judge suspend the procedural schedule and certify this withdrawal petition to the Commission for decision pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.7600. It is appropriate to certify this petition to the Commission because granting the Applicants' withdrawal request will result in termination of these two proceedings. Minn. R. 1400.7600(B). DISCUSSION We appreciate the thoughtful and thorough participation and evaluation of alternatives by the Department of Commerce, other parties, landowners, and stakeholders in both the Certificate of Need and Route Permit proceedings which began in mid -2011. Our initial filing included a preferred route for the new 115 kV line along an existing 69 kV transmission line corridor. In the years following that filing, we received comments from landowners and other interested stakeholders indicating their opposition to this route. Most recently, in November 2013, nearly 300 landowners and stakeholders attended public hearings to express their concerns about the project and our preferred route alternative. In light of the input received to date and our updated load forecasts, we have reevaluated the transmission project submitted in the original applications. Based on that reevaluation, we continue to forecast a need for additional infrastructure to reliably serve our customers in the project area. Furthermore, we have concluded that 2 Page 4 our original preferred route is not widely supported; meaning additional analysis and outreach is needed before we can present a more acceptable route alternative. Withdrawal serves three distinct purposes. First, while developing new applications will take some time, we believe now is the appropriate time to take a step back and to work collaboratively with stakeholders. We appreciate that our withdrawal request may not be the preferred path forward for stakeholders who have already invested significant time and effort in the hearings, meetings, and filings that have already taken place in,these dockets. However, we believe that without the time pressure presented in the current proceedings, we will have time to develop a new solution in collaboration with residents and other stakeholders to ensure the overall success of the project and acceptance by the community. Once we develop a more widely accepted solution, we intend to seek the appropriate regulatory approvals. Second, due to the length of time these dockets have been pending and the numerous options that have been explored, we are concerned that the record may be unclear. Rather than developing and introducing a new solution into this record, we believe starting anew will facilitate review and assessment of the available options, including our preferred solution. As the information contained in the original applications assume a route along the existing 69 kV corridor, a withdrawal of the currently pending applications will promote a full and clear record. Third, withdrawal of the original applications will also provide the Applicants the opportunity to update relevant information contained in the original applications. For example, since the filing of the Route Permit application in June 2011, many new housing developments have been constructed in the project area. A new application would allow us to analyze the impacts the project will have on these new residential developments. In addition, submission of new applications will allow the Applicants to update the engineering analysis of the transmission and distribution needs in the area based on the most current load data. Recent engineering analysis of the 2013 peak loads demonstrates a need in this area remains and supersedes much of the earlier engineering analysis that has been provided during the two year pendency of this proceeding. In closing, both Xcel Energy and Great River Energy understand their obligation to provide safe and adequate service and will develop a plan to address the load -serving deficiencies in the Medina and Plymouth areas. 3 Page 5 CONCLUSION Xcel Energy and Great River Energy respectfully request that this Petition to Withdraw be granted and that the Administrative Law Judge issue an 1 Vh Pre -Hearing Order suspending the contested case proceedings and certifying this Petition to the Commission for decision. Dated: December 10, 2013 Northern States Power Company Respectfully submitted by: s/ Mara Koeller MAPA KOELLER ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY M Page 6 IN THE MATTER OF THE ROUTE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE HOLLYDALE 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT IN THE CITIES OF PLYMOUTH AND MEDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR THE HOLLYDALE 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT IN THE CITIES OF PLYMOUTH AND MEDINA PUC DOCKET No. E002/TL-11-152 OAH DOCKET No. 8-2500-22806-2 PUC DOCKET No. E002, ET2/CN-12-113 OAH DOCKET No.: 8-2500-23147-2 Theresa A. Senart hereby certifies that on the 10th day of December, 2013, she filed a true and correct copy of Northern States Power Company and Great River Energy's Petition to Withdraw Pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications by posting the same on www.edockets.state.mn.us in the above -referenced dockets. Said Petition to Withdraw is also served via U.S. Mail or e-mail as designated on the attached Official Service Lists on file with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in the above -referenced dockets. sfThffesaA. Senart Theresa Senart 5869243v1 Page 7 The Laws of Minnesota 2013, chapter 57, section 2 states: 1 (a) A high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 100 kilovolts or more proposed 2 to be located within a city in the metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes 3 section 473.121, subdivision 2, for which a route permit application was filed 4 between June 2011 and August 2011, and a certificate of need application was filed 5 between June 2012 and August 2012, to rebuild approximately eight miles of 69 6 kilovolt transmission with a high-voltage transmission line to meet local area 7 distribution needs, must be approved in a certificate of need proceeding conducted 8 under Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.243. The certificate of need may be approved 9 only if the commission finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is no 10 feasible and available distribution level alternative to the transmission line. In making 11 its findings the commission shall consider the factors provided in applicable law and 12 rules including, without limitation, cost-effectiveness, energy conservation and the 13 protection or enhancement of environmental quality. 14biFurther proceedings regarding the routing of a high-voltage transmission line 15 described in this section shall be suspended until the Public Utilities Commission has 16 made a determination that the transmission line is needed. 17 18 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment and 19 applies to route permits and certificate of need applications pending on or after that 20 date. Laws of Minnesota 2013, chapter 57, section 2. Page 8 Paula Goodman Maccabee, Esq. Just Change Law Offices 1961 Selby Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota 55104, pmaccabce@justchangelaw.comjustchangelaw.com Ph: 651-646-8890, Fax: 651-646-5754, Ce11651-775-7128 http://justchangclaw.com December 11, 2013 Honorable Eric L. Lipman Administrative Law Judge Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings PO Box 64620 St. Paul, MN 55164-0620 Re: In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate of Need for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina MPUC Docket No. E002, ET2/CN-12-113, OAH Docket No.: 8-2500-23147-2 In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities ofPlymouth and Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-152, OAH Docket No. 8-2500-22806-2 Dear Judge Lipman: Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance (Alliance) has received electronic notice of Applicants' December 10, 2013 Petition to Withdraw Pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications in the above -captioned Hollydale transmission line matters. This letter is also being filed in the electronic docket system and served upon parties. The Alliance would request, at your earliest convenience, that we receive clarification of the status of our December 19, 2013 deadline for filing expert testimony given the Applicants' petition for withdrawal of their applications. We understand that the Applicants have requested that this matter be certified to the Public Utilities Commission for decision. The Alliance believes that the record developed in the proceedings conducted thus far should inform any decision on the Applicants' petition, and we would request that the concerns of the community be addressed and communicated to the Commission as the petition moves forward. The Alliance would not object to withdrawal of the Hollydale applications if the Applicants are doing so in good faith so that they may proceed to meet electric reliability needs in the Plymouth area by constructing distribution level improvements that do not require a certificate of need. We would request verification on the record that Applicants are intending to make such improvements. We would further request that any acceptance of Applicants' petition for withdrawal include a requirement for a compliance filing with the Commission when the distribution level improvements have been made. The Alliance is concerned that Applicants may be withdrawing the certificate of need application merely to resubmit the project with a new filing date in an effort to circumvent the law enacted in Minnesota Session Laws 2013, Chapter 57, Section 2 which provides that a "certificate of need Page 9 Judge Eric L. Lipman December 11, 2013 Page 2 may be approved only if the commission finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is no feasible and available distribution level alternative to the transmission line." We would request verification on the record that Applicants do not intend to abuse the Public Utilities Commission process by withdrawing their certificate of need (CON) application only to repackage and resubmit that application. We would further request that any acceptance of Applicants' petition for withdrawal provide that should Applicants resubmit a CON application for a 115 kV transmission line from the Medina substation to the Hollydale substation and then to a new perimeter substation near I-494, such a project could only be approved if the Commission makes the finding required by Minnesota Session Laws 2013, Ch. 57, Section 2. The Alliance would respectfully suggest that a hearing in person or in a conference call be held under your auspices as soon as it may be arranged in order to address Applicants' petition and our concerns. Sincerely yours, Paula Goodman Maccabee Attorney for Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance Page 10 BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION In Re Application for a Certificate of Need For the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina In Re Application for a Route Permit for the Hollydale 115 1cV Transmission Line in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Minnesota PUC Docket E002/CN-12-113 OAH Docket: 8-2500-23147-2 PUC Docket E/002/TL-11-152 OAH Docket: 8-2500-22806-2 BARRY FAMILY COMMENT ON PETITION TO WITHDRAW APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF NEED AND ROUTE PERMIT These Comments are submitted on behalf of the Barry Family in response to the Applicants' Petition to Withdraw Pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications, dockets above -captioned, for the Hollydale transmission project, a 115 kV transmission line through Plymouth and Medina: Route Application, Figure 2, p. 4. Applicants admit that "we now appreciate that our preferred route is very problematic," and "there may be better alternatives to meet that need." Applicant Petition, p. 1. Page 11 We have concluded that our original preferred route is not widely supported, meaning additional analysis and outreach is needed before we can present a more acceptable route alternative. Id., p. 2-3. Applicants will be looking for "broader acceptance of a solution," after which they intend to come back to the Commission with a new application. Id., p. 2, 3. They note that the disapproving stakeholders "have already invested significant time and effort in the hearings, meetings, and filings that have already taken place in these dockets," and "the length of time these dockets have been pending and the numerous options that have been explored." Applicants also claim they're requesting withdrawal in order to address service issues: In closing, both Xcel Energy and Great River Energy understand their obligation to provide safe and adequate service and will develop a plan to address the load - serving deficiencies in the Medina and Plymouth areas. Id., p. 3. Stakeholders have compared the project, above, with locations of service deficiencies: Figure SJ: Greater Study Area 2006 N-113.8 kV Substation Transfannet disks— Single Contingency Figure 5.4; Greater Study Area 2020 N-1 Substation Ttansionner dicks — Single Contingency Figures 5.4 and 5.4, CoN Application, App. B.1. Applicants have noted the substance and volume of objections to this project: We appreciate the thoughtful and thorough participation and evaluation of alternatives by the Department of Commerce, other parties, landowners, and stakeholders in both the 2 Page 12 Certificate of Need and Route Permit proceedings which began in mid -2011. Our initial filing included a preferred route for the new 115 kV line along an existing 69 kV transmission line corridor. In the years following that filing, we received comments from landowners and other interested stakeholders indicating their opposition to this route. Most recently, in November 2013, nearly 300 landowners and stakeholders attended public hearings to express their concerns about the project and our preferred alternative. Applicant Withdrawal Petition, P. 2. A primary reason that Applicants' preferred route is not acceptable to landowners and residents is the "bait and switch" nature of their 115 kV proposal. The 69 kV line that exists in that corridor through neighborhoods and next to their homes is rarely used, and only used in emergencies. This is not currently an active transmission line. Since the 69 kV line was built, the community has changed. What Applicants have proposed in these applications is something of an entirely different character than what residents and landowners had when they moved in and what they now live with. What further exacerbates opposition to this project is that it is claimed to be needed to address distribution deficiencies along the 494 and Hwy. 55 commercial and industrial corridors, yet the route proposed is through an entirely different area. Medina, and the Barry Family home, are not in the "Study Area" maps, above. Applicants also propose use of infrastructure of a different character, transmission for a distribution need. The route proposed is through a residential area not in need of electricity, it is an area not affected by distribution deficiencies, and transmission would not relieve distribution issues in the area. Use of the 69 kV route as a corridor for a 115 kV line through Plymouth and Medina is not acceptable to residents and stakeholders. Applicants admit their preferred route is problematic and there may be better alternatives. Residents, landowners, local businesses, local govermnents, and other stakeholders have invested significant effort, time, and money to challenge this transmission project, and have been successful in raising their concerns. 3 Page 13 Applicants admit that they are seeking withdrawal of the Applicants to help them in their search of a "better solution." A "better solution" does not include recycling this soundly rejected project. A "better solution" does not include a second round of applications for an unacceptable 115 kV transmission line on a 69kV transmission corridor containing a transmission line now only used in emergencies. Now is the time to prohibit Applicants from coming back with the same proposal and to require that a "better alternative" be proposed. Residents and landowners already heavily invested and should not have to go through the same tortured process again. Applicants have requested certification of their Petition for Withdrawal to the Commission. The Barry Family requests that the Certification to the Commission recommend that Withdrawal be granted, with prejudice. We specifically request that the Commission Order include prohibition of another proposal to use the 69 kV corridor through Plymouth and Medina as a corridor for transmission expansion and/or uprate, and that Applicants be prohibited from changing the character of the existing 69 V line via increased use or reconductoring for increased capacity. In the alternative, the Barry Family requests that Applicant's Petition for Withdrawal be granted, upon condition that the existing 69 kV transmission like be removed and that easements be returned to the fee owners. Respectfully submitted: December 16, 2013 M Carol A. Overland #254617 Attorney for the Barry Family LEGALECTRIC OVERLAND LAW OFFICE 1110 West Avenue Red Wing, MN 55066 612)227-8638 overland@legalectric.org Page 14 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSON In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate of Need for the Hollydale 115kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Hennepin County In the Matter of the Application for a Route Permit for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Hennepin County OAH: 8-2500-23147-2 MPUC: E-002, ET2/CN-12-1.13 OAH: 8-2500-22806-2 MPUC: E002/TL-11-152 WESTERN PLYMOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE COMMENTS ON PETITION TO WITHDRAW APPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION On December 10, 2013, Applicants filed a Petition to Withdraw Pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications for the Hollydale transmission line. Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance (Alliance) requests that any such petition only be approved with prejudice, specifying that Applicants may not propose either a 115 ICV line from the Medina Substation through the Hollydale Substation to an area near I-94 or a rebuild/upgrade of transmission along the currently inactive 69 kV transmission corridor in Plymouth and Medina. The Alliance further requests that any acceptance of Applicants' petition for withdrawal include instructions that Xcel Energy meet distribution needs in the Plymouth area with low voltage feeder distribution facilities without further delay. Finally, the Alliance expresses its concern that the hundreds of citizen comments in this record not be sacrificed in this process. Should Applicants return with any transmission proposal Page 15 through the Plymouth area, we request that public hearing transcripts and citizen comments in the Hollydale dockets be incorporated in any future record. DISCUSSION An administrative law judge has the authority to recommend dismissal where a case has become moot or for other reasons. Minn. R. 1400.5500(K), Minn. R. 1400.8606, subp. 3(I). However, no Minnesota statutes or rules specify the conditions under which a public utility may withdraw an application for a certificate of need or route permit in a contested case or the factors an administrative law judge should consider in recommending dismissal. The Alliance has identified no previous case before the Public Utilities Commission where an Applicant sought to withdraw its application for a certificate of need or route permit in the midst of a contested case. Minnesota's rules and precedent in civil cases governing dismissal of a complaint are instructive. Where parties do not stipulate to the dismissal, a court order is required. Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.01(a). Where a court order is required, counterclaims must be preserved and the court may provide "such terms and conditions as the court deems proper." Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.01(b). A party cannot use voluntary dismissal of a case without prejudice to circumvent statutory requirements for pursuing a claim. Lombardo v. Seydow-Weber, 529 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1995). See also Pond Hollow Homeowners Ass'n v. Ryland Group, 779 N.W.2d 920, 924 (Minn. Ct. App 2010). Moreover, where a case is failing on its merits, it is appropriate to deny plaintiff's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice and to summarily rule for the defense. Altimus v. Hyundai Motor Co., 578 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). Minnesota policy on dismissal of actions is that "the right to dismiss without prejudice ought to be limited to a fairly short period after commencement of the action when prejudice to opponents is likely to be minimal." Id., at 411. 2- Page 16 Dismissal without prejudice unfairly denies opposing parties a defense where a plaintiff seeks dismissal due to the weakness of its case, Id., at 412, citing Grover v. Eli Lilly and Co., 33 F.3d 716, 719 (6th Cir. 1994) ("At the point when the law clearly dictates a result for the defendant, it is unfair to subject him to continued exposure to potential liability by dismissing the case without prejudice."); Chodorow v. Roswick, 160 F.R.D. 522, 524 (E.D. Penn. 1995) (when plaintiffs sole motive is his "realization that his case has been weakened by events and his corresponding hope that the passage of time will somehow improve things for him" the court should grant plaintiffs motion to dismiss with prejudice). Dismissal with Prejudice In this case, no settlement has been reached and intervenors do not stipulate to dismissal. Based on the record and consistent with Minnesota Session Laws of 2013, Chapter 57, Section 2 Hollydale law"), the Alliance has provided an affirmative alternative to the certificate of need application. Specifically, the Alliance has argued that the Applicants' studies, pre -filed expert testimony, public testimony from elected officials and hundreds of citizens, and the Department of Commerce Environmental Report demonstrate that underground low -voltage feeders and new substation facilities provide a feasible and available alternative to Applicants' transmission proposal. The Alliance and others have demonstrated the weaknesses of Applicants' applications and why the certificate of need must fail on its merits. Applicants' petition to withdraw admits, "we now appreciate that our preferred route is very problematic," and "there may be better alternatives to meet that need." (App. Petition, p. 1). The petition tacitly acknowledges the likelihood that they would not be successful going forward with the contested case hearing. Accordingly, Applicants' withdrawal should be with prejudice. Additionally, Applicants must not be permitted to use withdrawal to circumvent the 3- Page 17 existing Hollydale law, which disfavors a transmission solution to local distribution needs in the Plymouth area. The law requires a certificate of need before a high voltage transmission line can be approved to rebuild approximately eight miles of a 69 kV transmission corridor and provides, The certificate of need may be approved only if the commission finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is no feasible and available distribution level alternative to the transmission line." Minn. Session Laws 2013, Ch. 57, Sec. 2(a). The Alliance is concerned that Applicants' withdrawal of applications for a certificate of need and route permit without prejudice would indeed circumvent statutory requirements and deprive intervenors of a defense to Applicants' proposals on which they are prevailing on the merits. Applicants have stated in their petition to withdraw that they believe the Hollydale law would not apply to the new applications they intend to file. (App. Petition, p. 2) Yet while Applicants have stated, "we fully intend to comply with the intention of the law," they have nonetheless characterized the law's intent as something that would be met "by carrying forward in our new Certificate of Need application all the system alternatives, including distribution alternatives, which were developed during this proceeding." (App. Petition, p. 2). The legislators who authored the Hollydale law have testified, though, that the intention of the law was to disfavor a high voltage transmission line and that the Applicants "alternatives" that impose a 115 kV transmission line on distribution alternatives are inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the law. Carrying these high voltage transmission line alternatives forward again would not "comply with the intention" of the Hollydale law, but defeat its purpose. The Alliance believes that a dismissal must be with prejudice to prevent an end run around the Hollydale law and misuse of process when a contested case is failing on its merits. The Alliance requests that the terms for dismissal with prejudice preclude the following: 4- Page 18 Any 115 kV transmission project from the Medina Substation through the Hollydale Substation to an area in Plymouth near I-94; and Any rebuild or upgrade of the existing inactive 69 kV corridor through Plymouth and Medina for transmission infrastructure. Meeting Distribution Level Needs In addition to opposing new transmission in Plymouth and Medina, the Alliance has supported distribution alternative A2, consisting of approximately 19 miles of underground 13.8 kV feeder lines and new substation facilities. Applicants' petition suggests that they will delay implementation of a distribution alternative, while continuing to press for high voltage transmission. Applicants state, "We have concluded that our original preferred route is not widely supported, meaning additional analysis and outreach is needed before we can present a more acceptable route alternative," (App. Petition, p. 2-3), "After this public outreach and broader acceptance of a solution is complete, we intend to seek the necessary regulatory approvals which we believe, at this time, would involve submitting new Certificate of Need and Route Permit applications." (Id., p. 2), if the application is withdrawn, "we will have time to develop a new solution." (Id., p. 3) The Alliance believes that no further "outreach" or "new solution" is necessary. There is broad public support to meet distribution level needs in the Plymouth area with a distribution scale alternative, such as alternative A2. Applicants' plan for extended public "outreach" will only serve to elevate concerns about brownouts and unpaired reliability and to deny the community the underground feeder solution that they have already affirmatively proposed. Further delay in implementing distribution improvements would hold the community hostage to approve yet another transmission line proposed by Applicants. In addition to denying the applications with prejudice, the Alliance requests that 5- Page 19 Applicants be directed to meet the distribution needs of the Plymouth area by implementing alternative A2 or a comparable alternative consisting of underground low -voltage fccders and substation facilities. Compliance filings should be required to demonstrate their progress. Preservation of Public Record Applicants' recognize that citizens opposing their transmission proposals "have already invested significant time and effort in the hearings, meetings, and filings that have already taken place in these dockets." (App. Petition, p. 3) The cruelest irony would be if the very investment and efficacy of opposition would result in the loss of the record created, without ever reaching a final report in this hotly contested case. Applicants could then come before a new administrative law judge and Commission and claim that they have a clean slate. A contested case record is usually maintained until issuance of an administrative law judge's final report. See Minn. R. 1400.8609, subp. 1. Where withdrawal of petitions prevents such final ruling on the merits, the Alliance suggests in the interest of justice that the record be retained and incorporated by reference should Applicants seek to construct or rebuild transmission through the Plymouth and Medina communities. Dated: December 17, 2013 Respectfully submitted, Paula Goodman Maccabee (# 129550) JUST CHANGE LAW OFFICES 1961 Selby Avenue St. Paul MN 55104 phone: 651-646-8890 cell: 651-775-7128 e-mail: pmaccabee@justchangelaw.com Attorney for Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance Page 20 Paula Goodman Maccabee Esq. Just Change Law Offices 1961 Selby Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota 55104, pmaccabee@justchangelaw.com Ph: 651-646-8890, Fax: 651-646-5754, Cell 651-775-7128 a http:/Justchan elgaw.com December 23, 2013 Honorable Eric L. Lipman Administrative Law Judge Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings PO Box 64620 St. Paul, MN 55164-0620 Re: In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate ofNeedfor the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina MPUC Docket No. E002, ET2/CN-12-113, OAH Docket No.: 8-2500-23147-2 In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-152, OAH Docket No. 8-2500-22806-2 Dear Judge Lipman: Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance submits the attached proposed Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations and Order Certifying Issues to the Commission in response to the request for submissions made in the Pre -Hearing Conference in these matters on December 17, 2013. This document has been filed in the electronic docket system and served upon parties of record and a Microsoft Word version has been sent to you electronically. Please feel free to contact me at 651-646-8890 if you have any difficulty opening the Word version of the document or an questions regarding this submission. Sincerely yours, C;241 7 42- c , Paula Goodman Maccabee Attorney for Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance Page 21 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSON In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate of Need for the Hollydale 11 5k Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Hennepin County In the Matter of the Application for a Route Permit for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Hennepin County OAH: 8-2500-23147-2 MPUC: E-002, ET2/CN-12-113 OAH: 8-2500-22806-2 MPUC: E002/TL-11-152 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER CERTIFYING ISSUES TO THE COMMISSION STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION Should the Commission Grant Applicants' Petition to withdraw Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications? If Applicants are permitted to withdraw Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications, should conditions be attached to withdrawal, and if so, what conditions? Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural History 1. On June 30, 2011, Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, and Great River Energy, a cooperative corporation (collectively Applicants") filed a route permit petition with the Commission for a 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line project in the cities of Plymouth and Medina in Hennepin County (the Hollydale project). Applicants' route permit application sought to rebuild approximately eight miles of existing 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV capacity along existing right-of- way, construct approximately 0.8 miles of new 115 kV transmission line, construct a new 115 kV substation, and modify associated transmission facilities. 1 - Page 22 2. On August 25, 2011, the Commission accepted the route permit application as substantially complete. 3. On December 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce issued a scoping decision identifying 13 route alternatives to be evaluated. Several of these route alternatives exceed ten miles in length. 4. On May 12, 2012, the Commission issued an order converting the Hollydale route permitting process to a contested case process and referred the matter to Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Eric Lipman. 5. Public hearings to update the scoping decision for the route permit petition were held on June 7, 2012 and June 8, 2012. Approximately 360 persons attended and 45 provided testimony. Following the public hearings, the record remained open and another 251 written comments were received. 6. On July 12, 2012 Applicants filed a certificate of need application for the Hollydale project. In this application, the Applicants sought to replace approximately eight miles of existing 69 kV transmission line with 115 kV line along existing right-of- way, build approximately 0.8 miles of new 115 kV transmission line, build a new 115 kV substation, and modify associated transmission facilities. 7. On September 21, 2012, the Commission found the application for a certificate of need to be substantially complete and referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for contested case proceeding. 8. In its September 21, 2012 Order, the Commission denied Applicants' motion to combine the need and route permit dockets and proposed that hearings on the need for the Hollydale project be convened before hearings on the route. 9. After pre -hearing conferences on October 23, 2012 and October 25, 2012, the ALJ issued an order on November 29, 2012 scheduling both the route permit and certificate of need proceedings. Public and evidentiary hearings on the certificate of need were scheduled for March 2013 and hearings on the route permit for May 2013. 10. In February 2013, the Department of Commerce Energy Facilities Permitting (DOC-EFP) issued an Environmental Report on the certificate of need application. The Report concluded, "A distribution alternative to the Hollydale Project is available and is feasible to construct." (Environmental Report, p. 79). 11. On February 27, 2013, Applicants requested a continuance due to pending discussions of the Hollydale project at the Legislature. 12. On March 6, 2013 and March 7, 2013, public hearings were held on the certificate of need matter. Approximately 200 persons attended. 2- Page 23 13. On April 24, 2013, the ALJ granted Applicants' request for continuance in the certificate of need case and rescheduled evidentiary hearings for September 2013. The ALJ issued an order deferring further route permit scheduling for a later date. 14. On May 13, 2013 Governor Mark Dayton signed a law enacted by the Minnesota Legislature pertaining to the Hollydale project: Sec. 2. TRANSMISSION LINE; CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED AND EVIDENCE REQUIRED. a) A high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 100 kilovolts or more proposed to be located within a city in the metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 473.121, subdivision 2, for which a route permit application was filed between June 2011 and August 2011, and a certificate of need application was filed between June 2012 and August 2012, to rebuild approximately eight miles of 69 kilovolt transmission with a high-voltage transmission line to meet local area distribution needs, must be approved in a certificate of need proceeding conducted under Minnesota Statutes, section 2166.243. The certificate of need may be approved only if the commission finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is no feasible and available distribution level alternative to the transmission line. In making its findings the commission shall consider the factors provided in applicable law and rules including, without limitation, cost-effectiveness, energy conservation, and the protection or enhancement of environmental quality. b) Further proceedings regarding the routing of a high-voltage transmission line described in this section shall be suspended until the Public Utilities Commission has made a determination that the transmission line is needed. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment and applies to route permits and certificate of need applications pending on or after that date. (Minn. Laws 2013, Ch. 57, Sec. 2, "Hollydale Law.") 15. On July 8, 2013, Applicants sought an extension of deadlines and a modification of the hearing schedule in the certificate of need proceedings. 16. On August 13, 2013, the ALJ granted Applicants' extension in the certificate of need case, set a supplemental public hearing for November 7, 2013 and evidentiary hearings for November 12-15, 2013. 17. On October 25, 2013, the DOC -DER requested a suspension or continuance for at least 30 days in the certificate of need proceedings. 18. On November 6, 2013, the ALJ issued an order cancelling deadlines to submit supplemental rebuttal testimony and the evidentiary hearings set for November 12-15, 2013. 3- Page 24 19. On November 7, 2013, supplemental public hearings were held on the certificate of need. Approximately 300 people attended. 20. On November 26, 2013, on agreement of the parties, the ALJ issued an order setting filing deadlines and scheduling evidentiary hearings for January 6-10, 2014 on the certificate of need application. 21. On December 10, 2013, Applicants filed a petition to withdraw the pending certificate of need and route permit applications for the Hollydale Project and requested that their withdrawal request be certified to the Commission. 22. On December 17, 2013, the ALJ conducted a pre -hearing conference on the Applicants' petition to withdraw and comments filed by intervenors WPNA and the Barry Family requesting that withdrawal only be approved with conditions. 23. The ALJ received over 200 requests from citizens that conditions be placed if Applicants were allowed to withdraw their petition. Petition for Withdrawal 23. Applicants stated in their petition to withdraw pending route permit and certificate of need applications: a. Applicants' preferred route "is very problematic." b. "[T]here may be better alternatives" to meet the need asserted by Applicants. c. Additional time is needed "to develop those alternatives" and "to build a consensus around a solution." d. Since Applicants' filing of their preferred route along a 69kV corridor they have received comments from landowners and other stakeholders indicating their opposition to this route. "Most recently, in November 2013, nearly 300 landowners and stakeholders attended public hearings to express their concerns about the project and our preferred route alternative." e. Applicants' original preferred route "is not widely supported." f. Additional analysis and outreach is needed before Applicants "can present a more acceptable route alternative." g. Applicants request a withdrawal of the currently pending applications to promote a full and clear record" and since "the information contained in M Page 25 the original applications assume a route along the existing 69 kV corridor." h. Applicants "fully intend to comply with the intention" of the Hollydale Law, 2013 Minn. Laws 2013, Ch, 57, Sec. 2. i. Members of the community "have already invested significant time and effort in the hearings, meetings, and filings that have already taken place in these dockets." j. Applicants understand "their obligation to provide safe and adequate service" and to address "the load -serving deficiencies in the Medina and Plymouth areas." 24. Comments of the parties were filed in the dockets and presented in the December 17, 2013 pre -hearing conference on Applicants' petition to withdraw. 25. The Department of Commerce — Division of Energy Resources supported Applicants' petition to withdraw. 26. Intervenor WPNA submitted comments, stating: a. Applicants should not be permitted "to use withdrawal to circumvent the existing Hollydale law, which disfavors a transmission solution to local distribution needs in the Plymouth area." b. "Applicants' studies, pre -filed expert testimony, public testimony from elected officials and hundreds of citizens, and the Department of Commerce Environmental Report demonstrate that underground low - voltage feeders and new substation facilities provide a feasible and available alternative to Applicants' transmission proposal ... There is broad public support to meet distribution level needs in the Plymouth area with a distribution scale alternative, such as alternative A2." c. WPNA was concerned "that the hundreds of citizen comments in this record not be sacrificed in this process." 27. WPNA asked that conditions be placed on Applicants' withdrawal: a. Precluding resubmission of a variant of the Hollydale 115 kV transmission project or a rebuild or upgrade along the existing 69 kV corridor. b. Requesting compliance filings to show that distribution improvements are promptly made to meet distribution needs in the Plymouth area. c. Maintaining and incorporating the Hollydale route permit and certificate of need record should Applicants resubmit applications. 5- Page 26 28. Intervenor Barry Family submitted comments clarifying that the 69 kV line in the route corridor proposed by Applicants runs through neighborhoods and next to their homes "is rarely used, and only used in emergencies. This is not currently an active transmission line." 29. Intervenor Barry Family asked that withdrawal be granted with prejudice: a. Prohibiting another proposal to use the 69 kV corridor through Plymouth and Medina as a corridor for transmission expansion and/or uprate, or to increase use or capacity of the 69 kV line. b. In the alternative, requesting that withdrawal include a condition that the existing 69 kV transmission line be removed and easements returned to fee owners. 30. On December 18, 2013, an order issued vacating scheduling milestones and holding Applicants' petition under advisement pending submissions from the parties. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Public Utilities Commission and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction over Applicants' Route Permit and Certificate of Need Application. 2. Applicants' Petition for Withdrawal of Pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications is properly before the ALJ pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.7600(D). 3. Applicants' pending Route Permit and Certificate of Need Application are subject to the requirements of the Hollydale Law, Minn. Laws 2013, Ch. 57, Sec. 2. The intent of this law was to disfavor a transmission solution for local distribution needs. 4. Applicants' preferred route is very problematic and is not widely supported. 5. There may be better alternatives to meet the need asserted by Applicants. 6. Additional time is needed for Applicants to develop those alternatives, build a consensus around a solution, and present a more acceptable route alternative. 7. The DOC-EFP Environmental Report stated that distribution alternatives to the Hollydale project were feasible and available. 8. Since Applicants' filing of their preferred route along a 69kV corridor they have received hundreds of comments from landowners and other interested stakeholders indicating their opposition to this route. 9. Applicants request a withdrawal of the currently pending applications to 6- Page 27 promote a full and clear record, since the information contained in the original applications assumes a route along the existing 69 kV corridor. 10. Applicants fully intend to comply with the intention of the Hollydale Law, Minn. Laws 2013, Ch. 57, Sec. 2. 11. Citizens have already invested significant time and effort in the hearings, meetings, and filings that have taken place in these dockets. 12. Applicants understand their obligation to provide safe and adequate service and to address the load -serving deficiencies in the Medina and Plymouth areas. 13. Intervenors have requested conditions be placed on Applicants' withdrawal precluding Applicants from resubmitting the Hollydale 115 kV transmission project or a rebuild or upgrade along the existing 69 kV corridor. More than 200 citizens have sent comments making a similar request. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Commission permit Applicants to withdraw their applications for a route permit and for a certificate of need for the Hollydale Project with conditions to ensure that Applicants comply with the intention of the Hollydale Law, with other representations made in Applicants' petition, and with any other conditions that serve the interests of justice in this matter that the Commission deems just and fitting. 2. That the Commission allow additional written submissions and conduct a public hearing prior to ruling on Applicants' petition to withdraw pending applications. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Joint Applicants' Motion for Certification of the question of withdrawal of their applications for a Certificate of Need and a Route Permit is GRANTED and this matter is referred to the Commission on the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations above and the complete record herein. Dated: December , 2013 7- s/Eric L. Lipman ERIC L. LIPMAN Administrative Law Judge Page 28 OAH 8-2500-23147-2 MPUC E-002 / CN -12-113 OAH 8-2500-22806-2 MPUC E-002 / TL -11-152 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate Of Need for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina and In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for The Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project In the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Hennepin County. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ORDER OF CERTIFICATION STATEMENT OF ISSUES CERTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION Should the Commission Order that the Applicants' Petition to Withdraw Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications be granted? If the Applicants' Petition to Withdraw the Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications is granted, should there be conditions attached to the withdrawal, and if so, what conditions? Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT PROCEDURAL HISTORY - The Route Permit Proceeding 1. On June 30, 2011, Applicants filed a route permit petition with the Commission for a 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line project in the cities of Plymouth and Medina in Hennepin County (the Hollydale project). The Applicants' route permit application seeks to rebuild approximately eight miles of existing 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV capacity along existing right-of-way, construct Page 29 BARRY FAMILY — PROPOSED ORDER approximately 0.8 miles of new 115 kV transmission line, construct anew 115 kV substation, and modify associated transmission facilities. 2. Applicants filed the route per under the Commission's alternative permitting process. The Commission accepted the route permit application as substantially complete in an order issued on August 25, 2011. 3. A Scoping meeting was noticed and then held on October 26, 2011. 4. On December 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce issued a Scoping Decision for the Hollydale Project Route Permit Application which included 26 route alternatives to be evaluated in the environmental document. Several of these route alternatives are greater than 10 miles in length. If one of these routes were selected for the Project, a Certificate of Need would be required. 5. On February 6, 2012, Plymouth residents Petitioned for the Full Routing process rather than the alternate routing process. 6. On May 12, 2012, the Commission Ordered the Hollydale Application be reviewed under the full permitting process and referred the matter to Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Eric Lipman for a contested case proceeding. 7. Public hearings to update the scoping decision for the route permit petition were held on June 7, 2012 and June 8, 2012. Approximately 360 persons attended and 45 testified. Following the public hearings another 251 written comments were received. 8. A Draft Scoping decision was issued by the Department of Commerce on May 25, 2012, and the Scoping Decision on August 1, 2012. 9. Several parties petitioned to intervene, including Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance, Park Nicollet Health Service, and the City of Medina, and these Petitions were granted. The Barry Family has not intervened in the Routing docket. PROCEDURAL HISTORY - The Certificate of Need Proceeding 10. On February 3, 2012, Applicants filed a proposed Notice Plan for a certificate of need for the Hollydale project. On the same date, Applicants filed a petition requesting exemption from certain data filing requirements under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7849. 11. On February 6, 2012, a landowner group within the proposed Hollydale project area, the Plymouth Residents Opposing the Hollydale Power Line Project, filed a notice of appearance and a Petition and Motion for a Certificate of Need 2 Page 30 BARRY FAMILY — PROPOSED ORDER proceeding in response to Applicants' initial route petition filings, and two Petitions with 296 and 467 signatures. 12. On February 23, 2012, the Department filed comments recommending approval of the requests for exemption and requested that Applicants submit additional information. In addition, the Department asked the Applicants to delay filing a certificate of need application until after the ALJ report in the related route permit proceeding was filed. 13. On February 23, 2012, Commerce DER filed comments on the Applicants' request for Exemption and proposed Notice Plan, and the landowner group filed additional comments stating that the notice plan had not been distributed to all potentially affected landowners and requesting notification to all those potentially affected, with the opportunity to submit comments. On March 14, 2012, Applicants filed reply comments. 14. On April 5, 2012, the Commission met to consider the matter, and on April 18, 2012, after discussion and deliberation, the Commission granted some exemptions, approved the Notice Plan and approved variance. 15. On July 2, 2012, Applicants filed their Petition for a Certificate Of Need for a 115 KV transmission line project in Plymouth and Medina, seeking to replace approximately eight miles of existing 69 kV transmission line with 115 kV line along existing right-of-way, build approximately 0.8 miles of new 115 kV transmission line, build a new 115 kV substation, and modify associated transmission facilities. 16. The Commission has received comments on this project from the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the Department) and members of the public and neighborhood groups. The Commission also received a petition from some 428 residents of Plymouth and Medina regarding alternatives to the Applicants' proposals. The Applicants filed reply comments. 17. On September 6, 2012, the Commission met to consider the matter and received comments from the Applicants, the Department, and members of the public. In its following written Order of September 21, 2012, the Commission found the Application substantially complete, and referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case proceeding, to address the issues of whether the Applicants' proposal meets the need criteria set forth in Minn. Stat. § 21613.243 and Minn. R. Chap. 7849. The parties were granted leave to raise and address other issues relevant to those criteria. The Commission declined the Applicants' request consolidate these dockets, concluding that each docket warrants its own public hearing. Page 31 BARRY FAMILY — PROPOSED ORDER 18. Since October 23, 2012, when the first Prehearing Conference was held, multiple Prehearing Conferences have been held, and eleven Pre Hearing Orders have been issued addressing procedural and scheduling matters. 19. Several parties have Petitioned to Intervene in this docket, including the Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance, the City of Medina, the Barry Family, which were granted. Park Nicollet Health Services has not intervened in the Certificate of Need docket. 20. Scoping meetings were noticed and then held on October 25 and 26, 2012, and on December 3, 2012, the Department of Commerce issued the Scoping decision. 21. The Environmental Report was released on February 6, 2013. The Report concluded, "A distribution alternative to the Hollydale Project is available and is feasible to construct." 22. On February 27, 2013, Applicants requested a continuance due to pending discussions of a bill introduced regarding the Hollydale project at the Legislature. 23. Public Hearings were held on March 6 and 7, 2013, regarding the Certificate of Need, where approximately 200 people attended and testified regarding whether the proposed transmission line project is needed and in the public interest; and regarding the costs, benefits, and impacts of various alternatives to the proposed transmission line project. The Public Comment period closed on March 25, 2013. 24.Applicants' and Intervenors Direct Testimony and Applicant's Application Supplement, Supplemental Direct, and Second Supplemental Direct Testimony were filed as scheduled. 25. On April 24, 2013, the ALJ granted Applicants' request for continuance in the certificate of need case and rescheduled evidentiary hearings for September 2013. The ALJ issued an order deferring further route permit scheduling for a later date. 26. On May 13, 2013, legislation that was passed pertaining to the Hollydale project was signed by the Governor: TRANSMISSION LINE; CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED AND EVIDENCE REQUIRED. a) A high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 100 kilovolts or more proposed to be located within a city in the metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 473.121, subdivision 2, for which a route permit application was filed N Page 32 BARRY FAMILY — PROPOSED ORDER between June 2011 and August 2011, and a certificate of need application was filed between June 2012 and August 2012, to rebuild approximately eight miles of 69 kilovolt transmission with a high-voltage transmission line to meet local area distribution needs, must be approved in a certificate of need proceeding conducted under Minnesota Statutes, section 2166.243. The certificate of need may be approved only if the commission finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is no feasible and available distribution level alternative to the transmission line. In making its findings the commission shall consider the factors provided in applicable law and rules including, without limitation, cost- effectiveness, energy conservation, and the protection or enhancement of environmental quality. b) Further proceedings regarding the routing of a high-voltage transmission line described in this section shall be suspended until the Public Utilities Commission has made a determination that the transmission line is needed. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment and applies to route permits and certificate of need applications pending on or after that date. Minn. Laws 2013, Ch. 57, Sec. 2, the "Hollydale Law." 27. On July 8, 2013, Applicants sought another extension of deadlines and a modification of the hearing schedule in the certificate of need proceedings. 28. On August 13, 2013, Applicants' request for an extension in the Certificate of Need docket was granted, a supplemental public hearing set for November 7, 2013, and evidentiary hearings for November 12-15, 2013. 29. On October 25, 2013, the Department of Commerce filed a letter requesting an extension to the deadline for filing of testimony and an opportunity to discuss this project with the parties. A Prehearing Conference was held on October 30, 2013, and a Prehearing Order issued on November 6, 2013, that cancelled scheduling milestones and the evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 12 through 15, 2013. 30. On November 6, 2013, a meeting of the parties was organized by the Department of Commerce at Plymouth City Hall regarding the "Hollydale Law." No settlement was reached. On the same day, the ALJ issued a Prehearing Order postponing filing deadlines and the evidentiary hearing. Page 33 31. On November 7, 2013, the supplemental Public Hearing for the Certificate of Need was held in two sessions at the Medina Ballroom. Approximately 300 people attended. 32. The parties agreed on November 7, 2013, to amend the schedule, and a Prehearing Order was issued on November 26, 2013, rescheduling the Certificate of Need evidentiary hearing to January 6 through 10, 2014. 33. On December 10, 2013, Xcel Energy filed a Petition to Withdraw Pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications in both dockets and requested that the Administrative Law Judge suspend the procedural schedule and certify this withdrawal petition to the Commission for decision pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.7600. 34. In the Petition to Withdraw, Applicants stated: a. The Applicants preferred route is very problematic. b. There may be better alternatives to meet the Applicants' need. c. Withdrawal will allow time for the Applicants to work collaboratively with residents and other stakeholders on an infrastructure solution and route for this community. d. After public outreach and broader acceptance of a solution, Applicants intend to submit new Certificate of Need and Route Permit applications. e. Applicants intend to comply with the intention of the Hollydale Law, 2013 Minn. Laws Chapter 57 Section 2. f. Since the original Hollydale application in mid -2011, many comments were received from landowners and other interested stakeholders indicating their opposition to this route, including nearly 300 landowners and stakeholders who attended public hearings in November, 2013, to express their concerns about the project and Applicants' preferred route. g. Stakeholders have invested significant time and effort in the hearings, meetings, and filings that have already taken place in these dockets. h. The Applicants original preferred route is not widely supported, and additional analysis and outreach is needed before Applicants can present a more widely accepted solution and a more acceptable route alternative. i. Applicants request withdrawal to promote a full and clear record, and wish to start anew with a new solution. IJ Page 34 j. Applicants understand their obligation to provide safe and adequate service and to address any load -serving deficiencies in the Medina and Plymouth areas. 35. Comments of parties were filed in the dockets. The Department of Commerce supported granting the Applicants' Petition to Withdraw. Intervenor Barry Family supported granting Applicants' Petition to Withdraw, with prejudice regarding submission of the 115 kV line on the 69 kV corridor. Intervenor WPNA filed comments and also requested that specific conditions be placed on Applicant's withdrawal. 36. On December 17, 2013, a Prehearing Conference was held, and on December 18, 2013, an order issued vacating the scheduling milestones and deadline, and the withdrawal held under advisement pending additional submissions from the parties. Based on the submissions of the parties and all things in the record, and the above Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over Applicants' Route Permit and Certificate of Need Application. 2. The Public Utilities Commission referred the Certificate of Need and Route Permit dockets to Office of Administrative Hearings, and Applicants' Petition for Withdrawal of Pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications is properly before the ALJ pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.7600(D). 3. This Recommendation and Report of the Administrative Law Judge is authorized under Minn. Stat. §14.50 and Minn. R. 1405.0400 and 1405.2400. 4. Applicants' pending Route Permit and Certificate of Need Application are subject to the requirements of the Hollydale Law, Minn. Laws 2013, Ch. 57, Sec. 2. 5. The Applicants preferred route is very problematic. 6. There may be better alternatives to meet the need as set forth by Applicants 7. The Environmental Report in the Certificate of Need docket stated that distribution alternatives to the Hollydale project were feasible and available to meet Applicants' need. 8. Applicants state a need for time to work collaboratively with residents and other stakeholders on an infrastructure solution and route for this community. 7 Page 3 5 BARRY FAMILY — PROPOSED ORDER 9. After public outreach and broader acceptance of a solution, Applicants intend to submit new Certificate of Need and Route Permit applications. 10. Applicants intend to comply with the intention of the Hollydale Law, 2013 Minn. Laws Chapter 57 Section 2. 11. Since the original Hollydale application in mid -2011, many comments were received from landowners and other interested stakeholders indicating their opposition to this route, including nearly 300 landowners and stakeholders who attended public hearings in November, 2013, to express their concerns about the project and Applicants' preferred route. 12. Residents, landowners and stakeholders have invested significant time and effort in the hearings, meetings, and filings that have already taken place in these dockets. 13. The Applicants original preferred route is not widely supported, and both the need and route proposed have been subject to broad challenge. 14. The Applicants state that additional analysis and outreach is needed before Applicants can present a more widely accepted solution and a more acceptable route alternative. 15. Applicants request withdrawal to promote a full and clear record, and wish to start anew with a new solution. 16. Applicants understand their obligation to provide safe and adequate service and to address any load -serving deficiencies in the Medina and Plymouth areas. 17. Intervenors have requested conditions be placed on Applicants' withdrawal precluding Applicants from resubmitting the Hollydale 1115 kV transmission project or a rebuild or upgrade along the existing 69 kV corridor. RECOMMENDATION That the Applicants be permitted to withdraw their Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications with the following recommended conditions: Applicants shall be prohibited from proposing any 115 kV transmission project from the Medina Substation through the Hollydale Substation to an area in Plymouth near 1-494 (as proposed in the above -captioned dockets); and Page 36 Applicants shall be prohibited from proposing any rebuild or upgrade of the existing 69 kV corridor through Plymouth and Medina for transmission infrastructure; and Such other conditions and relief as justice shall require. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Joint Applicants' Motion for Certification of the question of withdrawal of their applications for a Certificate of Need and a Route Permit is GRANTED and this matter is referred to the Commission on the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations above and the complete record herein. Dated this day of December, 2013 9 ERIC L. LIPMAN Administrative Law Judge Page 37 Xcel Ener` @ Mara N. Koeller J AssoczateAttorney 414 Nicollet Mall, 5th Floor Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.215.4605 Fax: 612.215.4544 December 23, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND U.S. MAIL Hon. Eric L. Lipman Administrative Law Judge State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings PO Box 64620 St. Paul, MN 55164-0620 Re: In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the Holl dale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities ofPlymouth and Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-152 OAH Docket No. 8-2500-22806-2 In the Matter ofthe Application for a Certificate ofNeedfor the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Prject in the Cities ofPlymouth and Medina MPUC Docket No. E002, ET2/CN-12-113 OAH Docket No.: 8-2500-23147-2 Dear Judge Lipman: Per your request, enclosed please find Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, and Great River Energy's Proposed Order Granting Petition to Certify Request for Withdrawal filed today in the above -referenced dockets through www.edockets.state.mn.us. A copy of this filing is also being served via e-mail or mail upon the persons on the Official Service Lists. Thank you. Sincerely, Mara N. Koeller cc: Service Lists 5885421v1 Page 38 OAH 8-2500-23147-2 MPUC E-002 / CN -12-113 OAH 8-2500-22806-2 MPUC E-002 / TL -11-152 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate of Need for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina and In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Hennepin County ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CERTIFY REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL On December 10, 2013, Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, on behalf of itself and its co -applicant Great River Energy, a cooperative corporation collectively, Applicants), filed a motion to withdraw the pending Certificate of Need and Route Permit applications for the Hollydale Project in the above -reference dockets. Applicants requested that their motion be certified to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Commission) for a final decision pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.7600. Two parties to the proceeding, Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance (WPNA) and the Barry Family, requested that the Commission's withdrawal order impose certain conditions on the Applicants. A teleconference with the parties was held on December 17, 2013 on these matters. During the conference, the following parties noted their appearance: Valerie T. Herring and Lisa M. Agrimonti, Briggs & Morgan, P.A., Mara N. Koeller, Xcel Energy, and Marsha Parlow and Carole Schmidt, Great River Energy, appeared on behalf of the Applicants. Paula Maccabee, Just Change Law Offices, and Kate McBride appeared on behalf of WPNA. Carol A. Overland, Legalectric - Overland Law Office, appeared on behalf of the Barry Family. Julia Anderson, Santo Cruz, and Kate O'Connell, appeared on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Commerce — Division of Energy Resources (DER). Michael Kaluzniak, Scott Ek, and Hwikwon Ham, appeared on behalf of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. In their motion, Applicants state that they seek to withdraw their applications to allow them to work collaboratively with residents and other stakeholders on an infrastructure solution and route that will meet the electrical needs of the area while also minimizing impacts to the Page 39 community. In response, WPNA and the Barry Family requested that approval of Applicants' withdrawal request be conditioned on precluding Applicants from, in the future, proposing a new 115 kV line from the Medina, Hollydale, and a new substation near I-494 or rebuilding or upgrading the existing 69 kV line in Plymouth and Medina that located in this same vicinity. As there is no statutory, rule, or prior Commission decision support for the imposition of conditions on a withdrawal of a Certificate of Need or Route Permit application, the Administrative Law Judge believes there is no legal authority for such an action and recommends that the Commission refrain from imposing the requested conditions. Moreover, as Applicants' withdrawal request will result in termination of the two proceedings, it is appropriate to certify this motion to the Commission for a final decision. Minn. R. 1400.7600(B). Having taken this matter under advisement, and based upon the submissions of the parties and the hearing record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Applicants' motion for certification to the Commission of their request for withdrawal of their applications for a Certificate of Need and a Route Permit is GRANTED. Dated: December , 2013 ERIC L. LIPMAN Administrative Law Judge Page 40 IN THE MATTER OF THE ROUTE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE HOLLYDALE 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT IN THE CITIES OF PLYMOUTH AND MEDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR THE HOLLYDALE 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT IN THE CITIES OF PLYMOUTH AND MEDINA PUC DOCKET No. E002/TL-11-152 OAH DOCKET No. 8-2500-22806-2 PUC DOCKET No. E002, ET2/CN-12-113 OAH DOCKET No.; 8-2500-23147-2 Theresa A. Senart hereby certifies that on the 23rd day of December, 2013, she filed a true and correct copy of Northern States Power Company and Great River Energy's Proposed Order Granting Petition to Certify Request for Withdrawal by posting the same on www.edockets.state.mn.us in the above -referenced dockets. Said Proposed Order Granting Petition to Certify Request for Withdrawal is also served via U.S. Mail or e-mail as designated on the attached Official Service Lists on file with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in the above -referenced dockets. s/Og esa.A. Senart Theresa Senart 5869243v2 Page 41 rp)City of Agenda 2BPlymouthNumber: Adding QuQhty to Life To: Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by: Jim Renneberg, P.E., Engineering Manager SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Reviewed by: Doran Cote, P.E., Public Works Director January 14, 2014 Item: Discuss Crosswalk Signing and Marking 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss crosswalk signing and markings and provide staff direction. 2. BACKGROUND: In March, 2013, there was an accident involving a pedestrian at a marked crosswalk at an uncontrolled intersection on Vicksburg Lane near Plymouth Creek Elementary School. After this accident and many requests over the past few years, the City Council requested staff to look into improving safety at crosswalks citywide. A team comprised of Craig Lindman, Dave Groth, Scott Kirchner, James Long and Lorin Kramer from the Police Department and Jim Renneberg from the Engineering Department met throughout 2013 and prepared the attached memorandum. 3. ATTACHMENTS: Crosswalk Safety Memorandum Page 1 MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 DATE: October 23, 2013 TO: Mike Goldstein, Chief of Police Doran Cote, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Craig Lindman, Captain Jim Renneberg, P.E., Engineering Manager SUBJECT: CROSSWALK SAFETY Back _ r In March, 2013 there was an accident at a marked crosswalk at an uncontrolled intersection on Vicksburg Lane near Plymouth Creek Elementary School. According to the police report, two pedestrians were struck by a vehicle that did not see them crossing the street. After this accident and many requests over the past few years, the City Council requested staff to look into improving safety at crosswalks citywide. Existing Crosswalks In Plymouth, there are currently 65 marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations and attached is a map showing these. The crosswalks range from being located in residential neighborhoods to 4 lane streets where speeds are 45 mph. A typical crosswalk has pedestrian signs with arrows at the crosswalk, advanced warning signs and striping on the roadway. Additionally, some crosswalks on busier roadways have stop bars and overhead lighting to enhance the crossing. Page 2 There are many marked crosswalks at controlled intersections (i.e. traffic signals and all way stops). These types of crosswalks were not analyzed in this report since motorists are required to come to a complete stop and should allow pedestrians to cross safely. Accidents involving Pedestrians Since 2008, there have been 10 reported accidents involving pedestrians. Only one of these reported accidents occurred at a marked crosswalk at an uncontrolled intersection, which was on Vicksburg Lane and noted above. The remainder of the accidents include pedestrians in a crosswalk at a controlled intersection, pedestrian crossing outside of a crosswalk, pedestrians walking on the street, construction related and a domestic assault incident. Pedestrian Counts at Uncontrolled Crosswalks To determine how many pedestrians were actually using marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, cameras were placed at four different locations that staff has received concerns about in the past. In June, 2013, pedestrian counts were collected for four days (Thursday -Sunday). The four crosswalks included: C.R. 47 @ Dallas Lane (Lake Camelot Park) -2 lane undivided roadway w/ push button flashing beacon for pedestrians C.R. 61 @ 44th Avenue -4 lane undivided roadway Fernbrook Lane @ Dallas Lane (Plymouth Creek Park) -4 lane undivided roadway Vicksburg Lane @ 25th Avenue -4 lane undivided roadway Pedestrians that crossed on camera were categorized by one of the following: 1. No vehicles yielding (pedestrian waits for more than 20 seconds) NO YIELD 2. Some vehicles yielding, but not all SOME YIELD 3. Full yielding (all vehicles stop and the pedestrian starts crossing in less than 20 seconds) FULL YIELD Page 3 4. No conflicts (the pedestrian waits for 20 seconds or less) NO CONFLICT 5. Pedestrian crosses the road outside of the crosswalk (more than ten feet outside of the intersection) OUTSIDE The table below shows the result of the four day study: Full Yield, No Conflict and Outside, which indicate pedestrians experience no delay in crossing, accounts for 85.5% of the time. No Yield and Some Yield, which indicate that vehicles are not stopping for pedestrians, occurred 14.5% of the time at the four crosswalks. Two of the crosswalks studied were located adjacent to city parks. On average per day, there were about 53 pedestrian crossings adjacent to a park and approximately 27 pedestrian crossings at crosswalks not adjacent to a park. Full Yield, No Conflict and Outside occurred 89.6% of the time at the crosswalks adjacent to a park, compared to 77.6% at the two other locations. When vehicles were present and required to stop, adjacent to parks drivers fully yielded 45% of the time while the crosswalks not adjacent to the parks, drivers fully yielded only 6% of the time, which may indicate drivers are more observant around parks. Crosswalks in other Communities Engineering departments in cities adjacent to Plymouth were surveyed in June, 2013. Some of the questions asked include what a typical crossing looks like, where crosswalks are installed and recent improvements made. Attached are the results of the survey. In short, there is not a standard on how each community signs or locates their crosswalks. Crosswalk Reports The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) created a document in 2005 called "Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations." The purpose of this document was to determine whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under various traffic and roadway conditions. Another objective was to provide recommendations on how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians. Attached is this document. Page 4 Vicksburg/25th Fernbrook/Dallas adjacent to park) CR 61/44th CR 47/Dallas adjacent to park) Total NO YIELD 16(17.6%) 15(7.1%) 13(10.2%) 9(4.2%) 53(8.3%) SOME YIELD 13(14.3%) 8(3.8%) 7(5.5%) 12(5.7%) 40 (6.2%) FULL YIELD 2 2.2% 13(6.2%) 1 (0.8%) 23(10.8%) 39(6.1%) NO CONFLICT 48(52.7%) 165(78.2%) 92(71.9%) 156(73.6%) 461 71.87% OUTSIDE 12 (13.2%) 10(4.7%) 15(71. 12 (5.7%) 49(7.6%) Total 91211 128 212 642 Full Yield, No Conflict and Outside, which indicate pedestrians experience no delay in crossing, accounts for 85.5% of the time. No Yield and Some Yield, which indicate that vehicles are not stopping for pedestrians, occurred 14.5% of the time at the four crosswalks. Two of the crosswalks studied were located adjacent to city parks. On average per day, there were about 53 pedestrian crossings adjacent to a park and approximately 27 pedestrian crossings at crosswalks not adjacent to a park. Full Yield, No Conflict and Outside occurred 89.6% of the time at the crosswalks adjacent to a park, compared to 77.6% at the two other locations. When vehicles were present and required to stop, adjacent to parks drivers fully yielded 45% of the time while the crosswalks not adjacent to the parks, drivers fully yielded only 6% of the time, which may indicate drivers are more observant around parks. Crosswalks in other Communities Engineering departments in cities adjacent to Plymouth were surveyed in June, 2013. Some of the questions asked include what a typical crossing looks like, where crosswalks are installed and recent improvements made. Attached are the results of the survey. In short, there is not a standard on how each community signs or locates their crosswalks. Crosswalk Reports The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) created a document in 2005 called "Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations." The purpose of this document was to determine whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under various traffic and roadway conditions. Another objective was to provide recommendations on how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians. Attached is this document. Page 4 The FHWA provided the following general guidelines on where marked crosswalks alone (i.e., without traffic -calming treatments, traffic signals and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement) are insufficient and should not be used under the following conditions: Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h). On a roadway with four or more lanes without a raised median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an average daily traffic (ADT) of 12,000 or greater. On a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median or crossing island that has (or soon will have) an ADT of 15,000 or greater. Additionally, Table 11 on page 54 in the FHWA document provides recommendations for installing marked crosswalks based on a roadway ADT, speed and number of lanes. Furthermore, in 2011 a group consisting of metro wide professionals developed a document labeled "Best Practices for Traffic Control at Regional Trail Crossings." Included in the document is the applicable state laws regarding pedestrian crossings, common hazards and typical crossing scenarios. The intent of the document is to clarify the state law and to provide general principles at trail crossings metro wide. This document is also attached. Crossing Enhancements Attached is a list of potential options determined by staff to improve marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections. Included are estimated costs, pros and cons for each alternative. If improvements are made to the marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, the recommended option is the push button warning light signs since it may provide benefit to pedestrians while crossing and the cost ($7,000 per crossing) is reasonable considering all the options. Furthermore, this option could be installed, removed and replaced relatively easy if the crosswalk was relocated, eliminated or needed maintenance. Recommendations At this time, it is not recommended to make major, costly improvements to crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections such as additional bridges or installing a controlled intersection. According to the pedestrian counts, at the most congested streets 85.5% of the pedestrians do not experience delays while crossing. Additionally, there has been one reported accident at uncontrolled crosswalks since 2008. However, staff is concerned with the recent accident and the results showing 14.5% of the drivers do not stop for pedestrians. As a result, to try to improve pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossings it is recommended to: Page 5 1. Increase education. a. This should be directed to both drivers and pedestrians to inform both groups of law. b. Continue utilizing the city's website and Plymouth News. c. Include education in the DARE program for school age kids. 2. Increase police enforcement. a. Each year have a day in May and September where police do enforcements at marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. 3. Follow FHWA guidelines as indicated above and either install facility enhancements to certain crossings or remove marked crosswalks. a. It is recommended to have push button activated warning lights installed ($7,000 each) on uncontrolled crosswalks located on a 4 lane roadway with speeds 40 mph or higher that are either school zones and directly adjacent to city parks (with playgrounds/ball fields/etc), similar to the crossings at Wayzata Central Middle School and Lake Camelot Park. These crosswalks had higher users and compliance in the counts noted above. Crosswalks included would be: i. Vicksburg Lane @ Plymouth Creek Elementary ii. Fernbrook Lane@ Plymouth Creek Park 1. Consider restriping Fernbrook Lane to a 3 -lane roadway when project is scheduled for an overlay in 2017. iii. Schmidt Lake Road @ Providence Academy b. Consider removing 8 crosswalks on roadways that the FHWA guidelines state should not be marked and had lower users and compliance in the counts noted above. i. The crosswalks include Vicksburg Lane @ 25th and 39th, C.R. 47 @ Yucca Lane, Fernbrook Lane @ 44th Place, C.R. 61 @ 37' and 45th and Niagara Lane @ 23rd and 25th ii. Consider installing trail crossing signs at Vicksburg Lane @ 25th, Fernbrook Lane @ 44th Place, C.R. 61 @ 37th and Niagara Lane at 25th. Other locations are close to other trails or controlled intersections and would be eliminated. iii. Pedestrian can still cross at these locations but would need to select a gap in vehicles large enough to cross safely. Page 6 iv. Inform public these crossings are considered to be removed. If there is enough support and users of the crossing, consider leaving the marked crossing but install facility enhancements. 4. Let select marked crosswalks on streets fade away that are either located on lower volume roadways or are near other crosswalks. a. Replace the ones in residential areas with trail crossing signs (5 total) and eliminate others due to other crossings nearby. b. This does not includes crosswalks in school zones or ones located next to select Plymouth Metrolink bus stops. 5. New crosswalks would be determined using FHWA Table 11 and engineering judgment. 6. Review marked crosswalks that are included in future street improvement projects. Possible changes may include installation of pedestrian facility enhancements, relocating or eliminating the crossing. Attachments Page 7 Existing Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Intersections Wa 8 z6 °ab'"ga zo s°$° u$ o"°foo s !y y 3 3gg s °"3 yy$$p3q siN za6 k1 a8Uz Q`t oLLdS a W'Sly8fl 4$54 o 11—ph n s f5xomAs 5--3-F $m- 0 Un p ,, ,' ..,.t IS y -.. a Lo1'L' N° ^1 a , , l o - •v, T YTHAVE ._. ti y. ' a4 ` + d1THAVE HAVE 1DTHAVE 35111 AVF 20THAVE YVTH AVE fITH AVE f 15 LAVE 1oT11AVE a' f, STHAVE IR WW111MWAVE 64 11 1, `°°E§ H' f4z” sgiqum m a gm P q so f $ e -IMM -66 — $ g so4 goo m FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Future6Mingrgtural FuiureMaJorCaileclor FutureMinaCOGaclor Futu mAM lnorAnenah Expa nder l FuU,.AMlnorAhedaljRelleVar) Mi—ColMetor MalgrCanentm EW— Ad—1 A -M inarAneAeilcon neaaq CrossWalks TYPE Z Lower Volume Areas Not Reshipped with Recent Project Leave As -Is Possible Upgrades On 4 -Lane Roadway wgh High Speeds A-MnorAn. 1A. even October 2913 A.M1norAn.nedallAugmeniarl A-Min., Arferml City OtI A nor A erial(E pantler) Plymouth HSI—RESENTSA—P—NaFa1FgHNATgNANaaATAFHnNeITF.CgaN.,—MArmgT1EaSogH ST1w SNeTeEE„F1EEavflrlHm.lNFgHNAT1gNS— L 25TH AVE WYKAVE 15THAVE inTN AVE 5THAVE ill nrifx Wo AVf N 0 , Miles Page 8 Page 9 How do you Have you changed What does a Do you use signs / determine where a Have you made any your approach on Do you work with crossing look like in paint at all crossings / crosswalk should improvements to marking your police dept. your community? crosswalks? be located? crosswalks? crosswalks? on enforcement? Yes, worked with an Minnetonka Go through MUTCD undercover officer Only at controlled Road design specs, No, have talked about attempting to cross, intersection, typical paint No painted midblocks, only also look at city flashers but none have used to spread word and signage at controlled ordinances been installed Not recently and educate drivers Yes, except some Rapid flashing lights, Somewhat, bike Eden Prairie intersections. All where teaming with MNDOT. crossing removal, manual requires, some Demand, high volume Looking to do more addition of PED Block paintinq, signs have advance signing crossings flashing lights No crossings No but there is a Edina monthly traffic safety Signs at school zones, mtg where they meet Duratherm, traditional More on collector roads Based on volumes, with police and go blocks, advance warning than on the feeders roads, stopping situation, Duratherm, not cheap- over issues, requests signs that light up based on volumes school zone, etc. cost $20/sq ft last year No, follow MMUTCD that have come u They have removed a Yes, they try to work St Louis Park Tried decorative number of them when with them but they Have a traffic issues crossings & had horrible close to reconstructions don't get enforced as Continental blocks, Yes (as directed by state group who talk over new results, very expensive, have begun much as engr would signage law) crosswalk requests short lifetime researching more like Yes, though they Golden have not done a ton. Valley Have a couple that are They are in the process Would like to make Put paint in at all push button activated & of changing their crosswalk Paint vast majority, some crossings with one that has a yellow approach & pavement enforcement more Typical block painting have signs sidewalks on both sides light always on marking philosophy routine Keep painting ones that New Hope No, do not use paint at have been painted. If Don't paint county roads county roads due to lack of there is a request, they but they block paint staffing & funding & contract out an engr Safe routes at schools Yes, enforcement ones that have been that believe it is not very study to determine if a using flashing lights and complaints get sent to way for years necessary crossin is warranted signs with driverspeed No the police dept. Maple Grove Page 9 More of a less is more Brooklyn All signalized intersections, ITE manual, regulations. More ADA and APS approach, Park Stripes, more at less is more approach at Look at sight distance & signals, changed all to accommodating Page 10 Marked Crosswalk Improvement Options Grade separated crossings Cost: $2,500,000 for a bridge Pros: No potential for vehicle/pedestrian accident Cons: In addition to high construction costs, it would have high maintenance costs such as plowing. Additional ROW would likely be required Locations in Plymouth: County Road 6 @ Parkers Lake, Xenium Ln @ Luce Line Trail (under construction) Traffic Signals Cost: $250,000 Pros: Motorists are required to stop Cons: Most, if not all locations would not meet warrants. Installing these could increase accidents and travel times for motorists. Location in Plymouth: Northwest Blvd @ Bass Lake Park Stop Signs Cost: $1,000 Pros: Motorists are required to stop Cons: Most, if not all locations would not meet warrants. Installing these could increase accidents and travel times for motorists. HAWK system Page 11 Cost: $65,000-$80,000 Pedestrian would push a button to activate the system. The lights would flash yellow and solid yellow informing motorists to stop. A solid red would appear during pedestrian crossing followed by two flashing reds during the pedestrian clearance interval. STATE Pros: Highly visible to motorist when a pedestrian is using crosswalk LAW Cons: New system= education required, should be installed at midblock a crossings FOR • Warning Light Signs I Cost: $7,000 rH,N Pros: Flashing lights when pedestrian is crossing crosswalkcRosswnK Cons: Off the road and motorists may not see them if obstructions are present. Locations in Plymouth: Vicksburg Lane @ Central Middle School, Zachary Lane @ Zachary Elementary School In Street Crosswalk Signs Cost: $500 Pros: Crosswalk stands out to motorists Cons: Pedestrians don't stand out to motorists. High maintenance as vehicles would damage these. Would not be installed during winter since plows would hit them Location in Plymouth: 36`h Avenue @ Armstrong High School Page 12 Duratherm Crosswalks (decorative striping) Cost: $10,000 Pros: Crosswalk stands out to motorists Cons: Pedestrians don't stand out to motorists. Other communities stated they have shorter lifetime than expected. Locations in Plymouth: Bass Lake Road @ Northwest Blvd. 0 Curb Extensions Cost: $1,000 Pros: Narrows the roadway that theoretically slows speeds through the area. Pedestrians can more safely step into the roadway. Cons: Need shoulder to install them. Not ideal at intersections or driveways due to turning radius of vehicles. Locations in Plymouth: Vicksburg Lane @ Luce Line Trail, 36`h Ave @ Armstrong High School. Page 13 Raised Medians Cost: $20,000 Pros: Narrows the roadway that theoretically slows speeds through the area. Pedestrians can safely wait in the median. Cons: Need room to install them. Landscaping may be difficult for motorist to see the pedestrians. Locations in Plymouth: West Medicine Lake Dr @ West Medicine Lake Park, 36`h Avenue @ Plymouth Blvd. Page 14 Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Final Report and Recommended Guidelines FHWA PUBLICATION NUMBER: HRT -04-100 U.S. I Federal Highway Administration SEPTEM BER 2005 Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 ntAU.11T4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety FOREWORD The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program's overall goal is to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. From better crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian technologies to expanding public educational and safety programs, FHWA's Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program strives to pave the way for a more walkable future. The following document presents the results of a study that examined the safety of pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks and provides recommended guidelines for pedestrian crossings. The crosswalk study was part of a large FHWA study, "Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities," that has produced a number of other documents regarding the safety of pedestrian crossings and the effectiveness of innovative engineering treatments on pedestrian safety. It is hoped that readers also will read the reports documenting the results of the related pedestrian safety studies. The results of this research will be useful to transportation engineers, planners, and safety professionals who are involved in improving pedestrian safety and mobility. Michael F. Trentacoste Director, Office of Safety Research and Development NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Page 16 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA—HRT-04-100 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled August 2005 Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines 6. Performing organization Code 7. Author(s): Charles V. Zegeer, J. Richard Stewart, Herman H. Huang, 8. Performing Organization Report No. Peter A. La erwe , John Fea anes, and B.J. Campbell 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) University of North Carolina 11. Contract or Grant No. Highway Safety Research Center 730 Airport Rd., CB # 3430 DTFH61-92—C-00138 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Safety Research and Development Final Report: October 1996—March Federal Highway Administration 2001 6300 Georgetown Pike 14. Sponsoring Agency Code McLean, VA 22101-2296 15. Supplementary Notes This report is part of a larger study for FHWA entitled "Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities." FHWA Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives COTRs : Carol Tan and Ann Do, HRDS. 16. Abstract Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and they should, therefore, be able to use this system safely. Pedestrian needs in crossing streets should be identified, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. The purpose of this study was to determine whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under various traffic and roadway conditions. Another objective was to provide recommendations on how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians. This study involved an analysis of 5 years of pedestrian crashes at 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 matched unmarked comparison sites. All sites in this study had no traffic signal or stop sign on the approaches. Detailed data were collected on traffic volume, pedestrian exposure, number of lanes, median type, speed limit, and other site variables. Poisson and negative binomial regressive models were used. The study results revealed that on two-lane roads, the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location was associated with no difference in pedestrian crash rate, compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Further, on multilane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone (without other substantial improvements) was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate (after controlling for other site factors) compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Raised medians provided significantly lower pedestrian crash rates on multilane roads, compared to roads with no raised median. Older pedestrians had crash rates that were high relative to their crossing exposure. More substantial improvements were recommended to provide for safer pedestrian crossings on certain roads, such as adding traffic signals with pedestrian signals when warranted, providing raised medians, speed -reducing measures, and others. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Marked crosswalk, safety, pedestrian crashes No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. 19 Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified I Unclassified 1 112 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. Page 17 SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. Revised March 2003) Page 18 MODERN• APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km AREA int square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g Ib pounds 0.454 kilograms kg T short tons (2000 Ib) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or I") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) OF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 ILLUMINATION fc foot-candles 10.76 lux Ix fl foot -Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS Ibf poundforce 4.45 newtons N Ibf/int poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA square millimeters 0.0016 square inches int M2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 M2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mit VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal M3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3. cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds Ib Mg (or I") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 Ib) T TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit OF ILLUMINATION Ix lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot -Lamberts fl FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce Ibf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch Ibf/int SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. Revised March 2003) Page 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION......................................................................... 1 HOW TO USE THIS STUDY.................................................................................................................. I WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A CROSSWALK?.............................................................. 2 Why Are Marked Crosswalks Controversial?...................................................................................... 3 Where Are Crosswalks Typically Installed?......................................................................................... 3 STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE...................................................................................................4 PASTRESEARCH...................................................................................................................................4 CrashStudies........................................................................................................................................ 4 Behavioral Studies Related to Marked Crosswalks.............................................................................. 8 Behavioral Studies Related to Crosswalk Signs and Other Treatments ............................................... 9 CHAPTER 2. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY.........................................13 35 STATISTICALANALYSIS...................................................................................................................15 35 AnalysisApproach..............................................................................................................................15 StatisticalTechniques.........................................................................................................................16 39 Estimation of Daily Pedestrian Volume.............................................................................................17 Calculation of Pedestrian Crash Rates................................................................................................17 44 Determination of Crash -Related Variables.........................................................................................17 Comparisons of Pedestrian Age Distribution Effects......................................................................... 24 COMPARISONS OF CROSSWALK CONDITIONS........................................................................... 25 Pedestrian Crash Severity on Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks.....................................................25 FINAL PEDESTRIAN CRASH PREDICTION MODEL.....................................................................25 PedestrianCrash Plots........................................................................................................................ 27 CHAPTER3. STUDY RESULTS............................................................................................................. 35 SIGNIFICANTVARIABLES................................................................................................................ 35 MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALK COMPARISONS.......................................................36 CRASHTYPES...................................................................................................................................... 39 CRASHSEVERITY...............................................................................................................................43 LIGHTING AND TIME OF DAY......................................................................................................... 44 AGEEFFECTS.......................................................................................................................................46 DRIVER AND PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOR AT CROSSWALKS.......................................................49 CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................. 49 GUIDELINES FOR CROSSWALK INSTALLATION......................................................................... 51 GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................... 52 POSSIBLE MEASURES TO HELP PEDESTRIANS........................................................................... 55 OTHERCONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................................60 Distance of Marked Crosswalks from Signalized Intersections......................................................... 60 AlternativeTreatments....................................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX A. DETAILS OF DATA COLLECTION METHODS......................................................... 63 STEP 1—INVENTORY CROSSWALKS AND CONTROL SITES .................................................... 63 STEP 2—RECORD DATA ON INVENTORY SHEETS..................................................................... 63 LocationDescription........................................................................................................................... 63 Numberof Lanes................................................................................................................................ 63 MedianType....................................................................................................................................... 63 ill Page 19 One -Way or Two-Way....................................................................................................................... 64 Typeof Crosswalk..............................................................................................................................66 Condition of Crosswalk Markings...................................................................................................... 66 AreaType........................................................................................................................................... 66 Estimated Pedestrian ADT.................................................................................................................. 66 SpeedLimit......................................................................................................................................... 68 TrafficADT........................................................................................................................................ 68 STEP 3—IDENTIFY SUITABLE CONTROL SITES.......................................................................... 68 STEP 4—COUNT PEDESTRIANS....................................................................................................... 68 STEP 5—OBTAIN CRASH DATA.......................................................................................................68 APPENDIX B. STATISTICAL TESTING OF THE -FINAL CRASH PREDICTION MODEL .............. 71 GOODNESS -OF -FIT .............................................................................................................................. 71 TEST FOR FUNCTIONAL FORM........................................................................................................ 71 RESIDUALS........................................................................................................................................... 72 MULTICOLLINEARITY....................................................................................................................... 72 APPENDIX C. PLOTS OF EXPECTED PEDESTRIAN CRASHES BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL................................................................................ 73 APPENDIX D. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN CRASHES (IN 5 YEARS) BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL........................................................... 83 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................103 IV Page 20 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Pedestrians have a right to cross the road safely and without unreasonable delay ....................... 1 Figure 2. A zebra crossing used in Sweden................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3. Sign accompanying zebra crossings in Sweden........................................................................... 6 Figure 4. Pedestrian crash rates for the three crossing types by age group .................................................. 7 Figure 5. High visibility crossing with -pedestrian crossing signs in Kirkland, WA..................................11 Figure 6. Experimental pedestrian regulatory sign in Tucson, AZ............................................................11 Figure 7. Overhead crosswalk sign in Clearwater, FL...............................................................................11 Figure 8. Overhead crosswalk sign in Seattle, WA................................................................................... 11 Figure 9. Example of overhead crosswalk sign used in Canada................................................................ 11 Figure 10. Regulatory pedestrian crossing sign in New York State..........................................................11 Figure 11. Cities and States used for study sample....................................................................................13 Figure 12. Crosswalk marking patterns.....................................................................................................15 Figure 13. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus pedestrian ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model.................................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 14. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model pedestrian ADT = 300)...................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 15. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for five -lane roads (no median) based on the finalmodel.......................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 16. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus pedestrian ADT for five -lane roads (with median) based onthe final model............................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 17. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for five -lane roads (with median) based on the final model (pedestrian ADT = 250)................................................................................................... 33 Figure 18. Pedestrian crash rate versus type of crossing........................................................................... 37 Figure 19. Pedestrian crash rates by traffic volume for multilane crossings with no raised medians— marked versus unmarked crosswalks.................................................................................................. 38 Figure 20. Percentage of pedestrians crossing at marked and unmarked crosswalks by age group and road type...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 21. Illustration of multiple -threat pedestrian crash......................................................................... 41 Figure 22. Pedestrian crash types at marked and unmarked crosswalks.....................................................42 Figure 23. Severity distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks ............... 44 Figure 24. Distribution of pedestrian collisions by time of day for marked and unmarked crosswalks.... 45 Figure 25. Pedestrian collisions by light condition for marked and unmarked crosswalks ....................... 46 Figure 26. Age distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks ..................... 47 Figures 27-30. Percentage of crashes and exposure by pedestrian age group and roadway type at uncontrolled marked and unmarked crosswalks................................................................................. 48 v Page 21 Figure 31. Raised medians and crossing islands can improve pedestrian safety on multilane roads........ 55 Figure 32. Pedestrian signals help accommodate pedestrian crossings on some high-volume or multilane roads.................................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 33. Traffic signals are needed to improve pedestrian crossings on some high-volume or multilane roads.................................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 34. Curb extensions at midblock_locations reduce crossing distance for pedestrians .................... 56 Figure 35. Curb extensions at intersections reduce crossing distance for pedestrians ............................... 56 Figure 36. Raised crosswalks can control vehicle -speeds on local streets at pedestrian crossings............ 57 Figure 37. Adequate lighting can improve pedestrian safety at night ........................................................ 57 Figure 38. Grade -separated crossings sometimes are used when other measures are not feasible to provide safepedestrian crossings..................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 39. Pedestrian warning signs sometimes are used to supplement crosswalks ................................ 58 Figure 40. Fences or railings in the median direct pedestrians to the right and may reduce pedestrian crashes on the second half of the street............................................................................................... 59 Figure 41. Angled crosswalks with barriers can direct pedestrians to face upstream and increase the pedestrian's awareness of traffic......................................................................................................... 59 Figure 42. Pedestrian crosswalk inventory form........................................................................................ 64 Figure 43. Number of lanes for marked crosswalks................................................................................... 65 Figure 44. Marked and unmarked crosswalks had similar traffic ADT distributions ................................ 69 Figure 45. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000 ............................... 73 Figure 46. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100 ........................................ 73 Figure 47. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000 ............................... 74 Figure 48. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 2,000 ................................. 74 Figure 49 Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 50 .......................................... 75 Figure 50. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 800 ........................................ 75 Figure 51. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000 ............................... 76 Figure 52. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100 ....................................... 76 Figure 53. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000 ............................... 77 Figure 54. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 150 ....................................... 77 vi Page 22 Figure 55. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 200 ....................................... 78 Figure 56. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 50 ......................................... 78 Figure 57. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500 ................................. 79 Figure 58. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100 ............................................ 79 Figure 59. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000 .................................... 80 Figure 60. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 150 ............................................ 80 Figure 61. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 200 ............................................ 81 Figure 62. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 22,500 .................................... 81 Figure 63. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 32,000 .................................... 82 Figure 64. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500 ...................................... 82 Vii Page 23 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks ...................................... 18 Table 2. Parameter estimates for basic marked and unmarked crosswalk models....................................19 Table 3. Results for a marked crosswalk pedestrian crash model.............................................................. 21 Table 4. Parameter estimates for marked subset models........................................................................... 21 Table 5. Results for an unmarked crosswalk model ............... 22 Table 6. Parameter estimates for unmarked subset models....................................................................... 22 Table 7. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks ...................................... 23 Table 8. Crashes, exposure proportions, expected crashes, and binomial probabilities for categories of markedcrosswalks..............................................................................................................................24 Table 9. Parameter estimates for final model combining marked and unmarked crosswalks ................... 26 Table 10. Estimated number of pedestrian crashes in 5 years based on negative binomial model ............. 34 Table 11. Recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and other needed pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.*.................................................................................................................. 54 Table 12. Adjustment factors by time of day and area type used to obtain estimated pedestrian ADT..... 67 Table 13. The number of marked crosswalks that were used in this study, by city or county ................... 70 Table 14. Criteria for assessing goodness -of -fit negative binomial regression model .............................. 71 Table 15. Criteria for assessing goodness -of -fit Poisson regression model ............................................... 72 vm Page 24 CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and they should, therefore, be able to use this system safely and without unreasonable delay (figure 1). Pedestrians have a right to cross roads safely, and planners and engineers have a professional responsibility to plan, design, and install safe and convenient crossing facilities. Pedestrians should be included as design users for all streets. As a starting point, roads should be designed with the premise that there will be pedestrians, that they must be able to cross the street, and that they must be able to do it safely. The design question is, "How can this task best be accomplished?" Providing marked crosswalks traditionally has been one measure used in an attempt to facilitate crossings. Such crosswalks commonly are used at uncontrolled locations (i.e., sites not controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign) and sometimes at midblock locations. However, there have been conflicting studies and much controversy regarding the safety effects of marked crosswalks. This study evaluated marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations and offers guidelines for their use. Figure 1. Pedestrians have a right to cross the road safely and without unreasonable delay. HOW TO USE THIS STUDY Marked crosswalks are one tool used to direct pedestrians safely across a street. When considering marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, the question should not be simply, "Should I provide a marked crosswalk or not?" Instead, the question should be, "Is this an appropriate tool for directing pedestrians across the street?" Regardless of whether marked crosswalks are used, there remains the fundamental obligation to get pedestrians safely across the street. In most cases, marked crosswalks are best used in combination with other treatments (e.g., curb extensions, raised crossing islands, traffic signals, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic calming measures). Marked crosswalks should be one option in a progression of design treatments. If one treatment does not accomplish the task adequately, then move on to the next one. Failure of one Page 25 particular treatment is not a license to give up and do nothing. In all cases, the final design must accomplish the goal of getting pedestrians across the road safely. WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A CROSSWALK? The 2000 Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance (Uniform Vehicle Code) (Section 1-112) defines a crosswalk as: (1) a) "That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway; and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway, the part of a roadway included within the extension of the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at right angles to the centerline. b) Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface." Thus, a crosswalk at an intersection is defined as the extension of the sidewalk or the shoulder across the intersection, regardless of whether it is marked or not. The only way a crosswalk can exist at a midblock location is if it is marked. Most jurisdictions have crosswalk laws that make it legal for pedestrians to cross the street at any intersection, whether marked or not, unless the pedestrian crossing is specifically prohibited. According to Section 3B.17 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), crosswalks serve the following purposes: (2) Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. Crosswalk markings also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not controlled by traffic signals or STOP signs. At intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk." The MUTCD also provides guidance on marked crosswalks, including: Crosswalk width should not be less than 1.8 meters (m) (6 feet (ft)). Crosswalk lines should extend across the full width of the pavement (to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks). Crosswalks should be marked at all intersections that have "substantial conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movements." Crosswalk markings should be provided at points of pedestrian concentration, such as at loading islands, midblock pedestrian islands, and/or where pedestrians need assistance in determining the proper place to cross the street. The MUTCD further states that: "Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before they are installed at locations away from traffic signals or STOP signs." 2 Page 26 However, the MUTCD does not provide specific guidance relative to the site condition (e.g., traffic volume, pedestrian volume, number of lanes, presence or type of median) where marked crosswalks should or should not be used at uncontrolled locations. Such decisions have historically been left to the judgment of State and local traffic engineers. Furthermore, practices on where to mark or not mark crosswalks have differed widely among highway agencies, and this has been a controversial topic among researchers, traffic engineers, and pedestrian safety advocates for many years. More specific safety research and guidelines have been needed on where to mark or not mark crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. Designated marked or unmarked crosswalks are also required to be accessible to wheelchair users if an accessible sidewalk exists. The level of connectivity between pedestrian facilities is directly related to the placement and consistency of street crossings. Why Are Marked Crosswalks Controversial? There has been considerable controversy in the United States about whether marked crosswalks increase or decrease pedestrian safety at crossing locations that are not controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign. Many pedestrians consider marked crosswalks as a tool to enhance pedestrian safety and mobility. They view the markings as proof that they have a right to share the roadway, and in their opinion, the more the better. Many pedestrians do not understand the legal definition of a crosswalk and think that there is no crosswalk unless it is marked. They may also think that a driver can see the crosswalk markings as well as they can, and they assume that it will be safer to cross where drivers can see the white crosswalk lines. When citizens request the installation of marked crosswalks, some engineers and planners still refer to the 1972 study by Herms as justification for not installing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. (3) That study found an increased incidence of pedestrian collisions in marked crosswalks, compared to unmarked crosswalks, at 400 uncontrolled intersections in San Diego, CA. Questions have been asked about the validity of that study, and the study results have sometimes been misquoted or misused. Some have misinterpreted the results of that study. The study did not conclude that all marked crosswalks are unsafe, and the study also did not include school crosswalks. A few other studies have also tried to address this issue since the Herms study was completed. Some were not conclusive because of their methodology or sample size problems, while others have fueled the disagreements and confusion on this matter. Furthermore, most of the previous crosswalk studies have analyzed the overall safety effects of marked crosswalks but did not investigate their effects for various numbers of lanes, traffic volumes, or other roadway features. Like other traffic control devices, crosswalks should not be expected to be equally effective or appropriate under all roadway conditions. Where Are Crosswalks Typically Installed? The practice of where to install crosswalks differs considerably from one jurisdiction to another across the United States, and engineers have been left with using their own judgment (sometimes influenced by political and/or public pressure) in reaching decisions. Some cities have developed their own guidelines on where marked crosswalks should or should not be installed. At a minimum, many cities tend to install marked crosswalks at signalized intersections, particularly in urban areas where there is pedestrian crossing activity. Many jurisdictions also commonly install marked crosswalks at school crossing locations (especially where adult crossing guards are used), and they are more likely to mark crosswalks at intersections controlled by a stop sign. At uncontrolled locations, some agencies rarely, if ever, choose to install marked crosswalks; other agencies install marked crosswalks at selected pedestrian crossing locations, particularly in downtown areas. Some towns and cities have also chosen to supplement selected marked crosswalks with advance overhead or post -mounted pedestrian warning signs, flashing Page 27 lights, "Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs mounted at the street centerline (or mounted along the side of the street or overhead), and/or supplemental pavement markings. STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE Many highway agencies routinely mark crosswalks at school crossings and signalized intersections. While questions have been raised concerning marking criteria at these sites, most of the controversy on whether to mark crosswalks has pertained to the many uncontrolled locations in U.S. towns and cities. The purpose of this study was to determine whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under various traffic and roadway conditions. Another objective was to provide recommendations on how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians. This includes providing assistance to engineers and planners when making decisions on: Where marked crosswalks may be installed. Where an existing marked crosswalk, by itself, is acceptable. Where an existing marked crosswalk should be supplemented with additional improvements. Where one or more other engineering treatments (e.g., raised median, traffic signal with pedestrian signal) should be considered instead of having only a marked crosswalk. Where marked crosswalks are not appropriate. The results of this study should not be misused as justification to do nothing to help pedestrians cross streets safely. Instead, pedestrian crossing problems and needs should be identified routinely, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark or not mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. This final report is based on a major study for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on the safety effects of pedestrian facilities. The report titled, "Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines" also was prepared as a companion document. (4) PAST RESEARCH Studies of the effects of marked crosswalks have yielded contradictory results. Some studies reported an association of marked crosswalks with an increase in pedestrian crashes. Other studies did not show an elevated collision level associated with marked crosswalks, but instead showed favorable changes. As to the negative findings, assertions were made that marked crosswalks somehow induced incautious behavior on the part of pedestrians, triggered perhaps by what they thought the markings signified. The following paragraphs describe the findings of some of these studies. Crash Studies An early and oft -quoted study in California performed by Herms investigated pedestrian crash risk at marked and unmarked crosswalks. (3) This study evaluated pedestrian crashes at 400 intersections where at least 1 crosswalk was painted and another was not. There are thousands of other intersections in San Diego, CA, where neither crosswalk was painted or both were painted, but those were not included in the Herms study. That study rightly emphasizes the difficulty of "maintaining equivalent conditions" in comparing marked and unmarked crosswalks, and lists 12 factors to try to address such difficulties. Since the study was confined to intersections that had one marked and one unmarked crosswalk across the same main thoroughfare, it is not surprising that the vehicle traffic exposure was quite similar between the 0 Page 28 marked and unmarked crosswalks. However, pedestrian volume was three times as high on the marked crosswalks as on the unmarked crosswalks. Herms stated: Evidence indicates that the poor crash record of marked crosswalks is not due to the crosswalk being marked as much as it is a reflection on the pedestrian's attitude and lack of caution when using the marked crosswalk."(') The Herms study, however, does not say what evidence the author had in mind regarding incautious pedestrian behavior. No behavioral data was presented. Other authors have advanced similar assertions with regard to pedestrian behavior in marked crosswalks. One of the issues involved in this crosswalk controversy relates to questions on the warrants used in San Diego, CA, to determine where to paint crosswalks. Specifically, the warrant directive for San Diego January 15, 1962), established a point system calling for painting crosswalks when: (1) traffic gaps were fewer rather than more numerous; (2) pedestrian volume was high; (3) speed was moderate (not low, not high); and (4) other prevailing factors were present, such as previous crashes. Thus, it is possible that crosswalks may have been more likely to be painted in San Diego, CA, where the conditions were most ripe for pedestrian collisions (compared to sites which were unmarked). This could at least partly explain the increase in pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks in the Herms study. Furthermore, the city of San Diego did not eliminate the use of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations based on the results of this study. The study recommended against the indiscriminate use of markings at uncontrolled locations. It should be mentioned that the Herms study did not distinguish whether the results would have differed, for example, for two-lane versus multilane roads, or for low-volume versus high-volume roads. Gibby et al. later revisited the issue. (5) Their report contains a thorough review of the literature and also includes an analysis of pedestrian crashes at 380 highway intersections in California. These intersections were picked after a detailed, multistep selection process in which more than 10,000 intersections were initially considered, and all but 380 were excluded. Their results showed that pedestrian crash rates at these 380 unsignalized intersections were 2 or 3 times higher in marked than in unmarked crosswalks when expressed as crash rates per unit pedestrian -vehicle volume. This study had the advantage of including a relatively large sample of intersections in cities throughout California, which may have minimized any data bias resulting from crosswalk marking criteria. However, it should be mentioned that, as with the Herms study, the Gibby study also did not determine how the results (between marked and unmarked crosswalks) might have differed for two-lane versus multilane roads, and/or for roads with low average daily traffic (ADT) compared to high ADT. Other studies have been conducted to address this issue. Gurnett described a project to remove painted stripes from some crosswalks following a bad crash experience. (6) This was a before -after study of three locations that were selected for crosswalk removal because they had a recent bad crash record. After removing the crosswalks, crashes decreased. Such results do not show the effect of removing the paint, but are very likely the result of the well-known statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean. It is also not clear whether pedestrian crossing volumes may have dropped after the marked crosswalks were removed. (6) Another study of marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections was reported by the Los Angeles, CA, County Road Department in July 1967.(') The county reported results of a before -after study of 89 intersections. Painted crosswalks were added at each site, but the basis for selecting those sites was not mentioned. Pedestrian crashes increased from 4 during the before period to 15 in the after period. The before -after design in this study is preferable to a treatment -control model in this instance, and better takes the selection effect into account. All sites that showed crash increases were intersections with an ADT rate above 10,900. Thus, at sites with a lower ADT rate, no change in pedestrian crashes was seen. Also, rear -end collisions increased from 31 to 58 after marked crosswalks were added. The report stated that rear -end collisions increased as traffic volume increased. Nevertheless, the study showed more Page 29 pedestrian crashes after painting the crosswalks than before for the sites with ADT rates above 10,500. The study could have been enhanced by including an analysis of crashes within a comparison group of unpainted sites during the same time period. It is not clear whether pedestrian volumes may have increased at the crosswalks after they were marked. (7) In contrast to the studies described above, Tobey et al. reported reduced crashes associated with marked crosswalks.($) They examined crashes at marked and unmarked crosswalks as a function of pedestrian volume (P) multiplied by vehicle volume (V). When the P times V product was used as a denominator, crashes at unmarked crosswalks were found to be considerably overrepresented; crashes at marked crosswalks were underrepresented considerably. Communication with the authors indicates that this study included controlled (signalized) as well as uncontrolled crossings. It seems likely, therefore, that more marked crosswalks than unmarked crosswalks were present at controlled crossings, which could at least partially explain the different results compared to other studies. The study methodology was quite useful for determining pedestrian crash risk for a variety of human and locational features. However, the study results were not intended to be used for quantifying the specific safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks for various traffic and roadway situations. (8) In 1996, Ekman conducted an analysis of pedestrian crashes at zebra crossings compared to crossings with traffic signals and also to crossings with no facilities.(9) Zebra crossings in Sweden (figure 2) consist of high -visibility crosswalk markings on the roadway, accompanied by zebra crossing signs figure 3). The study included 6 years of collected pedestrian crash data from crossings in five cities in southern Sweden along with pedestrian counts, traffic volume, and other information for each of the three types of pedestrian crossings. Figure 2. A zebra crossing used in Sweden. Figure 3. Sign accompanying zebra crossings in Sweden. The rate of pedestrian crashes was found to be higher (approximately twice as high) at intersections which had zebra crossings, compared to locations that were signalized or had no facilities. Further, pedestrians age 60 and above were most at risk, followed by pedestrians below age 16 (see figure 4). The author also controlled for motor vehicle traffic and found similar results. (9) 0 Page 30 50 40 m m 30 <16 years 16-60 years 20 60+ years U 10 0 Zebra Signalized No Facilities Crossing Crossing Figure 4. Pedestrian crash rates for the three crossing types by age group. In a 1999 study involving the relationship between crashes or conflicts and exposure, Ekman and Hyden compared intersections with and without zebra crossings on major streets in the cities of Malmo and Lund, Sweden. Among other conclusions, the study found that "Zebra crossings seem to have higher crash rate than approaches without zebra," and "The increased crash rate for approaches with zebra crossings is only valid on locations where the car flow is larger than 10 cars per hour." Conflict rates were about twice as high with zebra crossings compared to crossings with no control. The authors reported that the dataset did not include enough sites with car exposure greater than 250 cars per hour. The study also found that the positive effects of pedestrian refuge islands "seem to be stronger than the negative effect of zebra crossing, at least in the lower region of car exposure." This finding supports the safety benefit of having a raised pedestrian refuge island at pedestrian crossings.(lo) Yagar reported the results of introducing marked crosswalks at 13 Toronto, Canada intersections!") The basis for selecting the particular intersections was not described. A before -after study was conducted, and it was found that crashes had been increasing during the before period and continued to increase after crosswalks were installed. It is not apparent from the graphs that there was any change in slope associated with the time of painting the crosswalks; it would appear that marking the crosswalks did not have much of an effect on crashes. However, the author points to an increase in tailgating crashes at the intersections after crosswalk painting. He also reports that the increased crashes during the after phase seemed to be entirely explained by an increase in crashes involving out-of-town drivers. Perhaps the increase in crashes by out-of-town motorists was because they were not expecting any change in pedestrian or motorist behavior of the local residents, who may have been more familiar with the new markings. However, no behavioral data was included in the study. In summary, there are no clear-cut results from the studies reviewed to permit concluding with confidence that either marked or unmarked crosswalks are safer. The selection bias (on where crosswalks are marked) could certainly affect the results of a given study. Units of pedestrian crash experience were also inconsistent from one study to another. Another important question relates to whether analyzing sites 7 Page 31 separately by site type (e.g., two-lane versus multilane road, high volume versus low volume) would produce different results on the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks. Behavioral Studies Related to Marked Crosswalks In addition to crash -based studies, it is also important to review studies that evaluate the effects of crosswalk marking on pedestrian and motorist behavior. Such review can reveal changes in behavior, which can lead to crashes for different crosswalk conditions. The following paragraphs discuss some of these behavioral studies. Katz et al. conducted an experimental study of driver and pedestrian interaction when the pedestrian crossed a street .(12) The pedestrians in question were members of the study team, and they crossed a street under a variety of conditions (960 trials). It was found that drivers stop for pedestrians as a function of several variables. Drivers stop more frequently when the vehicle's approach speed is low, when the pedestrian is in a marked crosswalk, when the distance between vehicle and pedestrian is greater rather than less, when pedestrians are in groups, and when the pedestrian does not make eye contact with the driver. Thus, the marked crosswalk is a specific factor in positive driver behavior in this study. A study by Knoblauch et al. was conducted to determine the effect of crosswalk markings on driver and pedestrian behavior at unsignalized intersections. (13) A before -after evaluation of crosswalk markings was conducted at 11 locations in 4 U.S. cities. The observed behaviors included pedestrian crossing location, vehicle speed, driver yielding, and pedestrian crossing behavior. It was found that drivers approach a pedestrian in a crosswalk somewhat more slowly, and that crosswalk usage increases, after markings are installed. No evidence was found indicating that pedestrians are less vigilant in a marked crosswalk. No changes were found in driver yielding or pedestrian assertiveness as a result of adding the marked crosswalk. Marking pedestrian crosswalks at relatively low -speed, low-volume, unsignalized intersections was not found to have any measurable negative effect on pedestrian or motorist behavior at the selected sites (which were all two- or three -lane roads with speed limits of 56 or 64 kilometers per hour (km/h) or 35 or 40 miles per hour (mi/h)). In a comparison study to the one discussed above, Knoblauch and Raymond conducted a before -after evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk markings in Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona. (14) Six sites that had been recently resurfaced were selected. All sites were at uncontrolled intersections with a speed limit of 56 km/h (35 mi/h). The before data were collected after the centerline and edgeline delineations were installed but before the crosswalk was installed. The after data were collected after the crosswalk markings were installed. Speed data were collected under three conditions: no pedestrian present, pedestrian looking, and pedestrian not looking. All pedestrian conditions involved a staged pedestrian. The results indicate a slight reduction in vehicle speed at most, but not all, of the sites. Overall, there was a significant reduction in speed under both the no pedestrian and the pedestrian not looking conditions. Note: This study and the 2001 behavioral study by Knoblauch et al. mentioned above were both conducted as part of the larger FHWA study conducted in conjunction with the current study described here.) These studies found pedestrian behavior to be, if anything, slightly better in the presence of marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks. Certainly the results showed no indication of an increase in reckless or incautious pedestrian behavior associated with marked crosswalks. All of the sites used in the Knoblauch studies were two-lane and three -lane roads, and all had speed limits of 56 or 64 km/h (35 or 40 mi/h). No formal behavioral studies were found which have studied pedestrian and motorist behaviors and conflicts on roads with four or more lanes with and without marked crosswalks. Such multilane situations may pose different types of risks for pedestrians, particularly where high traffic volume exists and/or where vehicle speeds are high. Page 32 Finally, Van Houten studied factors that might cause motorists to yield for pedestrians in marked crosswalks. (15) He measured several behaviors at intersections in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, where interventions were introduced sequentially to increase the "vividness" of crosswalks. Researchers added signs, then a stop line, and then amber lights activated by pedestrians and displayed to motorists. The percentage of vehicles stopping when they should increased by up to 50 percent. Conflicts dropped from 50 percent to about 10 percent at one intersection, and from 50 percent to about 25 percent at another. The number of motorists who yielded increased from about 25 percent to 40 percent at one intersection, and from about 35 percent to about 45 percent at another. (15) Behavioral Studies Related to Crosswalk Signs and Other Treatments The preceding discussion of the literature has dealt primarily with the safety and behavioral effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections. Of course, a wide variety of supplemental measures have been used with or without marked crosswalks at pedestrian crossing locations in the United States. Examples of these treatments include: Pedestrian warning signs on the approach and/or at the crossing. Advance stop lines with supplemental signs (e.g., "Stop Here for Crosswalk") Rumble strips on the approaches to the crosswalk. Pedestrian crossing pavement stencils on the approach to the crosswalk. In -pavement flashing lights (activated by push-button or by automatic pedestrian detectors). Flashing beacons. Variations of overhead pedestrian crosswalk signs. Such signs may be warning or regulatory and may be illuminated and/or convey a message when activated (examples of such signs are shown in figures 5-10). Crosswalk lighting. Raised medians or refuge islands. Flat-topped speed humps (sometimes called speed tables) where pedestrians may cross the street on the raised flat top. Traffic -calming measures such as curb extensions and lane reductions. Various combinations of these and other measures. Traffic signals (with pedestrian signals) are sometimes added at pedestrian crossings when warranted. Numerous research studies have been conducted in the United States and abroad in recent years to evaluate such treatments and/or to summarize research results. Some of these include: A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad. (16) Pedestrian Safety in Sweden (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/intemational.hjP&(17) 9 Page 3 3 Research, Development, and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Facilities in the United Kingdom www.walkinginfo.org/rd/intemational.htm).(18) Canadian Research on Pedestrian Safety (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/intemational/htm).(19) Pedestrian Safety in Australia (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/intemational.htm).(20) Dutch Pedestrian Safety Research Review (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/inemational.htm).(21) In addition to these research summaries, several other documents, which describe a wide range of pedestrian and traffic calming measures, include: Pedestrian Facilities User Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility www.walkinginfo.org/rd/intemational.htm).(22) Alternative Treatments for At -Grade Pedestrian Crossings http://www.ite.org/bookstore/index.aSP).(23) Traffic Calming: State of the Practice (http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm#tcsop).(za) The study described in this report was primarily intended to compare the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. It did not focus on evaluating various signs, traffic calming, or other measures and devices. Instead, several companion studies were conducted as part of the larger FHWA effort, which presents evaluation results of innovative devices. These research reports may be found at www.walkinginfo.org/rd/devices.htm. 10 Page 34 Figure 5. High visibility crossing with pedestrian crossing signs in Kirkland, WA. Figure 7. Overhead crosswalk sign in Clearwater, FL. Figure 9. Example of overhead crosswalk sign used in Canada. Figure 6. Experimental pedestrian regulatory sign in Tucson, AZ. Figure 8. Overhead crosswalk sign in Seattle, WA. Figure 10. Regulatory pedestrian crossing sign in New York State. Figures 5-10. Examples of crosswalk signs. (25) 11 Page 3 5 Page 36 CHAPTER 2. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY For the purpose of assessing pedestrian safety, an ideal study design would involve removing all crosswalks in several test cities, then randomly assigning sites for crosswalk markings and to serve as unmarked control sites. However, due to liability considerations, it would be impossible to get the level of cooperation needed from the cities to conduct such a study. Also, such random assignment of crosswalk marking locations would result in many crosswalks not being marked at the most appropriate locations. Given such real-world constraints, a treatment and matched comparison site methodology was used to quantify the pedestrian crash risk in marked and unmarked crosswalks. This study design allowed for selection of a large sample of sites in cities throughout the United States where marked crosswalks and similar unmarked comparison sites were available. At intersections, the unmarked crosswalk comparison site was typically the opposite leg of the same intersection as the selected marked crosswalk site. For each marked midblock crosswalk, a nearby midblock crossing location was chosen as the comparison site on the same street (usually a block or two away) where pedestrians were observed to cross. (Even though an unmarked midblock crossing is not technically or legally a crosswalk, it was a suitable comparison site for a midblock crosswalk). The selection of a matched comparison site for each crosswalk site (typically on the same route and very near the crosswalk site) helped to control for the effects of vehicle speeds, traffic mix, and a variety of other traffic and roadway features. A before -after study design was considered impractical because of regression -to -the -mean problems, limited sample sizes of new crosswalk installations, and other factors. A total of 1,000 marked crosswalk sites and 1,000 matched unmarked (comparison) crossing sites in 30 cities across the United States (see figure 11) were selected for analysis. In this study, no attempt was made to actually paint any of the 1,000 unmarked crosswalks to determine any crash effects in a before and after study. Instead, a separate companion) study was conducted to monitor the effects of marking crosswalks on pedestrian and motorist behaviors. These study results are discussed in chapter 3 of this report. Francis Figure 11. Cities and States used for study sample. 13 Page 37 Test sites were chosen without any prior knowledge of their crash history. School crossings were not included in this study because the presence of crossing guards and/or special school signs and markings could increase the difficulty of quantifying the safety effects of crosswalk markings. Test sites were selected from the following cities: East: Cambridge, MA; Baltimore, MD (city and county); Pittsburgh, PA; Cleveland, OH; Cincinnati, OH. Central: Kansas City, MO; Topeka, KS; Milwaukee, WI; Madison, WI; St. Louis, MO (city and county). South: Gainesville, FL; Orlando, FL; Winter Park, FL; New Orleans, LA; Raleigh, NC; Durham, NC. West: San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA. Southwest: Austin, TX; Ft. Worth, TX; Phoenix, AZ; Scottsdale, AZ; Glendale, AZ; Tucson, AZ; Tempe, AZ. Detailed information was collected at each of the 2,000 sites, including pedestrian crash history (average of 5 years per site), daily pedestrian volume estimates, ADT volume, number of lanes, speed limit, area type, type of median, type and condition of crosswalk marking patterns, location type (midblock or intersection), and other site characteristics. It was recognized that pedestrian crossing volumes would likely be different in marked and unmarked crosswalks. This study design involved collecting pedestrian volume counts at each of the 2,000 sites, and controlled for differences in pedestrian crossing exposure. The study computed pedestrian crashes per million crossings to normalize the crash data for pedestrian crossing volumes, as described below in more detail. All of the 1,000 marked crosswalks had one of the marking patterns shown in figure 12 (i.e., none had a brick pattern for the crosswalk). Of the 2,000 crosswalks, 1,622 (81.2 percent) were at intersections; the others were at midblock. Very few of the marked crosswalks had any type of supplemental pedestrian warning signs. While not much information currently exists on the safety effects of various types of warning signs (under various conditions), a behavioral evaluation of several innovative signs performed in 2000 by Huang et al. may be found at www.walkinginfo.org/rd.(25) Furthermore, none of the test sites had traffic -calming measures or special pedestrian devices (e.g., in -pavement flashing lights). Estimates of daily pedestrian volumes at each crosswalk site and unmarked comparison site were determined based on pedestrian volume counts at each site, which were expanded to estimated daily pedestrian volume counts based on hourly adjustment factors. Specifically, at each of the 2,000 crossing locations, trained data collectors conducted onsite counts of pedestrian crossings and classified pedestrians by age group based on observations. 14 Page 38 Solid Standard Continental Dashed Zebra Ladder Figure 12. Crosswalk marking patterns. Pedestrian counts were collected simultaneously for 1 hour at each of the crosswalk and comparison sites. Full-day (8- to 12 -hour) counts were conducted at a sample of the sites and were used to develop adjustment factors by area type (urban, suburban, fringe) and by time of day. The adjustment factors were then used to determine estimated daily pedestrian volumes in a manner similar to that used by many cities and States to expand short-term traffic counts to average annual daily traffic (AADT). Performing the volume counts simultaneously at each crosswalk site and its matched comparison site helped to control for time -related influences on pedestrian exposure. Further details of the data collection methodology are given in appendix A. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Analysis Approach This study was structured to address a variety of questions related to crosswalks and pedestrian crashes. The primary analysis question was, "What are the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks?" Several other analysis questions needed to be answered as well, including: What traffic and roadway features have a significant effect on pedestrian cashes? Specifically, how are pedestrian crashes affected by traffic volume, pedestrian volume, number of lanes, speed limit, presence and types of median, area type, type of crosswalk marking, condition of marked crosswalks, and other factors? Do pedestrian crashes differ significantly in different cities and/or regions of the country? How does pedestrian crash risk differ by pedestrian age group? The amount of pedestrian crash data varied somewhat from city to city and averaged approximately 5 years per site (typically from about January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1998). Police crash reports were obtained from each of the cities except for Seattle, WA, (where detailed computerized printouts were obtained for each crash). Crashes were carefully reviewed to assign crash types to ensure accurate matching of the correct location and to determine whether the crash occurred at the crossing location (i.e., at or within 6.1 in (20 ft) of the marked or unmarked crossing of interest). Standard pedestrian crash typology was used to review police crash reports and determine the appropriate pedestrian crash types (e.g., multiple threat, midblock dartout, intersection dash), as discussed later in this 15 Page 39 report. All treatment (crosswalk) and comparison sites were chosen without prior knowledge of crash history. All sites used in this study were intersection or midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the main road approach (i.e., uncontrolled approaches). This study focused on pedestrian safety and, therefore, data were not collected for vehicle -vehicle or single -vehicle collisions, even though it is recognized that marking crosswalks may increase vehicle stopping, which may also affect other collision types. The selected analysis techniques were deemed to be appropriate for the type of data in the sample. Due to relatively low numbers of pedestrian crashes at a given site (many sites had zero pedestrian crashes in a 5 - year period), Poisson modeling and negative binomial regression were used to analyze the data. Using these analysis techniques allowed determination of statistically valid safety relationships. In fact, there were a total of 229 pedestrian crashes at the 2,000 crossing sites over an average of 5 years per site. This translates to an overall average of one pedestrian crash per crosswalk site every 43.7 years. While this rate of pedestrian crashes seems small on a per -site basis, it must be understood that many cities have hundreds or thousands of intersections and midblock locations where pedestrians regularly cross the street. Considering that pedestrian collisions with motor vehicles often result in serious injury or death to pedestrians, it is important to better understand what measures can be taken by engineers to improve pedestrian safety under various traffic and roadway conditions. All analyses of crash rates at marked and unmarked crosswalks took into account traffic volume, pedestrian exposure, and other roadway features (e.g., number of lanes). To supplement the pedestrian crash analysis, a corresponding study was conducted on pedestrian and driver behavior before and after marked crosswalks were installed at selected sites in California, Minnesota, New York, and Virginia, as discussed earlier. (13,14) Statistical Techniques The Poisson and negative binomial regression modeling were conducted in two ways in terms of how the comparison sites were handled. These were: Including all of the comparison (unmarked) crosswalk sites in one group and all of the treated marked) crosswalks in another group. In other words, no direct matching of sites was used in the modeling. Analyzing 1,000 site pairs; each pair had a marked crosswalk and an unmarked, matched comparison site. Analyses were conducted using both assumptions to insure that the results were not influenced merely by the manner in which the matching was conducted. The analyses revealed very similar results using either of the assumptions listed above in terms of: The variables found to be significantly related to pedestrian crashes. The individual and interaction effects. The magnitude of the effects of each traffic and roadway variable on pedestrian crashes, including the effect of marked versus unmarked crosswalks. 16 Page 40 In short, using either analysis approach—grouping comparison sites or using an analysis that matches marked and unmarked sites—produced nearly identical results. The discussion below includes results of both analysis approaches. Estimation of Daily Pedestrian Volume At each of the 2,000 crossing sites, at least 1 hour-long count of pedestrian street crossings was conducted. Based on the time of day of the count, an expansion factor was used to compute an approximate pedestrian ADT. At a given observation site, i, a count n, is made of pedestrians crossing the street during some interval of time Ti. Now, from a standard pedestrian volume by time of day distribution, the proportion pi of daily pedestrian traffic expected during T can be determined. If ni # 0, an estimate of the daily total pedestrian volume is made by, Ni = ni/pi. This estimate has the property that if Ni was known, then the estimated pedestrian volume during the interval T would be Npi = ni, the observed number. A detailed discussion of how pedestrian ADTs were determined based on short-term pedestrian crossing counts is given in appendix A. Calculation of Pedestrian Crash Rates Assuming that motor vehicle volumes, speeds, and other site features remain constant, it is reasonable to expect that the number of pedestrian crashes will increase as the number of pedestrians crossing the street pedestrian exposure) increases. When comparing sites to see which has the greatest risk of a pedestrian crash, it is necessary to control for the number of pedestrians. The pedestrian crash rate is a more appropriate measure of safety than the total number of pedestrian crashes for comparing the relative safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks, particularly since pedestrian crossing volumes differ at marked and unmarked crosswalks. In this study, crash rates were calculated in terms of crashes per million pedestrian crossings. For example, if an average of 1,000 pedestrians cross an intersection every day, then there will be 365,000 (or 0.365 million) pedestrian crossings in a year. The number of pedestrian crashes in a year is then divided by 0.365 million times the number of years to get the pedestrian crash rate. Determination of Crash -Related Variables The following analysis was conducted to determine which traffic and roadway variables have a significant effect on pedestrian crashes. Table 1 shows some summary values of pedestrian volumes and crashes for marked and unmarked crosswalks categorized by number of lanes. For each marked crosswalk, a closely matched unmarked comparison site was chosen—usually a nearby site on the same street. Quite often, the comparison site was the opposite approach to the same intersection (on the same road). As a result of this matching, the distributions of site characteristics, including traffic volumes, should be essentially the same for marked and unmarked sites. Pedestrian volumes were recorded at a marked crosswalk and its matched unmarked location at essentially the same time of day and for an equal period of time. Thus, pedestrian volumes were free to vary between marked and unmarked sites but were collected in such a way as to represent equal proportions of expected daily pedestrian traffic at the respective locations. 17 Page 41 Table 1. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks. No. of Lanes Type Sites Ped. Avg. Ped. Number of Avg. Vol.* ADT/site Ped. Crashes Yrs.** 2 Marked 456 176,345 387 37 4.81 Unmarked 458 104,922 229 23 4.81 3 or 4 Marked 401 104,237 260 94 4.59 Unmarked 395 37,941 96 12 4.60 5 or more Marked 143 31,266 219 57 4.65 Unmarked 147 11,955 81 6 4.60 All Marked 1,000 311,848 312 188 4.70 Unmarked 1,000 154,818 155 41 4.70 Ped. Vol. = Sum of the pedestrian ADT at sites within a given grouping (by number of lanes). Avg. Yrs. = Average number of years of crash data per site. The pedestrian ADT per site was 312 at marked crosswalks and 155 at unmarked crosswalks, as shown in table 1. Thus, 66.8 percent of this pedestrian volume occurred at marked crosswalk sites. A total of 229 pedestrian crashes were recorded at these 2,000 sites over a period of roughly 5 years. If marked and unmarked crosswalks were equally safe (or unsafe), then given that 229 crashes occurred, it would be expected that 66.8 percent of them (153 crashes) would have occurred at marked crosswalk sites. This expected number is considerably smaller than the actual number of 188 observed at marked crosswalks. Under the hypothesis of equal safety, and conditional on 229 total crashes, the probability of observing 188 or more crashes at the marked sites can be obtained from the binomial distribution with parameters, p _ .668 and n = .229, as P(A>188Ip,n)_.000002 (1) Thus, the hypothesis of equal safety across the entire set of sites would be rejected. On the other hand, there may be subsets defined by various site characteristics where such a hypothesis would not be rejected. For example, consider the first two rows of table 1, which refer to sites on streets having two lanes. At these sites, 62.7 percent of the pedestrian volume occurred on marked crosswalks. Of the 60 crashes that occurred at these sites, 37.6 crashes would be expected at the marked crosswalk sites compared with the observed count of 37. Clearly, the hypothesis of equal safety could not be rejected for this subset of sites. In other words, for the two-lane road sites in the database, there was no significant difference in pedestrian crashes between marked and unmarked crosswalks. From the rows of table 1 corresponding to three- or four -lane roads and roads with five or more lanes, the observed crash frequencies for the marked crosswalk sites are 94 and 57, respectively. Both totals considerably exceed the expected values of 77.6 and 45.7 based on proportions of pedestrian exposure at these sites. The probabilities of observing values this extreme by chance are: P (A > 94 I P, _ .7324, n1= 106) _ .0001 (2) and P (A > 57 I P2 =.72156.. r?:. = 63) _ .0005 (3) 18 Page 42 In the expressions given above, the parameters p, and pz represent proportions of pedestrian volumes at marked sites adjusted for slight differences in exposure times over which crash data were obtained. These results suggest that, in general, marked crosswalks are less safe than unmarked crosswalks on streets having more than two lanes, but that the two types do not differ significantly on streets with two lanes. Note that the analysis described above did not require adjustment for motor vehicle volume, since matched pairs of marked and unmarked sites typically were selected at or near the same intersection where vehicle volumes were similar. To investigate the relationship between other factors and combinations of factors on crosswalk pedestrian crashes, generalized linear regression models were fit to the data to predict crashes as functions of these variables. Consider a model based on pedestrian volumes (ADP); traffic volumes (ADT); and two indicator variables, one which indicates one or two travel lanes (LA and the other which indicates three or four travel lanes (L4). The resulting model has the form E (Arcs,) = yrs;e"°(ADP) "'(AUT,) f"-eP2["$ e (4) where E (Accs;) is expected pedestrian crashes at site i, yrsi is the number of years over which crash data was available for site i, and Po, P ... R4 are parameters to be estimated. Models of this form were fit to data from marked and unmarked crosswalks separately. The models were fit by maximum likelihood methods using Procedure for General Models (PROC GENMOD) software, as developed by the SAS Institute. Crashes were assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution. Parameter estimates for these basic models are shown in table 2. Table 2. Parameter estimates for basic marked and unmarked crosswalk models. Parameter Marked Crosswalks Estimate S.E.* Value Unmarked Crosswalks Estimate S.E.* -Value Constant (Po) 14.55 1.95 0001 10.25 2.72 0002 ADP (P0 381 065 0001 602 134 0001 ADT A) 1.006 184 0001 304 258 2388 L2 (R3) 599 328 0678 066 592 9115 L4 (P4) 075 1 247 1 7608 208 1 553 1 7076 S.E. = Standard Error For marked crosswalks, the results in table 2 show that expected crashes increased to a significant degree with both increasing pedestrian volume and increasing traffic volumes, with a much steeper increase for traffic volume. The lane variables compare two-lane roads with roads having five or more lanes, and three- or four -lane roads with roads having five or more lanes. The two-lane variable is marginally significant, while the three- or four -lane variable is not. The overall lanes effect (not shown) is significant p -value of .0262). In subsequent models, a two-level lanes effect comparing two lanes with three or more is used. This variable is usually significant at a level of about .02. The results for unmarked crosswalks show the only statistically significant effect to be for pedestrian volume. Thus, expected crashes on unmarked crosswalks increased consistently with increasing pedestrian volumes (at a somewhat higher rate than that at marked crosswalks), but did not change consistently with increasing traffic volumes or with number of lanes. These results suggest that multilane streets with low traffic volumes might represent another subset of the data where marked and unmarked crosswalks might not differ significantly with respect to safety. This issue is addressed in more detail later in the report. 19 Page 43 In addition to the variables included in the models presented above, data were available for several other factors potentially associated with crosswalk safety. These included: Speed limit. Location of crosswalk (intersection or midblock). Presence and type of median. Type of crosswalk marking (marked only). Neither speed limit nor crosswalk location (intersection or midblock) had a significant effect in the models for marked or unmarked crosswalk crashes. Initially, three types of medians were compared with no median. These were: Raised medians. Painted medians. Two-way left turn lanes. Several specific types of crosswalks were represented in the data, but the primary comparison came down to a comparison between the standard markings (two parallel lines) versus designs with more markings e.g., continental or ladder patterns shown in figure 12). In attempting to estimate these more detailed models, it was also a concern to consider effects due to specific locations (i.e., cities, States, regions) from which the data were obtained since crashes, types of medians and crosswalks, and other variables were not uniformly distributed across these locations. To this end, two sets of regions were identified (North-South and East -Midwest -West), and class variables indicating these regions were included in the models. A second approach was to estimate a model using data from all locations, then to re -estimate the model while omitting the data from each of the eight cities where the most data had been obtained, one step at a time, to see how the estimates changed. These eight cities and the total number of observation sites at each are listed below. Seattle, WA (204). San Francisco, CA (182). New Orleans, LA (160). Milwaukee, WI (136). Cleveland, OH (110). Cambridge, MA (92). Oakland, CA (90). Gainesville, FL (90). A few iterations of this process resulted in a model for marked crosswalk crashes summarized in table 3 The model for table 3 contains no variable pertaining to crosswalk type, a single variable indicating a raised median as opposed to no median or another median type, and another variable indicating the western region of the country as opposed to the East or Midwest. In some preliminary models, there was an indication that the crosswalk types with more markings were associated with slightly lower crash rates than the standard type. These results were not consistent across models and became quite nonsignificant when regional variables were included. Similarly, preliminary models indicated that raised medians were marginally better (associated with lower crash rates) than crosswalks having no median or painted medians, while two-way left turn lanes were significantly worse than the other types. With the addition of the East -Midwest -West regional variables, the two-way left turn lane effect became nonsignificant, and the raised median effect became more significant. All of the 20 Page 44 two-way left turn lanes in the study sample were in the western region. The two-way left turn lanes did not account for the estimated West effect, however, since this estimate remained virtually unchanged when the data from the two-way left turn lane sites were deleted from the model. Table 3. Results for a marked crosswalkpedestrian crash model. Parameter Estimate S.E.* 95% Confidence Limits Value Intercept 15.09 1.65 18.33, -11.86 0001 Lo ADP 33 06 20, .45 0001 Lo (ADT) 99 17 65, 1.19) 0001 Two lanes 68 26 1.19, -.18 0074 Raised median 58 27 1.12, -.04 0338 West region 77 19 40, 1.14 0001 Dispersion 1.48 41 85, 2.55) S.E. = Standard Error The North-South regional variable was not statistically significant. East -to -West effects were modeled as two variables, one comparing West to East, and the other comparing Midwest to East. The West -to -East comparison was significant, while the Midwest -to -East comparison was not. These variables were then collapsed to a single variable contrasting West with Midwest and East combined, which is the form used in the model of table 3. The apparent effect due to the western region was investigated further to see if this effect could be attributed to differing distributions of speed limits and/or numbers of lanes. This did not prove to be the case. Table 4 shows estimates of the same model parameters on the data subsets obtained by leaving out the data from each of the major cities. In general, the estimates are quite consistent across the subsets. All estimates listed were statistically significant at a .05 level with the exception of the two marked with an asterisk. These were the raised median effects on the datasets that omitted data from New Orleans, LA, and from Milwaukee, WI. The p -values for these estimates were .10 and .08, respectively. Results from the more detailed crash modeling on unmarked crosswalks are presented in tables 5 and 6. In contrast to the results of table 2, table 5 shows that when a variable indicating the presence of a median was included in the model, the effect of traffic volume (ADT) became statistically significant. As with marked crosswalks, various median types were also considered; in this case, a variable indicating a median of any type versus no median was the most relevant characterization. For unmarked crosswalks, the East, Midwest, and West comparisons showed the eastern region to have significantly lower crash rates than either the West or Midwest. Thus, a two-level variable contrasting east with the other two regions was used. The North-South comparison was again not significant. Table 4. Parameter estimates for marked subset models. Parameters Estimates on Subsets Seattle San Francisco Oakland New Orleans Milwaukee Cleveland Gainesville Cambridge Intercept 15.16 15.22 15.07 14.91 15.52 14.97 14.99 15.54 Log (ADP) 32 34 36 31 34 30 34 34 Lo (ADT) 1.01 1.00 97 95 1.04 1.00 98 1.05 Two lanes 68 77 69 96 64 69 65 53 Raised median 59 71 59 49* 50* 60 58 60 Western region 86 75 58 87 71 77 70 70 Not statistically significant at .05 level. 21 Page 45 Table 5. Results for an unmarked crosswalk model. Parameter Estimate S.E.* 95% Confidence Limits Value Intercept 12.11 2.59 17.18,-7.04) 0001 Lo (ADP) 64 13 37, .90) 0001 Lo (ADT) 55 26 04, 1.05) 0319 Median 1.27 45 2.14, -.39 0047 Eastern re ion 1 -1.31 1 .48 2.25, -.38 0060 Dispersion 1 1.18 1 1.30 1 (.14, 10.23) S.E. = Standard Error Table 6 shows the estimates of these model parameters were again consistent across the eight data subsets. The estimates marked with an asterisk (which were not significant at a .05 level) were the ADT effect on the subset with Seattle, WA, data omitted, and the ADT effect and eastern region effects on the subset with New Orleans, LA, data omitted. The p -values for these estimates were .06 in each case. Table 6. Parameter estimates for unmarked subset models. Parameters Seattle San Francisco Oakland Estimates on Subsets New Milwaukee Cleveland Orleans Gainesville Cambridge Intercept 11.19 12.43 11.89 11.80 11.92 12.72 11.94 12.48 Lo ADP 56 69 64 52 64 69 66 65 Lo ADT 48* 54 52 54* 52 58 52 58 Median 1.24 1.17 1.17 1.07 1.25 1.16 1.24 1.30 Eastern region 1.28 1.23 1.25 93* 1.56 1.29 1.03 1.03 Not statistically significant at .05 level. While the models presented above examine the effects of medians, crosswalk designs, and other factors on pedestrian crashes, the primary factors associated with these crashes were shown to be pedestrian volumes and traffic volumes. Analyses based on the data shown in table 1 indicated no significant difference in the safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks on streets having two or fewer lanes, while marked crosswalks were less safe overall on multilane roads. The models suggest a further examination of multilane roads as a function of varying traffic volumes and the presence of raised medians. Table 7 shows pedestrian volumes, crashes, and average exposure years for a number of categories defined by number of lanes, traffic volumes, and median type. Using the same approach as for table 1, a marked crosswalk exposure proportion, p,,,;, was computed for category i, as where P".i = X„ i X,,,f + X.f 5) Si X.i = (marked pedestrian volume), Xyears (6) S-1 where the sum extends over all sites (S) in category i, X,,,, is the total exposure for marked crosswalks in category i, and X; is similarly defined as the total exposure for unmarked crosswalks in category i. 22 Page 46 Table 7. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks. Lanes Median Traffic Volume Type Sites Pedestrian Crashes Avg. Volume Yrs.* Two None 8,000 Marked 248 110,697 15 4.85 Unmarked 252 67,793 10 4.86 Two None 8,000 Marked 199 62,530 19 4.74 Unmarked 200 35,957 13 4.75 Multi No raised 3,000 Marked 10 1,446 0 3.80 median Unmarked 13 998 0 4.08 Multi No raised 3,000-6,000 Marked 33 6,382 3 4.58 median Unmarked 29 3,298 1 4.48 Multi No raised 6,000-9,000 Marked 37 20,608 0 4.43 median Unmarked 39 5,397 2 4.49 Multi No raised 9,000-12,000 Marked 47 23,024 12 4.87 median Unmarked 52 6,721 4 4.90 Multi No raised 12,000-15,000 Marked 76 20,719 23 4.82 median Unmarked 73 7,825 2 4.79 Multi No raised 15,000 Marked 210 39,835 91 4.57 median Unmarked 207 12,700 6 4.57 Multi With raised 9,000 Marked 30 5,024 2 4.87 median Unmarked 23 1,182 0 4.83 Multi With raised 9000-15,000 Marked 22 4,924 3 4.18 median Unmarked 25 1,671 0 4.28 Multi With raised 15,000 Marked 88 16,659 20 4.60 median Unmarked 87 11,276 3 4.56 Avg. Yrs. = Average number of years of crash data per site. Then conditional on total crashes, Ni in category i, expected marked crosswalk crashes under the hypothesis of equal safety were estimated as Ami = Ni pmi. The probability under this hypothesis of observing as many or more crashes in marked crosswalks as actually occurred was obtained from the binomial distribution with parameters pi and Ni. Table 8 lists these quantities for the various crosswalk categories. The results in table 8 suggest that on two-lane roads, multilane roads without raised medians and traffic volumes below 12,000 ADT, and multilane roads having raised medians and traffic volumes below 15,000 ADT, the hypothesis of equal safety for marked and unmarked crosswalks cannot be rejected. In other words, there was no significant effect of marked versus unmarked crosswalks on pedestrian crashes under the following conditions: Two-lane roads. Multilane roads without raised medians and with ADTs below 12,000. Multilane roads with raised medians and with ADTs below 15,000. For multilane roads with ADTs above these values, there was a significant increase in pedestrian crashes on roads with marked crosswalks, compared to roads with unmarked crosswalks (after controlling for traffic ADT and pedestrian ADT). 23 Page 47 Table 8. Crashes, exposure proportions, expected crashes, and binomial probabilities for categories of marked crosswalks. Number of Lanes Median Type Traffic Volume ADT A,, PM E(A.) P (a > Am) Two 8,000 15 6173 15.43 6541 Two 8,000 19 6382 20.42 7631 Multi Not raised 3,000 0 6443 0 Multi Not raised 3,000-6,000 3 6612 2.64 8529 Multi Not raised 6,000-9,000 0 7985 1.60 1.00 Multi Not raised 9,000-12,000 12 7741 12.39 7149 Multi Not raised 121000-15,000 23 7383 18.46 0242 Multi Not raised 15,000 91 7535 73.08 000002 Multi Raised 9,000 2 8035 1.61 6456 Multi Raised 9,000-15,000 3 7500 2.25 4219 Multi Raised 15,000 20 5919 13.61 0041 pm Proportion of pedestrian exposure at marked crosswalks. A,„ = Actual number of pedestrian crashes at the marked crosswalks. E(A,„) = Estimated (predicted) number of pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks. P(a > A,) = Binomial probabilities. Comparisons of Pedestrian Age Distribution Effects Each pedestrian in both the crash and exposure samples was classified into one of seven age categories: 12 and under, 13-18, 19-25, 26-35, 36-50, 51-64, and 65 and over. Across the entire set of sites, the two age distributions differed substantially, with a considerably higher proportion of young adults (19- 35) in the exposure sample (compared to other age groups), and a much higher proportion of the oldest age group in the crash sample. The difference was statistically significant,,ti'26df= 216.86, _ .001. The data were then partitioned into four subsets determined by marked or unmarked crosswalks on streets having two lanes or having three or more lanes. The same general pattern of the exposure and crash age distributions tended to hold on the subsets. In particular, the crash distribution tended to always be higher for the oldest pedestrian group. The relatively small sample sizes of crashes in some of the subsets necessitated combining some of the age categories to obtain a valid statistical comparison of the distributions. Marked crosswalks on two-lane roads. There were 33 crashes in this subset. With seven age categories, several cells had expected counts of fewer than five, so the two youngest and the two oldest age groups were combined. It might be noted, however, that 7 of the 33 crashes (21.2 percent) involved pedestrians in the 65 -and -over age group, compared to 3.4 percent in the exposure sample. The five - category collapsed distributions differed significantly V[,14df= 11.00, p _ .027). Of the crash -involved pedestrians, 30.3 percent were in the 51 -and -over age category, compared to 13.2 percent in the exposure sample. Unmarked crosswalks on two-lane roads. Only 21 pedestrian crashes occurred in this subset. Again, five -category age distributions were used for the statistical test. While the percentage of crash -involved pedestrians in the oldest age category (51 and older) was higher than that of the exposure sample 19.1 percent versus 10.8 percent), the distributions overall did not differ significantly (14 = 4.40, p _ 0.354). 24 Page 48 Marked crosswalks on multilane roads. Nearly 70 percent of the pedestrian crosswalk crashes occurred in this subset. Comparison of the seven -category age distributions was quite similar to that of the overall samples, with the proportion of young adults being lower in the crash sample and the proportion in the 65+ age group being much higher in the crash sample (18.1 percent versus 2.2 percent. The distributions differed significantly (16df = 166.88, p = .001). Unmarked crosswalks on multilane roads. Only 16 pedestrian crashes occurred at unmarked crosswalks on multilane roads, 6 of which involved pedestrians 51 years old or older. A simple comparison of this age category versus younger pedestrians between the two samples yielded a significant result (X2ldf= 18.48,p =.001). There were 37.5 percent of crashes involving pedestrians 51 and older in the crash sample compared with 8.1 percent of this age group in the exposure sample. The multilane marked crosswalk subset was further subdivided on the basis of traffic volume (ADT). In the subset with ADT < 15,000, there were 39 pedestrian crashes; 10 (25.6 percent) of these involved pedestrians more than 50 years old. Only 13.9 percent of the exposure sample was over 50. A one - degree -of -freedom chi-square test indicated a significant difference VIdf = 4.5 1, p = .034). Lowering the ADT cutoff to 12,000 reduced the size of the crash sample to 15. The percentages of pedestrians over 50 in the two samples were essentially unchanged (26.7 percent versus 13.9 percent), but with the smaller sample size the difference was no longer significant VIdf= 2.04, p = .1540). In summary, older pedestrians were more at risk than younger pedestrians on virtually all types of crosswalks. This difference seemed most pronounced for marked crosswalks on multilane roads with high traffic volumes (ADT above 12,000), where crash occurrence was highest. COMPARISONS OF CROSSWALK CONDITIONS Data were collected on the condition of marked crosswalks. Conditions were coded as E (excellent), G good), F (fair), and P (poor). This variable was entered as a class variable in the model for crashes on marked crosswalks to assess its effect on crashes. The estimated effect was not statistically significant p = .1655). Furthermore, there is no assurance that the condition of the crosswalk markings was consistent over the data collection period. Pedestrian Crash Severity on Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks Overall, crashes tended to be more severe in marked crosswalks on multilane roads, but sample sizes were too small to draw any firm conclusions in that regard. In particular, there were six fatal crashes in marked crosswalks and none in unmarked crosswalks. The fatal crashes all occurred on multilane roads with traffic volumes greater than 12,000 ADT (5 with ADT > 15,000). Crash severity distributions did not differ significantly between marked and unmarked crosswalks on two-lane roads, based on a X2 -statistic comparing A or B level injury crashes with lesser or no injuries V ldf=.268,p =.604). Similarly, on multilane roads with ADT < 12,000, the x2 -statistic andp-value Vldf= .210,p = .647) showed no significant difference. FINAL PEDESTRIAN CRASH PREDICTION MODEL Previous models shown in this report used subgroups of the 2,000 crosswalks and modeled marked and unmarked separately. A final model (which incorporates the aforementioned results) also was fitted to all 2,000 crosswalks, and it includes direct correlation or matching of marked and unmarked crosswalks. To 25 Page 49 develop the final model form, generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used, since they provide a practical method to analyze correlated data with reasonable statistical efficiency. PROC GENMOD uses GEE and permits the analysis of correlated data. Another feature of the final model is that the distribution of pedestrian crashes at a crosswalk is assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution. The negative binomial is a distribution with an additional parameter (k) in the variance function. PROC GENMOD estimates k by maximum likelihood. (Refer to McCullagh and Nelder (chapter 11),(26) Hilbe,(27) or Lawless (28) for discussions of the negative binomial distribution.) The final model is a negative binomial regression model that was fitted with the observed number of pedestrian crashes as the dependent measure. A negative binomial model is an extension of traditional linear models that allows the mean of a population to depend on a linear predictor through a nonlinear link function and allows the response probability distribution to be a negative binomial distribution. PROC GENMOD is capable of performing negative binomial regression GENMOD using GEE methodology. ( 29) The final model uses the observed number of pedestrian crashes at a crosswalk as the dependent measure. The independent measures are estimated average daily pedestrian volume (pedestrian ADT), average daily traffic volume (traffic ADT), an indicator variable for marked crosswalks (CM); two indicator variables for number of lanes (one that indicates two travel lanes, L2; the other indicates three or four travel lanes, L4); and two indicators for median type (no raised median, M„O1Ze, and raised median, M,,i,,d)• There are two interactions in the model. The first interaction in an interaction between pedestrian ADT and the indicator for marked crosswalk, ADP*CM. The second interaction in the model is between traffic ADT and the indicator for marked crosswalk, ADT*CM. The linear predictor has the form: rli = P, + P1*ADPi + P2*ADTi + P3*QVi + P4*L2.i + W L4 i + P'5*JW. .i + P7*Mmau i (7) P8*ADPi*QVj+ P9*ADTi*Qagt. where ili is the linear predictor for site i = 1 2,..., 2,000. The number of years of accident data available for a site is used as an offset. Po, (3,, ... , R9 are parameters to be estimated. The estimates of the parameters were obtained using PROC GENMOD. Parameter estimates for the final model are shown in table 9. Table 9. Parameter estimates for final model combining marked and unmarked crosswalks. Parameter Estimate Marked S.E.* Value Constant (Po) 8.2455 0.4633 0.0001 ADP W 0 0.0011 0.0004 0.0149 ADT ((32) 0.0000 0.0000 0.7842 CM(PO 0.3257 0.3988 0.4141 L2 (04) 0.4786 0.3180 0.1323 L4 (PO 0.0053 0.2638 0.9840 M..n, (PO 0.1541 0.2090 0.4610 M,Qi,,d (07) 0.5439 0.3064 0.0759 ADP*CM (pg) 0.0008 0.0004 0.0780 ADT*CM(P9) 0.0001 0.0000 0.0016 Dispersion 2.1970 0.5898 S.E. = Standard Error 26 Page 50 The final model provides a framework to test the hypothesis of whether marked crosswalks have the same expected number of pedestrian crashes in 5 years controlling for the effects of pedestrian ADT, vehicle traffic ADT, number of lanes, and presence of a raised median. Because the interaction between traffic ADT and the indicator for marked crosswalk, ADT*CM (09), was statistically significant, it was concluded that the presence of a marked crosswalk increases the expected number of pedestrian crashes in 5 years; however, the effect size is dependent on the traffic ADT and number of lanes. There is also a statistically significant interaction between pedestrian volume and the indicator for marked crosswalk, which was interpreted as the effect size of the presence of a marked crosswalk as dependent on the pedestrian volume. The lane indicator variables compare two lanes with five or more, and three or four lanes with five lanes or more. A two -degrees -of -freedom test for any lane effect has an associated P - value of 0.1071. The two median variables compare no median with other median, and raised median with other median. A two -degrees -of -freedom test for any median effect has an associated R -value of 0.0531. The number of lanes, type of median, pedestrian volume, and ADT are all intracorrelated. This correlation is evidenced by the fact that ADT increases as the number of lanes increases. Also, sites with two lanes do not have a median. The number of lanes was also included in the model and probably is expressed indirectly through ADT and median type. In the final model form, the regional effect was only marginally significant, and including the regional variables (i.e., western versus eastern region) into the model had virtually no influence on the crash effects of the other variables. Thus, the regional variable was not included in the final model. Further discussion of the final model relative to the goodness -of -fit measures, residuals, and possible biases of multicollinearity is contained in appendix B. In short, the final model was found to be valid and appropriate for the available database. A considerable amount of data exploration was also conducted during the analysis phase of study before developing the final model. Pedestrian Crash Plots The final pedestrian crash prediction model can be illustrated by inputting various values of pedestrian ADT, traffic ADT, number of lanes (two lanes, four lanes, or more), and median type (raised median or no raised median). All values used in the following figures (and in appendix B) are well within the actual distributions of the data sample. Figures 13 through 17 and the figures in appendix C (figures 45 through 64) all contain plots of response curves based on the final negative binomial prediction model. Each of these graphs shows a solid line for both marked and unmarked locations. For each solid line, there is a dashed line above and below it representing the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence intervals. The relationship of pedestrian crashes in a 5 -year period is shown in figure 13 for a range of pedestrian ADTs for traffic ADT of 5,000 using the final crash prediction model. Notice that there is no difference in predicted pedestrian crashes in marked versus unmarked crosswalks for these conditions. Plots of pedestrian crashes in a 5 -year period from the model are shown for two-lane roads as a function of traffic ADT in figure 14 (where pedestrian ADT = 300). Note that there is little if any difference in pedestrian crashes between marked and unmarked crosswalks, even for traffic ADTs as high as 15,000. In fact, for marked crosswalks with traffic ADT of 15,000 and 300 pedestrians per day, expected pedestrian crashes are 0.10 per 5 years, or 1 pedestrian crash per 50 years per site. Figure 15 illustrates the predicted pedestrian crashes for a five -lane pedestrian crossing with no median and a pedestrian ADT of 250. As traffic ADT increases, pedestrian crashes stay relatively consistent on 27 Page 51 unmarked crosswalks (approximately 0. 10 or less per 5 years). However, on marked crosswalks, pedestrian crashes increase as traffic ADT increases. Plots of the final model are given for five -lane crosswalks with a raised median in figures 16 and 17. Average pedestrian ADT is plotted versus pedestrian crashes in figure 16 for traffic ADT of 10,000, and there is little difference in pedestrian crashes at marked versus unmarked crosswalks. Note in figure 17, however, that marked crosswalks have an increasingly greater number of pedestrian crashes than unmarked crosswalks, as ADT increases from 15,000 to 50,000. 28 Page 52 t10 t00 0.00 00 0.'70 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.30 0,0 0.10 0.00 Response Curves with 95% Confidence Intervals Bawl on Negative Binomial Regressionession Model T O Lanes with No Median Average Daily Traffic Motor Vehicle)= 5,000 0 100 1 Marked Unmarked 500 000 +700 800 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 13. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus pedestrian ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model. Page 53 1 W 0 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Response Curves with Confidence Intervals Based on Negative Binomial Regression Model Two Lanes with No Median Average Daily Pedestrian Volume= 300 Marked Unmarked 0 ?,500 59090 7,500 109000 A500 15,000 17,500 209000 Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle Figure 14. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model (pedestrian ADT = 300). Page 54 W 7 H 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.'70 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Response Curves with 95% Confidence Intervals P s d on Negative Binomial Regression Model Five Lams with No Median Average Daily Pedestrian Volume= 250 Marked Unmarked 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Average Daily Traffic (Motor vehicle) Figure 15. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for five -lane roads (no median) based on the final model. Page 55 W N L10 LOO 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.40 0 V • 0 020 0.10 0.00 Response Curves with 5% Confidence Intervals Based on Negative Binomial Regression Model 0 Five Lanes with Median Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) = 10,000 Marked Unmarked 50 100 150 200 250 300 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 16. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus pedestrian ADT for five -lane roads (with median) based on the final model. Page 56 WW 7 H t10 1«00 0.90 oo 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 oo oto 0.10 0.00 Response Curves with 95% Confidence Intervals Based on Negative Binomial Regression Model Five Imes with Median Average Daily Pedestrian volume= 254 Marked r Unmarked 10po 0 0 0 30 000 A000 50 000%000 Average 1Wy Traffic Motor vehicle) Figure 17. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for five -lane roads (with median) based on the final model (pedestrian ADT = 250). Page 57 Additional plots of pedestrian crashes using the final crash prediction model are given in appendix C for various combinations of the input variables. Tables of estimated pedestrian crashes per 5 -year period are given in appendix D using the final model and inputting various combinations of traffic ADT, pedestrian ADT, numbers of lanes, and median type. Table 10 provides estimated pedestrian crashes for marked and unmarked five -lane crossings with a raised median. For example, from table 10, consider a marked crosswalk on a five -lane road (with a raised median) with 150 pedestrian crossings per day and a traffic ADT of 28,000. There would be 0.20 expected pedestrian crashes per 5 -year period, or 1 pedestrian crash every 25 years, unless a pedestrian crossing improvement (e.g, traffic signals with pedestrian signals if warranted) is installed. In all cases, values of input variables are chosen well within actual ranges of the study database. A detailed discussion of potential pedestrian safety improvements at uncontrolled locations is in chapter 4 of this report. Table 10. Estimated number of pedestrian crashes in 5 years based on negative binomial model. 34 Page 58 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Daily Daily Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Pedestrian Traffic Volume Motor Vehicle) 150 9,000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.11 150 10,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 150 11,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.12 150 12,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 150 13,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.14 150 14,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.15 150 15,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.15 150 16,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.16 150 17,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.17 150 18,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.18 150 19,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.19 150 20,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.20 150 21,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.21 150 22,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.22 150 23,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.24 150 24,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.25 150 25,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.26 150 26,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.28 150 27,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.30 150 28,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.20 0.31 150 29,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.33 150 30,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.23 0.35 150 31,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.24 0.37 150 32,000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.17 0.26 0.40 150 33,000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.27 0.42 150 34,000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.19 0.29 0.45 150 35,000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.31 0.48 150 36,000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.22 0.33 0.51 150 37,000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.23 0.36 0.54 150 38,000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.38 0.58 150 39,000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.40 0.62 150 40,000 0.01 0.02 0.07 028 0.43 0.66 34 Page 58 CHAPTER 3. STUDY RESULTS SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES Poisson and negative binomial regression models were fit to pedestrian crash data from marked and unmarked crosswalks. These analyses showed that several factors in addition to crosswalk markings were associated with pedestrian crashes. Traffic and roadway factors found to be related to a greater frequency of pedestrian crashes included higher pedestrian volumes, higher traffic ADT, and a greater number of lanes (i.e., multilane roads with three or more lanes had higher pedestrian crash rates than two-lane roads). For this study, a center two-way left -turn lane was considered to be a travel lane and not a median. Surprisingly, after controlling for other factors (e.g., pedestrian volume, traffic volume, number of lanes, median type), speed limit was not significantly related to pedestrian crash frequency. Certainly, one would expect that higher vehicle speed would be associated with an increased probability of a pedestrian crash (all else being equal). However, the lack of association between speed limit and pedestrian crashes found in this analysis may be due to the fact that there was not much variation in the range of vehicle speed or speed limit at the study sites (i.e., 93 percent of the study sites had speed limits of 40.2 to 56.3 km/h (25 to 35 mi/h). Another possible explanation, as hypothesized by Garder, is that pedestrians may be more careful when crossing streets with higher speed limits; that is, they may avoid short gaps on high- speed roads, which may minimize the effect of vehicle speed on pedestrian crash rates. (30) In terms of speed and crash severity, the analysis showed that speed limits of 56.3 km/h (35 mi/h) and greater were associated with a higher percentage of fatal and type A (serious or incapacitating) injuries (43 percent) compared to sites having lower speed limits (23 percent of the crashes resulting in fatal or type A injuries). The presence of a raised median or raised crossing island was associated with a significantly lower pedestrian crash rate at multilane sites with both marked and unmarked crosswalks. These results were in basic agreement with a major study by Bowman and Vecellio(31) and also a study by Garder(12) that found safety benefits for pedestrians due to raised medians and refuge islands, respectively. Furthermore, on multilane roads, medians that were painted (but not raised) and center two-way left -turn lanes did not offer significant safety benefits to pedestrians, compared to multilane roads with no median at all. There did appear to be some regional effect. Marked and unmarked crosswalks in western U.S. cities had a significantly higher pedestrian crash rate than eastern U.S. cities (after controlling for pedestrian exposure, number of lanes, median type, and other site conditions). The reason(s) for these regional differences in pedestrian crash rate is not known, although it could be related to regional differences in driver and pedestrian behavior, higher vehicle speeds in western cities, differences in pedestrian -related laws or enforcement levels, variations in roadway design features, and/or other factors. However, this effect was only marginally significant in the final crash prediction model, and excluding it from the model had little effect on the model results. All of the variables related to pedestrian crashes (i.e., pedestrian volume, traffic ADT, number of lanes, existence of median and median type, and region of the country) then were included in the models for determining the effects of marked and unmarked sites. Factors having no significant effect on pedestrian crash rate included: area (e.g., residential, central business district (CBD)), location (i.e., intersection versus midblock), speed limit, traffic operation (one-way or two-way), condition of crosswalk marking excellent, good, fair, or poor), and crosswalk marking pattern (e.g., parallel lines, ladder type, zebra stripes). One may expect that crosswalk marking condition may not necessarily be related to pedestrian crash rate, since the condition of the markings may have varied over the 5 -year analysis period, and the condition of the markings was observed only once. Furthermore, in some regions, the crosswalk markings may be less visible during or after rain or snow storms. It is also recognized, however, that 35 Page 59 some agencies may maintain and restripe crosswalks more often than other agencies included in the study sample. MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALK COMPARISONS The results revealed that on two-lane roads, there were no significant differences in pedestrian crashes for marked and unmarked crosswalk sites. In other words, pedestrian safety on two-lane roads was not found to be different, whether the crosswalk was marked or unmarked. This conclusion is based on a sample size of 914 crossing sites on two-lane roads (out of 2,000 total sites). Specifically, binomial comparison of pedestrian crash rates were computed for marked and unmarked sites within subsets by ADT, median type, and number of lanes, as shown in figure 18. On multilane roads with ADT of 12,000 or less, there were also no differences in pedestrian crash rates between marked and unmarked sites. On multilane roads with no raised medians and ADTs greater than 12,000, sites with marked crosswalks had higher pedestrian crash rates than unmarked crossings. On multilane roads (roads with three to eight lanes) with raised medians and vehicle ADTs greater than 15,000, a significantly higher pedestrian crash rate was associated with marked crosswalk sites compared to unmarked sites. Best -fit curves for multilane undivided roads were produced for pedestrian crashes (per million pedestrian crossings) at marked and unmarked crosswalks as a function of vehicle volume (ADT), as shown in figure 19. The data points of figure 19 were obtained by aggregating sites into traffic volume categories. Since each marked crosswalk site and its matched comparison (unmarked) site usually had the same traffic volume, each traffic volume category usually contained the same number of marked and unmarked sites there were a few exceptions). Pedestrian crash rates were computed based on total pedestrian crashes and total pedestrian crossings within each traffic volume category. In figure 19, these rates are plotted at the midpoints of the traffic volume categories. Smooth curves were then fit to the data points. Similar analyses were conducted for multilane divided roads. A final negative binomial model was also developed. The analysis for multilane undivided roads revealed that: For traffic volumes (ADTs) of about 10,000 or less, pedestrian crash rates were about the same (i.e., less than 0.25 pedestrian crashes per million pedestrian crossings) between marked and unmarked crosswalks. For ADTs greater than 10,000, the pedestrian crash rate for marked crosswalks became increasingly higher as the ADTs increased. The pedestrian crash rate at unmarked crossings increased only slightly as the ADTs increased. 36 Page 60 rn p=0.00) No Median Sig. Crosswalk Type All ADT's 1.37 N 1.2 N 0 U= Unmarked O L U Sig. c 0 1 t = N j Q. 0.8 N.S. 0.25 0.28 N.S. c NRm 0.17 0.17 0 U) L 0.6 Ud CL c 0.4 N d d a 0.2 0 M U p=0.00) No Median Sig. Crosswalk Type All ADT's 1.37 2 Lanes M= Marked Sig. = Significant Difference 0 U= Unmarked N.S. = No Significant Difference p=0.02) Sig. Sig. 0.74 0.63 p=0.62) (p=0.87) p=0.59) N.S. 0.25 0.28 N.S. 0.17 015 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0 M U M U No Median No Raised Median All ADT's 12,000 ADT 2 Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes 914 Sites) 260 Sites) M U No Raised Median 12,000-15,000 ADT 3 to 8 Lanes 149 Sites) M U No Raised Median 15,000 ADT 3 to 8 Lanes 417 Sites) Type of Crossing IVI U VI U Raised Median Raised Median 15,000 ADT > 15,000 ADT 3 to 8 Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes 87 Sites) (173 Sites) Figure 18. Pedestrian crash rate versus type of crossing. Page 61 8 2.0 1.0 L pQ0.8 d t L 0.6 U c M 0.4 m a. 0.2 mie Multilane, Undivided Roads Only ADT < 10,000 No difference in pedestrian crashes between marked and unmarked crosswalks ADT > 10,000 Higher pedestrian crash rates at marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks Note: Each data point represents multiple sites within an ADT range. r- 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Vehicle Volume (ADT) Marked O Unmarked Best -Fit Curve: Marked — – Best -Fit Curve: Unmarked Figure 19. Pedestrian crash rates by traffic volume for multilane crossings with no raised medians—marked versus unmarked crosswalks. Page 62 Note that each point on the graph in figure 19 represents dozens of sites, that is, all of the sites corresponding to the given ADT group. For example, the data point for marked crosswalks with ADTs greater than 15,000 corresponds to more than 400 sites. All analyses in this study took into account differences in pedestrian crossing volume, traffic volume, and other important site variables. These results may be somewhat expected. Wide, multilane streets are difficult for many pedestrians to cross, particularly if there is an insufficient number of adequate gaps in traffic due to heavy traffic volume and high vehicle speed. Furthermore, while marked crosswalks in themselves may not increase measurable unsafe pedestrian or motorist behavior (based on the Knoblauch et al. and Knoblauch and Raymond studies (13,14)) one possible explanation is that installing a marked crosswalk may increase the number of at -risk pedestrians (particularly children and older adults) who choose to cross at the uncontrolled location instead of at the nearest traffic signal. The pedestrian crossing counts at the 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 unmarked comparison crossings in this study may partially explain the difference. Overall, 66.1 percent of the observed pedestrians crossed at marked crosswalks, compared to 33.9 percent at unmarked crossings. More than 70 percent of pedestrians under age 12 and above age 64 crossed at marked crosswalks, while about 35 percent of pedestrians in the 19- to 35 -year-old range crossed at unmarked crossings, as shown in figure 20. The age group of pedestrians was estimated based on site observation. An even greater percentage of older adults (81.3 percent) and young children (76.0 percent) chose to cross in marked crosswalks on multilane roads compared to two-lane roads. Thus, installing a marked crosswalk at an already undesirable crossing location (e.g., wide, high-volume street) may increase the chance of a pedestrian crash occurring at such a site if a few at -risk pedestrians are encouraged to cross where other adequate crossing facilities are not provided. This explanation might be evidenced by the many calls to traffic engineers from citizens who state, "Please install a marked crosswalk so that we can cross the dangerous street near our house." Unfortunately, simply installing a marked crosswalk without other more substantial crossing facilities often does not result in the majority of motorists stopping and yielding to pedestrians, contrary to the expectations of many pedestrians. On three -lane roads (i.e., one lane in each direction with a center two-way left -turn lane), the crash risk was slightly higher for marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks, but this difference was not significant (based on a sample size of 148 sites). lei trT.II1,aSIA 9Oki The greatest difference in pedestrian crash types that occurred at marked and unmarked crosswalks involved multiple -threat crashes. A multiple -threat crash involves a driver stopping in one lane of a multilane road to permit pedestrians to cross, and an oncoming vehicle (in the same direction) strikes the pedestrian who is crossing in front of the stopped vehicle. This crash type involves both the pedestrian and driver failing to see each other in time to avoid the collision (see figure 21). To avoid multiple -threat collisions, drivers should slow down and look around stopped vehicles in the adjacent travel lane, and pedestrians should stop at the outer edge of a stopped vehicle and look into the oncoming lane for approaching vehicles before stepping into the lane. 39 Page 63 E_ M to N 70 N O L V 60 C ca 50 CL 40 Q y.. O 30 ca C v 20 i CL 10 a 12 13-18 19-25 26-35 36-50 51-64 65+ Pedestrian Age M Marked (All Sites) E— Unmarked (All Sites) 0 Marked (4 or more lanes) f Marked (2 lanes) O— Unmarked (4 or more lanes) 0 Unmarked (2 lanes) Marked = 66.1 % overall Unmarked = 33.9% overall Note: Overall, for the 2,000 study sites, 66.1% of the pedestrians crossed in marked crosswalks, while 33.9% crossed at unmarked crossings. Figure 20. Percentage of pedestrians crossing at marked and unmarked crosswalks by age group and road type. Page 64 81.3 6 73. 3 8 73.1 68.7 4 6 .5 1 4 5.5 31.3 6. 4 6.2 26.9 18.7 12 13-18 19-25 26-35 36-50 51-64 65+ Pedestrian Age M Marked (All Sites) E— Unmarked (All Sites) 0 Marked (4 or more lanes) f Marked (2 lanes) O— Unmarked (4 or more lanes) 0 Unmarked (2 lanes) Marked = 66.1 % overall Unmarked = 33.9% overall Note: Overall, for the 2,000 study sites, 66.1% of the pedestrians crossed in marked crosswalks, while 33.9% crossed at unmarked crossings. Figure 20. Percentage of pedestrians crossing at marked and unmarked crosswalks by age group and road type. Page 64 Figure 21. Illustration of multiple -threat pedestrian crash. A total of 17.6 percent (33 out of 188) of the pedestrian crashes in marked crosswalks were classified as multiple threat. None of the 41 pedestrian crashes in unmarked crosswalks was a multiple -threat crash. This finding may be the result of one or more of the following factors: Drivers may be more likely to stop and yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crossings, since at least one motorist must stop for a pedestrian to set up a multiple -threat pedestrian collision. Also, pedestrians may be more likely to step out in front of oncoming traffic in a marked crosswalk than at an unmarked location in some instances. A second explanation is related to the fact that most of the total pedestrians who are crossing multilane roads are crossing in a marked crosswalk (66.1 percent), as shown earlier in figure 14. Furthermore, of the pedestrian age groups most at risk (the young and the old), an even greater proportion of these pedestrians are choosing to cross multilane roads in marked crosswalks (76 percent and 81.3 percent, respectively). Another possible explanation could be that some pedestrians crossing in a marked crosswalk may be less likely to search properly for vehicles (compared to an unmarked crossing) when stepping out past a stopped vehicle and into an adjacent lane (i.e., pedestrians not realizing that they need to search for other oncoming vehicles after one motorist stops for them). Further research on pedestrian and motorist behavior could help to gain a better understanding of the causes and potential effects of countermeasures (e.g., advance stop lines) related to these crashes. There is also a need to examine the current laws and level of police enforcement (and a possible need for changes in the laws) on motorist responsibility to yield to pedestrians and how these laws differ between States. A distribution of pedestrian crash types, which includes all of the 229 pedestrian collisions at the 2,000 study sites, is shown in figure 22. Motorists failing to yield (on through movements) represented a large percentage of pedestrian crashes in marked crosswalks (41.5 percent) and unmarked crosswalks (31.7 percent). Likewise, vehicle turn and merge crashes, also generally the fault of the driver, accounted for 19.2 percent (marked crosswalks) and 12.2 percent (unmarked crosswalks) of such crashes (see figure 22). These results indicate a strong need 41 Page 65 for improved driver enforcement and education programs that emphasize the importance of yielding or stopping for pedestrians. More pedestrian -friendly roadway designs may also be helpful in reducing such crashes by slowing vehicles, providing pedestrian refuge (e.g., raised medians), and/or better warning to motorists about pedestrian crossings. 45 40 N 35 mLNR U 30 CCa y 25 QQCL Q 20 0 mrnf6 15 cmv da 10 Multiple Threat Vehicle Turn/Merge Dartout Dash Pedestrian — Fail to Motorist — Fail to Yield` Yield` Crash Type Marked Unmarked Figure 22. Pedestrian crash types at marked and unmarked crosswalks. A substantial proportion of pedestrian crashes involved dartout, dash, and other types of crashes in which the pedestrian stepped or ran in front of an oncoming vehicle at unmarked crosswalks (23 of 41, or 56.1 percent) and a lesser proportion occurred at marked crosswalks (41 of 188, or 21.8 percent). Police officers sometimes unjustifiably assign fault to the pedestrian, which suggests the need for more police training. Specifically, it may be questioned why so many pedestrian crashes were designated by the police officer as "pedestrian fails to yield," since in most States, motorists are required legally to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians who are crossing in marked or unmarked crosswalks. Of course, some State ordinances do specify that pedestrians also bear some responsibility for avoiding a collision by not stepping out into the street directly into the path of an oncoming motorist who is too close to the crosswalk to stop in time to avoid a collision. It is likely that police officers often rely largely on the statement of the motorist (e.g., "the pedestrian ran out in front of me" or "came out of nowhere") in determining fault in such crashes, particularly when the driver was not paying proper attention to the road, the pedestrian is unconscious, and there are no other witnesses at the scene. However, it is also true that a major contributing factor is the unsafe behavior of pedestrians. Dartouts, dashes, and failure of the pedestrians to yield were indicated by police officers as contributing causes in 27.9 percent (64 of 229) of the pedestrian crashes at the study sites. These results are indicative of a need for improved pedestrian educational programs, which is in agreement with recommendations in other important studies related to improving the safety of vulnerable road users. (33) Furthermore, speeding drivers often contribute to 42 Page 66 dartout crashes, in addition to unsafe pedestrian behaviors. Creating more pedestrian -friendly crossings by including curb extensions, traffic -calming measures, and other features may also be useful in reducing many of these crashes. It should be mentioned that alcohol use by pedestrians and motorists may also contribute to pedestrian crash experience. However, reliable information on alcohol involvement was not available from local crash reports; therefore, such analysis was not possible for this study. C"7Y T:/ tM.M An analysis was conducted to compare pedestrian crash severity on marked and unmarked crosswalks figure 23). Crash severity did not differ significantly between marked and unmarked crosswalks on two- lane roads. On multilane roads, there was evidence of more fatal (type K) and type A injury pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks, although the sample sizes were too small for statistical reliability. This result probably is due to older pedestrians being more likely than other age groups to walk in marked rather than unmarked crosswalks. Furthermore, older pedestrians are much more likely to sustain fatal and serious injuries than younger pedestrians. As mentioned earlier, speed limits of 56.3 km/h (35 mi/h) and higher were associated with a greater percentage of fatal and/or type A injuries (43 percent), whereas sites with lower speed limits had 23 percent of pedestrian crashes resulting in fatal and/or type A injuries. 43 Page 67 45% 40% 35% NC 2 30% N O U 25% L Nd 20% O 10% 5% 0% 42.7% Marked Crosswalks 38.5% Unmarked Crosswalks 35.9% ]- 28.1% 21.9° 15.4% 10.3% 3.9% 3.4% F-1 I I I I 1 0.0% None/Possible Injury Type C (Minor) Injury Type B (Moderate) Type A Fatal Injury Injury (Serious/Incapacitating) Injury Injury Severity Figure 23. Severity distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks. LIGHTING AND TIME OF DAY Nighttime pedestrian crash percentages were about the same at marked and unmarked crosswalks approximately 30 percent). In terms of time of day, the percentage of pedestrian crashes in marked crosswalks tended to be higher than for unmarked crosswalks during the morning (6 to 10 a.m.) and afternoon (3 to 7 p.m.) peak periods, but lower in the midday (10 a.m. to 3 p.m.) and evening (7 p.m. to midnight) periods (figure 24). This is probably because pedestrians are more likely to cross in marked crosswalks than in unmarked crossings during peak traffic periods (e.g., walking to and from work) than at other times. As shown in figure 25, little difference is noticeable between pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks with respect to light condition. However, it is apparent that adequate nighttime lighting should be provided at marked crosswalks to enhance the safety of pedestrians crossing at night. Page 68 40°% 35% 30% NCO A O 25% V cm y 20% aa. 0 15% m aa. 0 Marked Crosswalks 34 2%. arked Crosswalks 12 a.m. to 5:59 a.m. 6 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. 10 a.m. to 2:59 p.m. 3 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 7 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. Time of Day Figure 24. Distribution of pedestrian collisions by time of day for marked and unmarked crosswalks. 45 Page 69 12 a.m. to 5:59 a.m. 6 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. 10 a.m. to 2:59 p.m. 3 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 7 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. Time of Day Figure 24. Distribution of pedestrian collisions by time of day for marked and unmarked crosswalks. 45 Page 69 80 70 un 60% aO y U 50% Cm U4 40 IL 30% C NV d CL 20% 10% 0% Marked Crosswalks 66.5% W Unmarked Crosswalks 30.0 25.4 4.9% 2.5 3.2 F_ r F___N 0.0 Daylight Dawn/Dusk Dark - Lighted Dark - No Lights Light Condition Figure 25. Pedestrian collisions by light condition for marked and unmarked crosswalks. AGE EFFECTS A separate analysis of pedestrian crashes and crossing volumes by age of pedestrian was conducted figure 26). For virtually every situation studied, pedestrians age 65 and older were overrepresented in pedestrian crashes compared to their relative crossing volumes. Figures 27-30 show the relative proportion of crashes and exposure for various age groups for marked crosswalks on two-lane and multilane roads. For a given age group, when the proportion of crashes exceeds the proportion of exposure, then crashes are overrepresented; that is, pedestrians in that population group are at greater risk of being in a pedestrian crash than would be expected from their volume alone. The pedestrian age groups younger than 65 showed no clear increase in crash risk compared to their crossing volumes. One possible reason that young pedestrians were not overly involved in crash occurrences is the fact that many crashes involving young pedestrians (particularly ages 5 to 9) occur on residential streets, whereas this study did not include school crossings; most sites were drawn from collector and arterial streets (where marked crosswalks exist) that are less likely to be frequented by unescorted young children. Also, some of the young children counted in this study were crossing with their parents or other adults, which may have reduced their risk of a crash. Some of the possible reasons that older pedestrians are at greater risk when crossing streets compared to other age groups are that older adults are more likely (as an overall group) than younger pedestrians to have: Slower walking speeds (and thus greater exposure time). Visual and/or hearing impairments. M Page 70 Difficulty in judging the distance and speed of oncoming traffic. More difficulty keeping track of vehicles coming from different directions, including turning vehicles. Inability to react (e.g., stop, dodge, or run) as quickly as younger pedestrians in order to avoid a collision under emergency conditions. 40 35 y 30 cO T) U 25% CR U) 20% ma wO 15% c m mIL 10% 5% 0% 0 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65+ Age of Pedestrian Figure 26. Age distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks. 47 Page 71 37.2% Marked Crosswalks Unmarked Crosswalks 33.3% 27.8 17.216.7% 13.9% 0 NN NNI 11.1% 7.2% 8.3 % 7.2% LNN 5.6% 5.6 0 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65+ Age of Pedestrian Figure 26. Age distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks. 47 Page 71 IR 30 25 20 30 a Pedestrian Exposure Pedestrian Crashes 12 13-18 19-26 26-36 36-50 51-64 66+ Pedestrian Age Figure 27. Two -Lane Roads, Marked Crosswalks. Pedestrian Exposure estrian rhes 12 13-10 19-25 26-35 36-50 51-64 65+ Pedestrian Age 30 25 0 Pedestrian Exposure Pedestrian Crashes 12 13_16 19-25 26-35 36-50 51-64 65+ Pedestrian Age Figure 28. Two -Lane Roads, Unmarked Crosswalks. Pedestrian Exposure 30 Pedestrian Crashes 25 20 sa I5 CLV ' 10 5 0 12 13-18 ISI -15 26-35 36-50 51-64 65+ Pedestrian Age Figure 29. Multilane Roads, Marked Crosswalks. Figure 30. Multilane Roads, Unmarked Crosswalks. Figures 27-30. Percentage of crashes and exposure by pedestrian age group and roadway type at uncontrolled marked and unmarked crosswalks. Page 72 17 R iI DI:Z:1e107 DI J DES 117 Elrtj[177y1LOZ111R. A .WIIV A companion study was conducted by Knoblauch et al. on pedestrian and motorist behavior and on vehicle speed before and after crosswalk installation at sites in Minnesota, New York, and Virginia (on two-lane and three -lane streets) to help gain a better understanding of the effects of marked crosswalks versus unmarked crosswalks!") The study results revealed that very few motorists stopped or yielded to pedestrians either before or after marked crosswalks were installed. After marked crosswalks were installed, there was a small increase in pedestrian scanning behavior before stepping out into the street. Also, there was approximately a 1.6 -km/h (1-mi/h) reduction in vehicle speed after the marked crosswalks were installed! 13) These behavioral results tend to contradict the false sense of security claims attributed to marked crosswalks, since observed pedestrian behavior actually improved after marked crosswalks were installed at the study sites. However, measures such as pedestrian awareness and an expectation that motorists will stop for them cannot be collected by field observation alone. Installing marked crosswalks or other measures can affect pedestrian level of service if the measures increase the number of motorists who stop and yield to pedestrians. Furthermore, a greater likelihood of motorist stopping can also setup more multiple threat crashes on multilane roads. Future studies using focus groups of pedestrians and questionnaires completed by pedestrians in the field could shed light on such measures. 49 Page 73 Page 74 CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and their needs should be identified routinely —and appropriate solutions selected—to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. The study results revealed that under no condition was the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location associated with a significantly lower pedestrian crash rate compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Furthermore, on multilane roads with traffic volumes greater than 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate (after controlling for other site factors) compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Therefore, adding marked crosswalks alone (i.e., with no engineering, enforcement, or education enhancement) is not expected to reduce pedestrian crashes for any of the conditions included in the study. On many roadways, particularly multilane and high-speed crossing locations, more substantial improvements often are needed for safer pedestrian crossings, such as providing raised medians, installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals) when warranted, implementing speed -reducing measures, and/or other practices. In addition, development patterns that reduce the speed and number of multilane roads should be encouraged. Street crossing locations should be routinely reviewed to consider the three following available options: 1. No special provisions needed. 2. Provide a marked crosswalk alone. 3. Install other crossing improvements (with or without a marked crosswalk) to reduce vehicle speeds, shorten the crossing distance, or increase the likelihood of motorists stopping and yielding. GUIDELINES FOR CROSSWALK INSTALLATION Marked pedestrian crosswalks may be used to delineate preferred pedestrian paths across roadways under the following conditions: At locations with stop signs or traffic signals to direct pedestrians to those crossing locations and to prevent vehicular traffic from blocking the pedestrian path when stopping for a stop sign or red light. At nonsignalized street crossing locations in designated school zones. Use of adult crossing guards, school signs and markings, and/or traffic signals with pedestrian signals (when warranted) should be considered in conjunction with the marked crosswalk, as needed. At nonsignalized locations where engineering judgment dictates that the number of motor vehicle lanes, pedestrian exposure, average daily traffic (ADT), posted speed limit, and geometry of the location would make the use of specially designated crosswalks desirable for traffic/pedestrian safety and mobility. Marked crosswalks alone (i.e., without traffic -calming treatments, traffic signals and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement) are insufficient and should not be used under the following conditions: 51 Page 75 Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h). On a roadway with four or more lanes without a raised median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 12,000 or greater. On a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median or crossing island that has (or soon will have) an ADT of 15,000 or greater. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS Since sites in this study were confined to those having no traffic signal or stop sign on the main street approaches to the crosswalk, it follows that these results do not apply to crossings controlled by traffic signals, stop or yield signs, traffic -calming treatments, or other devices. These results also do not apply to school crossings, since such sites were purposely excluded from the site selection process. The results of this study have some clear implications on the placement of marked crosswalks and the design of safer pedestrian crossings at uncontrolled locations. Pedestrian crashes are relatively rare at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings (1 crash every 43.7 years per site in this study); however, the certainty of injury to the pedestrian and the high likelihood of a severe or fatal injury in a high-speed crash make it critical to provide a pedestrian -friendly transportation network. Marked crosswalks alone (i.e., without traffic -calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial improvement) are not recommended at uncontrolled crossing locations on multilane roads (i.e., four or more lanes) where traffic volume exceeds approximately 12,000 vehicles per day (with no raised medians) or approximately 15,000 ADT (with raised medians that serve as refuge areas). This recommendation is based on the analysis of pedestrian crash experience, as well as exposure data and site conditions described earlier. To add a margin of safety and/or to account for future increases in traffic volume, the authors recommend against installing marked crosswalks alone on two- lane roads with ADTs greater than 12,000 or on multilane roads with ADTs greater than 9,000 (with no raised median). This study also recommends against installing marked crosswalks alone on roadways with speed limits higher than 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) based on the expected increase in driver stopping distance at higher speeds. (Few sites were found for this study having marked crosswalks where speed limits exceeded 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h).) Instead, enhanced crossing treatments (e.g., traffic -calming treatments, traffic and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial improvement) are recommended. Specific recommendations are given in table 11 regarding installation of marked crosswalks and other crossing measures. It is important for motorists to understand their legal responsibility to yield to pedestrians at marked and unmarked crosswalks, which may vary from State to State. Also, pedestrians should use caution when crossing streets, regardless of who has the legal right- of-way, since it is the pedestrian who suffers the most physical injury in a collision with a motor vehicle. On two-lane roads and lower volume multilane roads (ADTs less than 12,000), marked crosswalks were not found to have any positive or negative effect on pedestrian crash rates at the study sites. Marked crosswalks may encourage pedestrians to cross the street at such sites. However, it is recommended that crosswalks alone (without other crossing enhancements) not be installed at locations that may pose unusual safety risks to pedestrians. Pedestrians should not be encouraged to cross the street at sites with limited sight distance, complex or confusing designs, or at sites with certain vehicle mixes (many heavy trucks) or other dangers unless adequate design features and/or traffic control devices are in place. At uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations, installing marked crosswalks should not be regarded as a magic cure for pedestrian safety problems. However, marked crosswalks also should not be considered as 52 Page 76 a negative measure that will necessarily increase pedestrian crashes. Marked crosswalks are appropriate at some locations (e.g., at selected low -speed, two-lane streets at downtown crossing locations) to help channel pedestrians to preferred crossing locations, but other roadway improvements are also necessary e.g., raised medians, traffic -calming treatments, traffic and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement) when used at other locations. The guidelines presented in table 11 are intended to provide guidance for installing marked crosswalks and other pedestrian crossing facilities. Note that speed limit was used in table 11 in addition to ADT, number of lanes, and presence of a median. In developing the table, roads with higher speed limits (higher than 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h)) were considered to be inappropriate for adding marked crosswalks alone. This is because virtually no uncontrolled, marked crosswalk sites where speed limits exceed 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) were found in the 30 U.S. cities used in this study. Thus, these types of high-speed, uncontrolled marked crosswalks could not be included in the analysis. Also, high-speed roadways present added problems for pedestrians and thus require more substantial treatments in many cases. That may be why Germany, Finland, and Norway do not allow uncontrolled crosswalks on roads with high speed limits. (30) For three -lane roads, adding marked crosswalks alone (without other substantial treatments) is generally not recommended for ADTs greater than 12,000, although exceptions may be allowed under certain conditions (e.g., lower speed limits). If nothing else is done beyond marking crosswalks at an uncontrolled location, pedestrians will not experience increased safety (under any situations included in the analysis). This finding is in some ways consistent with the companion study by Knoblauch et al. that found that marking a crosswalk would not necessarily increase the number of motorists that will stop or yield to pedestrians. (13) Research from Europe shows the need for pedestrian improvements beyond uncontrolled crosswalks. (17,2t) 53 Page 77 Table It. Recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and other needed pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.* 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 trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor 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 judgment 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 not be used at unsignalized locations. The raised median or crossing island must be at least 1.2 in (4 ft) wide and 1.8 in (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 locations, 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 utilization of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic -calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. Page 78 Vehicle ADT Vehicle ADT Vehicle ADT Vehicle ADT Roadway Type 9,000 9,000 to 12,000 1 >12,000-15,000 15,000 Seed Limit** Number of Travel Lanes and Median Type) 48.3 56.4 64.4 48.3 56.4 64.4 48.3 56.4 64.4 48.3 56.4 64.4 km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h 30 35 40 30 35 40 30 35 40 30 35 40 mi/h) mi/h) mi/h) mi/h) mi/h) mi/h) mi/h mi/h) mi/h mi/h mi/h 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) C C P C P N P P N N N N with raised median*** Multilane (four or more lanes) C P N P P N N N N N N N without raised median 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 trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor 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 judgment 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 not be used at unsignalized locations. The raised median or crossing island must be at least 1.2 in (4 ft) wide and 1.8 in (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 locations, 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 utilization of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic -calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. Page 78 In some situations (e.g., low -speed, two-lane streets in downtown areas), installing a marked crosswalk may help consolidate multiple crossing points. Engineering judgment should be used to install crosswalks at preferred crossing locations (e.g., at a crossing location at a streetlight as opposed to an unlit crossing point nearby). While overuse of marked crossings at uncontrolled locations should be avoided, higher priority should be placed on providing crosswalk markings where pedestrian volume exceeds about 20 per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly pedestrians and/or children per peak hour). Marked crosswalks and other pedestrian facilities (or lack of facilities) should be routinely monitored to determine what improvements are needed. POSSIBLE MEASURES TO HELP PEDESTRIANS Although simply installing marked crosswalks by themselves cannot solve pedestrian crossing problems, the safety needs of pedestrians must not be ignored. More substantial engineering and roadway treatments need to be considered, as well as enforcement and education programs and possibly new legislation to provide safer and easier crossings for pedestrians at problem locations. Transportation and safety engineers have a responsibility to consider all types of road users in roadway planning, design, and maintenance. Pedestrians must be provided with safe facilities for travel. A variety of pedestrian facilities have been found to improve pedestrian safety and/or ability to cross the street under various conditions. (See references 16, 31, 32, 33, and 34.) Examples of pedestrian improvements include: Providing raised medians (figure 31) or intersection crossing islands on multilane roads, which can significantly reduce the pedestrian crash rate and also facilitate street crossing. Also, raised medians may provide aesthetic improvement and may control access to prevent unsafe turns out of driveways. Refuge islands should be at least 1.2 m (4 ft) wide (and preferably 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft) wide) and of adequate length to allow pedestrians to stand and wait for gaps in traffic before crossing the second half of the street. When built, the landscaping should be designed and maintained to provide good visibility between pedestrians and approaching motorists. Figure 31. Raised medians and crossing islands can improve pedestrian safety on multilane roads. Installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals), where warranted (see figures 32 and 33). 55 Page 79 Figure 32. Pedestrian signals help accommodate pedestrian crossings on some high-volume or multilane roads. Figure 33. Traffic signals are needed to improve pedestrian crossings on some high- volume or multilane roads. Reducing the effective street crossing distance for pedestrians by narrowing the roads or by providing curb extensions (figures 34 and 35) and/or raised pedestrian islands at intersections. Figure 34. Curb extensions at midblock locations reduce crossing distance for pedestrians. Figure 35. Curb extensions at intersections reduce crossing distance for pedestrians. Another option is to reduce four -lane undivided road sections to two through -lanes with dual left -turn lanes or left -turn bays. Reducing the width of the lanes may result in slower speeds in some situations, which can benefit pedestrians who are attempting to cross the street. This creates enough space to provide median islands. The removal of a travel lane may also allow enough space for sidewalks and/or bike lanes. Installing traffic -calming measures may be appropriate on certain streets to slow vehicle speeds and/or reduce cut -through traffic, as described in a 1999 report titled Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. (24) Traffic -calming measures include raised crossings (raised crosswalks, raised intersections) (see figure 36), street narrowing measures (chicanes, slow points, "skinny street" designs), and intersection 56 Page 80 designs (traffic minicircles, diagonal diverters). Note that some of these traffic -calming measures may not be appropriate on major collector or arterial streets. Figure 36. Raised crosswalks can control vehicle speeds on local streets at pedestrian crossings. Providing adequate nighttime lighting for pedestrians (figure 37). Adequate nighttime lighting should be provided at marked crosswalks and areas near churches, schools, and community centers with nighttime pedestrian activity. Figure 37. Adequate lighting can improve pedestrian safety at night. Designing safer intersections for pedestrians (e.g., crossing islands, tighter turn radii). Providing narrower widths and/or access management (e.g., consolidation of driveways). Constructing grade -separated crossings or pedestrian -only streets (see figure 38). Grade -separated crossings are very expensive and should only be considered in extreme situations, such as where pedestrian crossings are essential (e.g., school children need to cross a six -lane arterial street), street - crossing at -grade is not feasible for pedestrians, and no other measures are considered to be 57 Page 81 appropriate. Grade -separated crossings must also conform to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Figure 38. Grade -separated crossings sometimes are used when other measures are not feasible to provide safe pedestrian crossings. Using various pedestrian warning signs, flashers, and other traffic control devices to supplement marked crosswalks (figure 39). However, the effects of supplemental signs and other devices at marked crosswalks are not well known under various roadway conditions. According to the MUTCD, pedestrian crossing signs should only be used at locations that are unusually hazardous, where crossing activity is unexpected, or at locations where pedestrian crossing activity is not readily apparent. (2) Figure 39. Pedestrian warning signs sometimes are used to supplement crosswalks. Building narrower streets in new communities to achieve desired vehicle speeds. Increasing the frequency of two-lane or three -lane arterials when designing new street networks so that fewer multilane arterials are required. It is recommended that parking be eliminated on the approach to uncontrolled crosswalks to improve vision between pedestrians and motorists. The 2000 Uniform Vehicle Code specifies that parking should be prohibited within an intersection on a crosswalk, and within 6.1 m (20 ft) of a crosswalk at an intersection (which could be increased to 9.1 to 15.25 m (30 to 50 ft) in advance of a crosswalk on a high- speed road.(') W. Page 82 Some agencies provide fences or railings in the raised medians of multilane roads that direct pedestrians to the right; this results in a two-stage crossing and increases the likelihood of pedestrians looking for vehicles coming from their right in the second half of the street (figures 40 and 41). 7WW FO A 1 Figure 40. Fences or railings in the median direct pedestrians to the right and may reduce pedestrian crashes on the second half of the street. 59 Angled Crosswalk in Median - Plan View Figure 41. Angled crosswalks with barriers can direct pedestrians to face upstream and increase the pedestrian's awareness of traffic. Page 83 Proper planning and land use practices should be applied to benefit pedestrians. For example, busy arterial streets should be used as a boundary for school attendance or school busing. Major pedestrian destinations should not be separated from each other or from their parking facilities by a wide, busy street. The MUTCD pedestrian signal warrant should be reviewed to determine whether the warrant should be modified to more easily allow for installing a traffic signal at locations where pedestrians cannot safely cross the street (and where no alternative safe crossings exist nearby). Consideration must always include pedestrians with disabilities and proper accommodations must be provided to meet ADA requirements. There should be continued research, development, and testing/explanation of innovative traffic control and roadway design alternatives that could provide improved access and safety for pedestrians attempting to cross streets. For example, in -pavement warning lights, variations in pedestrian warning and regulatory signs (including signs placed in the centerline to reinforce motorists yielding to pedestrians), roadway narrowing, traffic -calming measures, and automated speed -monitoring techniques deserve further research and development to determine their feasibility under various traffic and roadway conditions. More details about these and other pedestrian facilities are contained in the Pedestrian Facilities User's Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility, (22) and in the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) publications Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities (35) and The Traffic Safety Toolbox (chapter 19, Designing for Pedestrians" ).(36) Table 11 provides initial guidance on whether an uncontrolled location might be a candidate for a marked crosswalk alone and/or whether additional geometric and/or traffic control improvements are needed. As a part of the review process for pedestrian crossings, an engineering study should be used to analyze other factors, including (but not limited to), gaps in traffic, approach speed, sight distances, illumination, the needs of special populations, and the distance to the nearest traffic signal. The spacing of marked crosswalks should also be considered so that they are not placed too close together. Overuse of marked crosswalks may breed driver disrespect for them, and a more conservative use of crosswalks generally is preferred. Thus, it is recommended that in situations where marked crosswalks alone are acceptable (see table 11) a higher priority be placed on their use at locations having a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians per peak hour). In all cases, good engineering judgment must be applied. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Distance of Marked Crosswalks from Signalized Intersections Marked crosswalks should not be installed in close proximity to signalized intersections (which may or may not have marked crosswalks); instead, pedestrians should be encouraged to cross at the signal in most situations. The minimum distance from a signal for installing a marked crosswalk should be determined by local traffic engineers based on pedestrian crossing demand, type of roadway, traffic volume, and other factors. The objective of adding a marked crosswalk is to channel pedestrians to safer crossing points. It should be understood, however, that pedestrian crossing behavior may be difficult to control merely by adding marked crosswalks. The new marked crosswalk should not unduly restrict platooned traffic, and also should be consistent with marked crosswalks at other unsignalized locations in the area. Page 84 Alternative Treatments In addition to installing marked crosswalks—or in some cases, instead of installing marked crosswalks— there are other treatments that should be considered to provide safer and easier crossings for pedestrians. Examples of these pedestrian improvements: Provide raised medians (or raised crossing islands) on multilane roads. Install traffic signals and pedestrian signals where warranted and where serious pedestrian crossing problems exist. Reduce the exposure crossing distance for pedestrians by: Providing curb extensions. Providing pedestrian median refuge islands. Reducing four -lane undivided road sections to two through lanes with a left -turn bay (or a two- way left -turn lane), sidewalks, and bicycle lanes. Locate bus stops on the far side of uncontrolled marked crosswalks. Install traffic -calming measures to slow vehicle speeds and/or reduce cut -through traffic. Such measures may include: Raised crossings (raised crosswalks, raised intersections). Street -narrowing measures (chicanes, slow points, "skinny street" designs). Intersection designs (traffic minicircles, diagonal diverters). Other treatments are available; see Traffic Calming: State of the Practice for further details. (24) Some of these traffic -calming measures are better suited to local or neighborhood streets than to arterial streets. Provide adequate nighttime street lighting for pedestrians in areas with nighttime pedestrian activity where illumination is inadequate. Design safer intersections and driveways for pedestrians (e.g., crossing islands, tighter turn radii), which take into consideration the needs of pedestrians. In developing the proposed U.S. guidelines for marked crosswalks and other pedestrian measures, consideration was given not only to the research results in this study, but also to crosswalk guidelines and related pedestrian safety research in Sweden, England, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, and Hungary. (See references 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 33, and 37.) More details on pedestrian facilities are given in the 2001 Pedestrian Facilities User's Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility, (22) Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities,(35) The Traffic Safety Toolbox,(361 and Making Streets That Work—Neighborhood Planning Tool,(38) among others. 61 Page 85 Page 86 APPENDIX A. DETAILS OF DATA COLLECTION METHODS This study evaluated the safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, that is, at crossings with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach. Therefore, the data collection activities were undertaken to: (1) select suitable marked and unmarked crosswalks, and (2) obtain pedestrian crash and exposure data. Data collection was conducted in five steps, which are discussed below. STEP 1—INVENTORY CROSSWALKS AND CONTROL SITES Through conversations with city traffic engineers and pedestrian/bike coordinators, 28 cities and 2 counties were selected for crosswalk inventory. Either the Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC) staff or local data collectors performed the inventory by driving along selected streets in each city. These streets were in the downtown area, other commercial areas, and built-up residential areas, where marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations were known or expected to be present. The inventory data collection form is shown in figure 41. STEP 2—RECORD DATA ON INVENTORY SHEETS For most cities, the inventory of crosswalk and comparison sites was recorded on videotape. An HSRC staff member watched the videotapes and completed a crosswalk inventory form (see figure 42). Several local data collectors filled out the inventory form directly and mailed the completed forms to HSRC. This process was used both to select unmarked crosswalks (i.e., matched comparison sites—see step 3) and to extract relevant information about the marked crosswalks. Location Description For record-keeping purposes, each marked crosswalk and matching comparison site was assigned a site number. Street or route refers to the main road that the pedestrian crosses, and intersecting street is the side street that crosses or forms a "T" with the main road. The leg (east, west, north, south) where the crosswalk or comparison site exists was recorded. If there were crosswalks on both legs (east and west or north and south) of the same intersection, they were assigned two site numbers and listed separately. Midblock location was noted when appropriate, along with the intersecting streets to either side. A total of 827 intersection and 173 midblock marked crosswalks were used in the analysis, with an equal number of matched comparison sites. Number of Lanes The total number of lanes, including any turn lanes, that a pedestrian must cross was recorded. Figure 43 shows the distribution of the 1,000 marked crosswalks that were used in the analysis according to the number of lanes. Nearly half (45.8 percent) of the sites were on two-lane roads, with about one third of the sites on four -lane roads. Median Type The median type was recorded as either none, raised, or painted. Two-way left -turn lanes were considered to be traffic lanes. There was no median for about two-thirds of the 1,000 marked (and unmarked) crosswalks that were used in the analysis. Raised medians were present for 14 percent of the marked (and unmarked) crosswalks, and painted medians, about 15 percent. 63 Page 87 One -Way or Two -Way About Shpercent of acJo@»ak were on two-way smG,wlal4 percent on one*a streets. Ik,A 93 i r In i 7 7d6:] u 2 w m;a z w m a m a Figure 42 Pedestrian crosswalk inventory Arm 64 Page 88 4 lanes 32.4% 8 lanes 0.2% 7 lanes 0.9% 6 lanes lan6. 2% r, a 3 lanes 7.4% Figure 43. Number of lanes for marked crosswalks. 2 lanes 45.8% Page 89 Type of Crosswalk Crosswalks usually had standard markings (two parallel white lines). Various types of crosswalk markings are illustrated in figure 7 (shown in chapter 2). The presence of any signs or beacons was also noted. Types of signs and beacons included: Advanced Crosswalk Sign: Mounted in advance of the crosswalk, to warn drivers that they are approaching a crosswalk. Crosswalk Sign: Placed at the crosswalk. Overhead Sign: An overhead pedestrian warning sign (in advance or at the crosswalk). Flash: A flashing beacon placed next to the crosswalk. Overhead Flash: A flashing beacon placed over the crosswalk. Only 19 of the 2,000 sites (less than 1 percent) had any of these supplemental devices. Sites were selected to minimize the number of signs or beacons. Condition of Crosswalk Markings The condition of the marked crosswalk was recorded as excellent (E), good (G), fair (F), or poor (P). There was no way to determine the condition of the markings over the entire study period. Area Type Each crosswalk was in a central business district (CBD), fringe, or residential area. CBD: CBDs are downtown areas and are characterized by moderate to heavy pedestrian volumes, lower vehicle speeds, and dense commercial activity. Fringe: Fringe areas include suburban and commercial retail activity areas, and typically have moderate pedestrian volumes. These areas may also include high-rise apartments. Residential: Residential development would generally correspond to lower pedestrian volumes. Of the 2,000 marked and unmarked crosswalks that were used in the analysis, 199 (10 percent) were in a CBD, 1,093 (54.7 percent) were in fringe areas, and 708 (35.4 percent) were in residential areas. Estimated Pedestrian ADT For each crosswalk and control site, the pedestrian ADT was based on expanding short-term pedestrian counts based on adjustment factors, as described below. Pedestrians and motorists are out and about at all hours of the day and night. As a result, pedestrian crashes may happen at any hour. Therefore, to calculate crash rates, 24-hour daily pedestrian volumes are needed. It was not feasible to count pedestrians for every hour at each of the 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 unmarked comparison sites. Instead, pedestrians were counted by 15 -minute intervals for a total of 1 hour at each site. These counts were conducted on weekdays during daylight hours. The earliest count intervals started at 7 a.m., and the latest count intervals ended at 6 p.m. Daily pedestrian volumes at each marked crosswalk and unmarked comparison site were then estimated from these 1 -hour counts. If pedestrian activity were evenly distributed in each hour of the day, then each hour would comprise about 4.2 percent (100 percent - 24 hours) of the daily total. The 1 -hour count Page 90 could simply be divided by an hourly adjustment factor of 4.2 percent (0.042) to get the all -day volume. In reality, though, hourly volumes vary throughout the day with greater pedestrian activity during certain peak periods. Suppose that 10 out of 100 (10 percent) of the day's pedestrians are counted between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. If that hour's count were divided by 0.042, the true daily volume would be overestimated 10 / 4.2 percent = 238). Likewise, if 2 out of 100 (2 percent) are counted between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m., dividing that count by 4.2 percent would underestimate the true daily volume (2 / 0.042 = 48). Therefore, adjustment factors for each hour of the day are needed to obtain a more accurate estimate of the true daily volume. The adjustment factors were derived from two data sets. First, all -day (8- to 12 -hour) pedestrian counts were undertaken at 11 marked crosswalks and 11 unmarked comparison sites. Second, adjustments were calculated based on the method used by Zegeer et al. for 24-hour pedestrian counts in Seattle, WA.(39) They found that the 12 -hour period from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. represented 86 percent of the 24-hour daily pedestrian volume. Separate adjustment factors were used for each area type (CBD, fringe, and residential), because the area types have different patterns of hourly pedestrian volume. It was determined that crosswalks and comparison sites had similar pedestrian volume distributions by the time of day, so the same adjustment factor was used for a crosswalk and its matched comparison site. The adjustment factors by time of day and area type appear in table 12. The 1 -hour pedestrian counts at each crosswalk and comparison site were divided by the appropriate factor to obtain the 24-hour daily pedestrian volume. For example, suppose 100 pedestrians were counted between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. at a CBD location. Then the daily pedestrian volume was estimated to be 100 / 4.9 percent = 2,041 pedestrians. At a fringe location, the daily volume would be 100 / 8.3 percent = 1,205 pedestrians. If the count interval was spread out over two periods, such as 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., then the adjustment factor for 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. was applied to the first part of the count, and the factor for 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. was applied to the second part of the count. Table 12. Adjustment factors by time of day and area type used to obtain estimated pedestrian ADT. Time of DayoCBD (/o) Area Toe Fringe (/o) oResidential (/o) 7 a.m. - 8 a.m. 2.4 6.9 4.8 8 a.m. - 9 a.m. 2.4 6.0 3.9 9 a.m. - 10 a.m. 4.9 8.3 5.7 10 a.m. - 11 a.m. 8.2 7.1 8.7 11 a.m. - 12 N 10.4 7.7 8.2 12 N - 1 p.m. 11.4 9.0 8.4 1 p.m. - 2 p.m. 11.6 6.3 6.9 2 p.m. - 3 p.m. 8.5 8.5 5.9 3 p.m. - 4 p.m. 16.2 8.1 7.4 4 p.m. - 5 p.m. 4.4 7.9 9.3 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. 1 3.5 1 8.1 11.4 Remaining 13 hours 1 16.0 1 16.0 1 19.5 At a few of the 2,000 sites, no pedestrians were observed during the crossing period. The pedestrian crash rate is computed as the number of pedestrian crashes divided by the pedestrian crossing volume. The pedestrian crossing volume is the product of the pedestrian ADT times the number of years times 365 days per year. Thus, assuming a zero hourly pedestrian volume is not only questionable, but also results in a pedestrian exposure of 0. Since it is not possible to use 0 as a value of exposure in computing pedestrian crash rates (i.e., since dividing by zero yields a rate of infinity), a count of 0.25 was substituted 67 Page 91 for 0 as the hourly pedestrian count for computing pedestrian ADT for use in computing pedestrian crash rates. Unmarked crosswalks (the control sites) tended to have lower pedestrian volumes than marked crosswalks. This may be the result of pedestrians being drawn to marked crosswalks and/or due to crosswalks being marked at locations with more pedestrian activity. Speed Limit Speed limits were obtained from local traffic engineers, local data collectors in the field, and watching videotapes of the crosswalk inventory. The most common speed limits were 48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) 37.4 percent), 40.25 km/h (25 mi/h) (33.0 percent), and 56.35km/h (35 mi/h) (22.8 percent). Traffic ADT Traffic volumes were obtained from local traffic engineers. Figure 44 shows that marked crosswalks had similar traffic volumes to the unmarked crosswalks (the comparison sites). This was to be expected, because the comparison sites were chosen to be close to, and similar to, their matching marked crosswalks. STEP 3—IDENTIFY SUITABLE CONTROL SITES Each crosswalk was matched with a control site that was close to the crosswalk and had similar characteristics (such as number of lanes, area type, estimated traffic and pedestrian volumes, and one-way or two-way traffic flow), but which did not have crosswalk markings, stop sign, or traffic signal. This was done either by watching the video or in the field. For example, if a marked crosswalk was present on the east leg of an intersection but not on the west leg, then the west leg was often a good control site. If the east and west legs of an intersection had marked crosswalks, then the east and west legs of a nearby intersection along the same main road were often good control sites. The data items described in step 2 were recorded for the control sites. Some marked crosswalks were excluded because suitable control sites could not be found, or they were school crossings. A total of 1,000 marked crosswalks, each matched with a control site (for a total of 1,000 control sites), was used in the analysis. The number of crosswalks by city is given in table 13. STEP 4—COUNT PEDESTRIANS Local data collectors were hired to count the number of pedestrians at the crosswalks and their corresponding control sites. Each location was counted in 15 -minute intervals for one hour. At 11 crosswalks and 11 control sites, pedestrians were counted for 8 to 12 hours. These longer, all -day counts were used as the basis from which daily pedestrian volumes at each crosswalk and control site were estimated from the one-hour counts. All counts were done on weekdays. STEP 5—OBTAIN CRASH DATA Local city contacts provided crash data and hard -copy police reports for vehicle -pedestrian crashes that occurred at or near the crosswalks and comparison sites, for an average of about 5 years per site. Some cities had more than 5 years of crash data available, while other cities had 6 years of data that was available for use. W. Page 92 20 18 16 14 6 4 2 0 3175 3175-5499 5500-7150 7151-9384 9385-11235 11280-13766 13787-16499 16500-20499 20500-25000 >25000 Traffic ADT Marked Unmarked Figure 44. Marked and unmarked crosswalks had similar traffic ADT distributions. Page 93 wY 3 12 N N O L v 10 0 8 L a 6 4 2 0 3175 3175-5499 5500-7150 7151-9384 9385-11235 11280-13766 13787-16499 16500-20499 20500-25000 >25000 Traffic ADT Marked Unmarked Figure 44. Marked and unmarked crosswalks had similar traffic ADT distributions. Page 93 Table 13. The number of marked crosswalks that were used in this study, by city or county. City or County Number of Crosswalks Marked Unmarked Austin, TX 24 24 Baltimore, MD 30 30 Baltimore County, MD 11 11 Cambridge, MA 461 46 Cincinnati, OH 421 42 Cleveland, OH 551 55 Durham, NC 11 11 Fort Worth, TX 28 28 Gainesville, FL 45 45 Glendale, AZ 12 12 Kansas City, MO 29 29 Madison, WI 29 29 Milwaukee, WI 68 68 New Orleans, LA 80 80 Oakland, CA 45 45 City or County Number of Crosswalks Marked Unmarked Orlando, FL 20 20 Phoenix, AZ 36 36 Pittsburgh, PA 18 18 Portland, OR 32 32 Raleigh, NC 14 14 Salt Lake City, UT 18 18 San Francisco, CA 91 91 Scottsdale, AZ 8 8 Seattle, WA 102 102 St. Louis, MO 15 15 St. Louis County, MO 24 24 Tempe, AZ 1 1 Topeka, KS 25 25 Tucson, AZ 22 22 Winter Park, FL 19 19 Totals (all cities) 1,0001 1,000 Crash rates were normalized based on number of years of data. A total of 229 crashes (188 at marked crosswalks and 41 at control sites) occurred at the 2,000 sites and were used in the analysis. Local traffic engineers and police departments provided crash data and hard -copy police crash reports for the marked and unmarked crosswalks. For each marked crosswalk and matching unmarked crosswalk, data and reports were obtained for the same 3- to 5- year period. The exact years varied from one city to another, depending on the data and reports that each city had available. The crash reports were read to determine the crash type and to obtain information on other crash variables, such as pedestrian age, injury severity, and time of day. The crash type and other information were entered into a database for analysis. Some crashes were eliminated because they did not occur at the crosswalks (or within 3 m (10 ft) of the crosswalk) of interest. For example, if a traffic engineer included Crash #1 among the crashes at Crosswalk 1, but it was later determined that Crash #1 actually occurred somewhere else, then Crash #1 would have been eliminated. The analysis resulted in the confirmation of 229 total pedestrian crashes. Of these, 188 occurred at marked crosswalks and 41 occurred at unmarked crosswalks. 70 Page 94 APPENDIX B. STATISTICAL TESTING OF THE FINAL CRASH PREDICTION MODEL To test the final crash prediction model in the terms of validity for the available database, several types of tests were conducted. These tests included: Goodness -of -fit. Test for functional form. Residuals. GOODNESS -OF -FIT Below is as excerpt from the PROC GENMOD output (table 14). In assessing the goodness -of -fit of the negative binomial regression model for crosswalks, we can see that the scaled deviance and the Pearson chi- square are small indicating that the model fits the data well. Table 14. Criteria for assessing goodness -of -fit negative binomial regression model. Criteria DF Value Value/DF Deviance 1990 609.5499 0.3063 Scaled Deviance 1990 609.5499 0.3063 Pearson chi-square 1990 2769.9029 1.3919 Scaled Pearson x2 1990 2769.9029 1.3919 Log Likelihood 548.7469 TEST FOR FUNCTIONAL FORM We can test for overdispersion with a likelihood ratio test based on Poisson and negative binomial distributions. This test tests equality of the mean and the variance imposed by the Poisson distribution against the alternative that the variance exceeds the mean. For the negative binomial distribution, the variance = mean + k meant (k> = 0, the negative binomial distribution reduces to Poisson when k = 0). The null hypothesis is: Ho: k = 0 and the alternative hypothesis is: Ha: k>0. To test the functional form, we used the likelihood ratio test, that is, compute LR statistic, -2 (LL (Poisson) — LL (negative binomial)). The asymptotic distribution of the LR statistic has probability mass of one half at zero and one half — chi-square distribution with 1 df. (40) To test the null hypothesis at the significance level a, use the critical value of chi-square distribution corresponding to significance level 2a, that is reject HO if LR statistic > Z (1-2a, 1 df). Table 15 is an excerpt from the PROC GENMOD output for a Poisson regression model with the same independent variables are is the final negative binomial model. 71 Page 95 Table 15. Criteria for assessing goodness -of -fit Poisson regression model. Criteria DF Value Value/DF Deviance 1990 881.5022 0.4430 Scaled Deviance 1990 881.5022 0.4430 Pearson Chi -Square 1990 3432.5818 1.7249 Scaled Pearson X2 1990 3432.5818 1.7249 Log Likelihood 568.4558 2 (LL (Poisson) - LL (negative binomial)) _ 2* (-568.4558 — (-548.7469)) _ 2* (568.4558 — 548.7469) = 39.4178 Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected for a = 0.01, and we conclude that the Poisson distribution is inadequate for this model. (40) RESIDUALS Because generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used, the interpretation of residuals is problematic and no residual analysis was undertaken. MULTICOLLINEARITY Certainly multicollinearity is an issue, because the marked crosswalk and the unmarked crosswalk were matched on geographic terms, thus the number of lanes, median type, and traffic ADT are distributed very similarly in the marked and the unmarked crosswalks. Multicollinearity was explored using the regression diagnostics suggested by Belsley, Kuh, and Welsch. '41, They suggest two different measures: variance inflation factor (VIF) and the proportion of variation. VIF gauges the influence potential near dependencies may have on the estimation of the standard error of the estimate of the regression parameters. The proportion of variation is a diagnostic which permits the detection of morel complex dependencies. For the final model with predictor variables, the values were: an indicator for marked versus unmarked, pedestrian ADT, and traffic ADT; two indicators for number of lanes; two indicators for type of median; an interaction between the indicator for marked versus unmarked and pedestrian ADT; and an interaction between indicator for marked versus unmarked and traffic ADT. The largest VIF was 4.0; this is not high (VIF < 10), however, it is more than the suggested criterion of VIF 1.55. Thus, the VIF for indicator for marked versus unmarked VIF = 3.5, traffic ADT, VIF = 2.5, and the interaction of these two predictor variables VIF = 4.0. There is some variance inflation in this model. Since none of the VIF are greater than 10, we can conclude that the model has not been degraded by collinearity. We should interpret the results with some care, because three predictors have VIFs greater than 1.55. The proportion of variation suggested by Belsley, Kuh, and Welsch with a condition index of 9.4 suggests a weak dependency between the three predictors: indicator for marked versus unmarked, traffic ADT, and the interaction of these two predictor variables. It is not surprising that an interaction is correlated with the main factors. In conclusion, the model does have a weak dependency among the predictor variables. This does not inflate the variance too much; thus, reasonable tests may be conducted. The mild nature of the collinearity does not 141) present a threat to the interpretability of the model. 72 Page 96 APPENDIX C. PLOTS OF EXPECTED PEDESTRIAN CRASHES BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL 1.10 L00 0.00 0.$0 0.70 0.60 0.50 U 0.40 0 0.3770 W 020 Marked 0.10 _ __ - - - -- -- Z0.00 nmarked 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 45. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000. 1.10 1.00 0.90 rn 0.80 0.70 OA 0.50 U 0.40 c 0.30 0.20 0.10 z O.00 Marked Unmarked 0 2,500 5,000 79500 109000 A500 15,000 179500 209000 Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) Figure 46. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100. 73 Page 97 L10 Loo 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Marked Unmarked 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 47. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000. L10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Marked Unmarked 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 48. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 2,000. 74 Page 98 1.10 1A0 0.90 0.80 0.70 0A 0.50 OA 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Marked Unmarked 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 9500 15,000 17,500 20,000 Average Daily Traffic Motor vehicle) Figure 49 Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 50. 1.10 1A0 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Marked Unmarked 0 2,500 59000 7,500 10,000 9500 15,000 179500 20,000 Average Daily Traffic Motor vehicle) Figure 50. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 800. 75 Page 99 a no L10 1..00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 020 0.10 0.00 Marked nmarked 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 51. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000. HO 1.00 0.9 0 0 50 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 r r f Markedr r f OnMarked 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) Figure 52. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume =100. 76 Page 100 E i/ 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.30 02y0 0.10 0.00 Marked Unmarked 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 53. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000. 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 v 0.40 0 0.30 0.20 c 0.10 z 0.00 r Marked f r Unmarked 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) Figure 54. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 150. 77 Page 101 1.10 L00 0.90 0.80 0.700 0.60 0.50 v 0.44 0 0. c300 0.20 c 0.10 z 0.00 I MarkedA f Unmarked 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) Figure 55. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 200. 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.700 0.60 0.50 v 0.40 0 0. c300 0.20 0.10 z 0.00 Marked f J Unmarked 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) Figure 56. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 50. IN Page 102 i/ L10 L00 0.90 0.50 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Marked Unmarked 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 57. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500. 1.10 L00 0.90 0.50 y 0.70 0.60 0 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 Z 0.00 f r Marked f Unmarked 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,00[] Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) Figure 58. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume =100. 79 Page 103 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.70 0.00 U 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 Z 0.00 t i.4 Marked Unmarked 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 59. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic =15,000. 1.10 1.00 0.90 0,50 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 020 0.10 0.00 r f f Marked r f Unmarked 10,000 203000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) Figure 60. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 150. Page 104 rA 110 L00 0.90 0.80 y 0.70 4.64 U 9'59 9,49 020 9,19 Z 0.00 6 i/ r Marked r 1 Unmarked 19OO 20,000 30,000 46,49[] 50,000 69,99[] Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) Figure 61. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 200. 1.19 L00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 9.19 0.00 Marked Unmarked 0 50 100 L% 200 250 300 Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 62. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 22,500. Page 105 LOO 0.90 0.50 0.74 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 020 z 0.10 0.00 Marked Unmarked 0 50 100 L% 240 250 M) Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 63. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 32,000. 1.10 LOO 0.90 0.50 a 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 a 0.30 020 z 0'10 0.00 Marked Unmarked 0 50 100 L% 240 250 3) Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Figure 64. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500. Page 106 APPENDIX D. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN CRASHES (IN 5 YEARS) BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 1 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 50 2000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.06 50 3000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.07 50 4000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.07 50 5000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.08 50 6000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.08 50 7000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.09 50 8000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.09 50 9000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 50 10000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.11 50 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.11 50 12000 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.12 50 13000 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.13 50 14000 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.14 50 15000 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.15 100 2000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.07 100 3000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 100 4000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 100 5000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.08 100 6000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.08 100 7000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.09 100 8000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.09 100 9000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 100 10000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.11 100 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.11 100 12000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.12 100 13000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.13 100 14000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 100 15000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.15 150 2000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 150 3000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 150 4000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.07 150 5000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 Page 107 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 2 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 150 6000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.08 150 7000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.09 150 8000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 150 9000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 150 10000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.11 150 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.12 150 12000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.12 150 13000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.13 150 14000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 150 15000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.15 200 2000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 200 3000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 200 4000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.08 200 5000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 200 6000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 200 7000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 200 8000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 200 9000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 200 10000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.11 200 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.12 200 12000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.12 200 13000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.13 200 14000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 200 15000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.15 250 2000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 250 3000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 250 4000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.08 250 5000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 250 6000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 250 7000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.09 250 8000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 250 9000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 Page 108 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 3 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 250 10000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 250 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.12 250 12000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.13 250 13000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.13 250 14000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 250 15000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.15 300 2000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 300 3000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 300 4000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.08 300 5000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 300 6000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 300 7000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.09 300 8000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 300 9000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 300 10000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 300 11000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.12 300 12000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.13 300 13000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.14 300 14000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.15 300 15000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.16 350 2000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 350 3000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.07 350 4000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.08 350 5000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 350 6000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 350 7000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.09 350 8000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 350 9000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.11 350 10000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 350 11000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.12 350 12000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.13 350 13000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.14 Page 109 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 4 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 350 14000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.15 350 15000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.16 400 2000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.07 400 3000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.07 400 4000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 400 5000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 400 6000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.09 400 7000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.09 400 8000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 400 9000 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.11 400 10000 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 400 11000 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.12 400 12000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.13 400 13000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.14 400 14000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15 400 15000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.16 450 2000 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.07 450 3000 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.08 450 4000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 450 5000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 450 6000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.09 450 7000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 450 8000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 450 9000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.11 450 10000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.12 450 11000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.12 450 12000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.13 450 13000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.14 450 14000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.15 450 15000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.16 500 2000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.07 500 3000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.08 Page 110 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 5 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 500 4000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.08 500 5000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.09 500 6000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.09 500 7000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 500 8000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 500 9000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.11 500 10000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.12 500 11000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.12 500 12000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.13 500 13000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.14 500 14000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.15 500 15000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.16 550 2000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.07 550 3000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.08 550 4000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.08 550 5000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.09 550 6000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.09 550 7000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.10 550 8000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.10 550 9000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.11 550 10000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.12 550 11000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.13 550 12000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.13 550 13000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.14 550 14000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.15 550 15000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.17 600 2000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.07 600 3000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.08 600 4000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.08 600 5000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.09 600 6000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.09 600 7000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.10 MN Page 111 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 6 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 600 8000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.11 600 9000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.11 600 10000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.12 600 11000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.13 600 12000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.14 600 13000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.15 600 14000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.16 600 15000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.17 650 2000 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.07 650 3000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.08 650 4000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.08 650 5000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.09 650 6000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.09 650 7000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.10 650 8000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.11 650 9000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.11 650 10000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.12 650 11000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.13 650 12000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.14 650 13000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.15 650 14000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.16 650 15000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.17 700 2000 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.08 700 3000 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.08 700 4000 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.08 700 5000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.09 700 6000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.10 700 7000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.10 700 8000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.11 700 9000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.12 700 10000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.12 700 11000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.13 Page 112 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 7 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 700 12000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.14 700 13000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.15 700 14000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.16 700 15000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.17 750 2000 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.08 750 3000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.08 750 4000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.09 750 5000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.09 750 6000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.10 750 7000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.10 750 8000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.11 750 9000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.12 750 10000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.12 750 11000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.13 750 12000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.14 750 13000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.15 750 14000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.16 750 15000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.17 800 2000 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.08 800 3000 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.08 800 4000 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.09 800 5000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.09 800 6000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.10 800 7000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.10 800 8000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.11 800 9000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.12 800 10000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.13 800 11000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.13 800 12000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.14 800 13000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.15 800 14000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.16 800 15000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.18 Page 113 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 1 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 50 5000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.09 50 6000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.09 50 7000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.10 50 8000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10 50 9000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.11 50 10000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.11 50 11000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.12 50 12000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.13 50 13000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.13 50 14000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.14 50 15000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.15 50 16000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.16 50 17000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.17 50 18000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.17 50 19000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.18 50 20000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.19 50 21000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.21 50 22000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.22 50 23000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.23 50 24000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.15 0.24 50 25000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.16 0.26 50 26000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.17 0.27 50 27000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.18 0.29 50 28000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.31 50 29000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.32 50 30000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.22 0.34 50 31000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.23 0.36 50 32000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.16 0.25 0.39 50 33000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.17 0.27 0.41 50 34000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.28 0.44 50 35000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.30 0.47 50 36000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.21 0.32 0.50 o Page 114 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 2 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 50 37000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.23 0.35 0.53 50 38000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.24 0.37 0.56 50 39000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.26 0.39 0.60 50 40000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.28 0.42 0.64 50 41000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.29 0.45 0.69 50 42000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.31 0.48 0.74 50 43000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.33 0.51 0.79 50 44000 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.35 0.55 0.84 50 45000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.38 0.58 0.90 50 46000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.40 0.62 0.97 50 47000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.42 0.66 1.04 50 48000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.45 0.71 1.12 50 49000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.48 0.76 1.20 50 50000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.50 0.81 1.29 100 5000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.09 100 6000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.09 100 7000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.10 100 8000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10 100 9000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.11 100 10000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 100 11000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 100 12000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 100 13000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.14 100 14000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.14 100 15000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.15 100 16000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.16 100 17000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.17 100 18000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.18 100 19000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.19 100 20000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.20 100 21000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.21 100 22000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.22 91 Page 115 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 3 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 100 23000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.23 100 24000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.25 100 25000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.26 100 26000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.28 100 27000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.18 0.29 100 28000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.20 0.31 100 29000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.33 100 30000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.22 0.35 100 31000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.24 0.37 100 32000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.16 0.25 0.39 100 33000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.18 0.27 0.42 100 34000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.29 0.44 100 35000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.31 0.47 100 36000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.22 0.33 0.50 100 37000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.23 0.35 0.54 100 38000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.37 0.57 100 39000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.26 0.40 0.61 100 40000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.28 0.43 0.65 100 41000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.46 0.70 100 42000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.32 0.49 0.74 100 43000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.34 0.52 0.80 100 44000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.36 0.55 0.85 100 45000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.38 0.59 0.92 100 46000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.40 0.63 0.98 100 47000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.43 0.67 1.05 100 48000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.46 0.72 1.13 100 49000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.48 0.77 1.22 100 50000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.51 0.82 1.31 150 5000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.09 150 6000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.10 150 7000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10 150 8000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.11 92 Page 116 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 4 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 150 9000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.11 150 10000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 150 11000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.12 150 12000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 150 13000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.14 150 14000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.15 150 15000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.15 150 16000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.16 150 17000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.17 150 18000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.18 150 19000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.19 150 20000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.20 150 21000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.21 150 22000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.22 150 23000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.24 150 24000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.25 150 25000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.26 150 26000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.28 150 27000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.30 150 28000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.20 0.31 150 29000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.33 150 30000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.23 0.35 150 31000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.24 0.37 150 32000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.17 0.26 0.40 150 33000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.27 0.42 150 34000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.19 0.29 0.45 150 35000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.31 0.48 150 36000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.22 0.33 0.51 150 37000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.23 0.36 0.54 150 38000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.38 0.58 150 39000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.40 0.62 150 40000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.28 0.43 0.66 93 Page 117 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 5 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 150 41000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.30 0.46 0.71 150 42000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.32 0.49 0.75 150 43000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.34 0.53 0.81 150 44000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.36 0.56 0.87 150 45000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.39 0.60 0.93 150 46000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.41 0.64 1.00 150 47000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.43 0.68 1.07 150 48000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.46 0.73 1.15 150 49000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.49 0.78 1.23 150 50000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.52 0.83 1.33 200 5000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.09 200 6000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.10 200 7000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10 200 8000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.11 200 9000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.11 200 10000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 200 11000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 200 12000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 200 13000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.14 200 14000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.15 200 15000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.16 200 16000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.16 200 17000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.17 200 18000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.18 200 19000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.19 200 20000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.20 200 21000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.21 200 22000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.23 200 23000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.24 200 24000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.25 200 25000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.27 200 26000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.18 0.28 Page 118 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 6 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 200 27000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.30 200 28000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.20 0.32 200 29000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.21 0.34 200 30000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.23 0.36 200 31000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.16 0.24 0.38 200 32000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.26 0.40 200 33000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.28 0.43 200 34000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.19 0.30 0.46 200 35000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.21 0.32 0.48 200 36000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.22 0.34 0.52 200 37000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.24 0.36 0.55 200 38000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.25 0.38 0.59 200 39000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.27 0.41 0.63 200 40000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.29 0.44 0.67 200 41000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.31 0.47 0.71 200 42000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.33 0.50 0.76 200 43000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.35 0.53 0.82 200 44000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.37 0.57 0.88 200 45000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.39 0.61 0.94 200 46000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.42 0.65 1.01 200 47000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.44 0.69 1.08 200 48000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.47 0.74 1.16 200 49000 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.50 0.79 1.25 200 50000 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.52 0.84 1.34 250 5000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.09 250 6000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.10 250 7000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.10 250 8000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.11 250 9000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.11 250 10000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 250 11000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 250 12000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 95 Page 119 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 7 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 250 13000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.14 250 14000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.15 250 15000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.16 250 16000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.17 250 17000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.17 250 18000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.18 250 19000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.19 250 20000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.21 250 21000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.22 250 22000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.23 250 23000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.24 250 24000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.26 250 25000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.27 250 26000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.29 250 27000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.12 0.19 0.30 250 28000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.32 250 29000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.14 0.22 0.34 250 30000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.23 0.36 250 31000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.16 0.25 0.38 250 32000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.26 0.41 250 33000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.28 0.43 250 34000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.30 0.46 250 35000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.21 0.32 0.49 250 36000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.22 0.34 0.52 250 37000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.24 0.37 0.56 250 38000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.26 0.39 0.59 250 39000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.27 0.42 0.63 250 40000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.29 0.44 0.68 250 41000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.31 0.47 0.72 250 42000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.33 0.51 0.78 250 43000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.35 0.54 0.83 250 44000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.37 0.58 0.89 9 Page 120 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 8 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 250 45000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.40 0.61 0.95 250 46000 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.42 0.66 1.02 250 47000 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.45 0.70 1.10 250 48000 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.47 0.75 1.18 250 49000 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.50 0.80 1.27 250 50000 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.53 0.85 1.36 97 Page 121 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 1 Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 50 5000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.16 50 6000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.17 50 7000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.18 50 8000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.19 50 9000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.20 50 10000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.22 50 11000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.23 50 12000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.24 50 13000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.26 50 14000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.27 50 15000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.17 0.29 50 16000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.31 50 17000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.19 0.32 50 18000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.20 0.34 50 19000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.22 0.36 50 20000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.23 0.39 50 21000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.41 50 22000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.26 0.44 50 23000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.17 0.28 0.47 50 24000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.30 0.50 50 25000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.19 0.32 0.53 50 26000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.20 0.34 0.56 50 27000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.22 0.36 0.60 50 28000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.23 0.39 0.64 50 29000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.25 0.41 0.68 50 30000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.44 0.73 50 31000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.28 0.47 0.78 50 32000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.30 0.50 0.83 50 33000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.32 0.54 0.89 50 34000 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.34 0.57 0.96 50 35000 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.36 0.61 1.02 100 5000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.17 M Page 122 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 2 Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 100 6000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.18 100 7000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.19 100 8000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.20 100 9000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.21 100 10000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.22 100 11000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.23 100 12000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.25 100 13000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.26 100 14000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.28 100 15000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.29 100 16000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.18 0.31 100 17000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.33 100 18000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.20 0.35 100 19000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.22 0.37 100 20000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.39 100 21000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.15 0.25 0.42 100 22000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.27 0.44 100 23000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.17 0.28 0.47 100 24000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.30 0.50 100 25000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.19 0.32 0.53 100 26000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.34 0.57 100 27000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.22 0.37 0.61 100 28000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.24 0.39 0.65 100 29000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.25 0.42 0.69 100 30000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.45 0.74 100 31000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.29 0.48 0.79 100 32000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.31 0.51 0.84 100 33000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.33 0.54 0.90 100 34000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.35 0.58 0.97 100 35000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.37 0.62 1.04 150 5000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.17 150 6000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.18 Page 123 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 3 Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 150 7000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.19 150 8000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.20 150 9000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.21 150 10000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.22 150 11000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.24 150 12000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.25 150 13000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.26 150 14000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.28 150 15000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.30 150 16000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.31 150 17000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.33 150 18000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.21 0.35 150 19000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.22 0.37 150 20000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.24 0.40 150 21000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.25 0.42 150 22000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.16 0.27 0.45 150 23000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.29 0.48 150 24000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.18 0.31 0.51 150 25000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.20 0.33 0.54 150 26000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.35 0.58 150 27000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.22 0.37 0.61 150 28000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.24 0.40 0.66 150 29000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.26 0.42 0.70 150 30000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.27 0.45 0.75 150 31000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.29 0.48 0.80 150 32000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.31 0.51 0.86 150 33000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.33 0.55 0.92 150 34000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.35 0.59 0.98 150 35000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.37 0.63 1.05 200 5000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.17 200 6000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.10 0.18 200 7000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.19 100 Page 124 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 4 Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 950 200 8000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.20 200 9000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.21 200 10000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.23 200 11000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.24 200 12000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.25 200 13000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.27 200 14000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.28 200 15000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.30 200 16000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.18 0.32 200 17000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.20 0.34 200 18000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.21 0.36 200 19000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.13 0.22 0.38 200 20000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.24 0.40 200 21000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.26 0.43 200 22000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.27 0.45 200 23000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.29 0.48 200 24000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.31 0.51 200 25000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.33 0.55 200 26000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.21 0.35 0.58 200 27000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.23 0.38 0.62 200 28000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.24 0.40 0.66 200 29000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.26 0.43 0.71 200 30000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.28 0.46 0.76 200 31000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.29 0.49 0.81 200 32000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.31 0.52 0.87 200 33000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.93 200 34000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.36 0.59 0.99 200 35000 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.38 0.63 1.06 250 5000 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.17 250 6000 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.10 0.18 250 7000 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.19 250 8000 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.20 101 Page 125 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 5 Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Volume Vehicle) 95% Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 250 9000 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.22 250 10000 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.23 250 11000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.24 250 12000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.26 250 13000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.27 250 14000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.29 250 15000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.30 250 16000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.19 0.32 250 17000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.20 0.34 250 18000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.21 0.36 250 19000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.13 0.23 0.38 250 20000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.24 0.41 250 21000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.26 0.43 250 22000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.28 0.46 250 23000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.29 0.49 250 24000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.31 0.52 250 25000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.34 0.56 250 26000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.22 0.36 0.59 250 27000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.23 0.38 0.63 250 28000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.25 0.41 0.67 250 29000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.26 0.43 0.72 250 30000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.28 0.46 0.77 250 31000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.30 0.50 0.82 250 32000 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.32 0.53 0.88 250 33000 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.34 0.56 0.94 250 34000 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.36 0.60 1.01 250 35000 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.38 0.64 1.08 102 Page 126 REFERENCES 1. Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance, Millennium Edition, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Evanston, IL, 2000. 2. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Millennium Edition, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2000. 3. Herms, B., "Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Crashes in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks," Record No. 406, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1972. 4. Zegeer, C., Stewart, J., and Huang, H., Safety Effects ofMarked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines, Report No. FHWA- RD-01-075, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, March 2002. 5. Gibby, A.R., Stites, J.L., Thurgood, G.S., and Ferrara, T.C., "Evaluation of Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks at Intersections in California," Chico State University, Report No. FHWA/CA/TO-94/1, June 1994. 6. Gurnett, G., Marked Crosswalk Removal Before and After Study, Los Angeles County Road Department, Los Angeles, CA, November 1974. 7. Los Angeles County Road Department, Marked Crosswalks at Non -Signalized Intersections, Traffic and Lighting Division, Los Angeles, CA, July 1967. 8. Toby, H.N., Shunamen, E.M., and Knoblauch, R.L., Pedestrian Trip Making Characteristics and Exposure Measures, DTFH61-81-C-00020, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1983. 9. Ekman, L., On the Treatment of Flow in Traffic Safety Analysis, Bulletin 136, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 1996. 10. Ekman, L. and Hyden, C., Pedestrian Safety in Sweden, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-091, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 11. Yagar, S., "Safety Impacts of Installing Pedestrian Crosswalks," Proceedings of the Effectiveness of Highway Safety Improvements Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, March 1985. 12. Katz, A., Zaidel, D., and Elgrishi, A., "An Experimental Study of Driver and Pedestrian Interaction During the Crossing Conflict," Human Factors, Vol. 17, No. 5, 1975, pp. 514-527. 13. Knoblauch, R.L., Nitzburg, M., and Seifert, R.F., Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies: Richmond, Virginia; Buffalo, New York; Stillwater, Minnesota, Report No. FHWA-RD-00-103, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 2001. 14. Knoblauch, R.L. and Raymond, P.D., The Effect of Crosswalk Markings on Vehicle Speeds in Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona, Report No. FHWA-RD-00- 10 1, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 2000. 15. Van Houten, R., "The Influence of Signs Prompting Motorists to Yield Before Marked Crosswalks on Motor Vehicle -Pedestrian Conflicts at Crosswalks with Flashing Amber," Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1992, pp. 217-225. 16. Campbell, B.J., Zegeer, C.V., Cynecki, M.J., and Huang H., A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad, Report No. FHWA-RD-03-042, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, January 2004. 17. Ekman, L., Pedestrian Safety in Sweden, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-091, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 18. Davies, D., Research, Development, and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Facilities in the United Kingdom, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-089, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 19. Van Houten, R., Canadian Research on Pedestrian Safety, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-090, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 20. Cairney, P., Pedestrian Safety in Australia, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-093, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 103 Page 127 21. Hummel, T., Dutch Pedestrian Safety Research Review, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-092, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 22. Zegeer, C.V., Seiderman, C., Lagerwey, P., and Cynecki, M., Pedestrian Facilities User's Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility, Report No. FHWA-RD-01-102, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1999. 23. Lalani, N., Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Pedestrian and Bicycle Task Force, Washington, DC, 2001. 24. Ewing, R., Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, ITE/FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-99-135, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 1999, available online at http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm, accessed July 30, 2004. 25. Huang, H.F., C.V. Zegeer, R. Nassi, and B. Fairfax, The Effects oflnnovative Pedestrian Signs at Unsignalized Locations: A Tale of Three Treatments, Report No. FHWA-RD-00-098, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 2000, available online at http://www.walkinginfo.or /g task orders/to _11/3signs00.pdf, accessed July 30, 2004. 26. McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J.A., Generalized Linear Models, Second Edition, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1989. 27. Hilbe, J., "Log Negative Binomial Regression Using the GENMOD Procedure," Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual SAS User's Group International Conference, Vol. 14, 1994, pp. 1199-1204. 28. Lawless, J.E., "Negative Binomial and Mixed Poisson Regression," The Canadian Journal of Statistics, Vol. 15, 1987, pp. 209-225. 29. SAS Institute Inc., SAS OnlineDoc , Version 8, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1999. 30, Garder, P., Personal correspondence, October 7, 1999 and March 2000. 31. Bowman, B. and Vecellio, R., "Effects of Urban and Suburban Median Types on Both Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety," Record No. 1445, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1994. 32. Garder, P., "Pedestrian Safety at Traffic Signals: A Study Carried Out With the Help of a Traffic Conflicts Technique," Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 21, October 1989, pp. 435-444. 33. Safety of Vulnerable Road Users, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD), August 1998. 34. Van Houten, R., "The Effects of Advance Stop Lines and Sign Prompts on Pedestrian Safety in Crosswalks on a Multilane Highway," Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, Vol.21, 1988. 35. Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities: A Recommended Practice, Institute for Transportation Engineers, March 1998. 36. Zegeer, C. and Seiderman, C., Chapter 19, "Designing for Pedestrians," The Traffic Safety Toolbox, Institute for Transportation Engineers, 1999. 37. Pedestrian Safety: Analyses and Safety Measures, Danish Road Directorate, Division of Traffic Safety and Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 1998. 38. Making Streets That Work-Neighborhood Planning Tool, City of Seattle, WA, May 1996. 39. Zegeer, C.V., Opiela, K.S., and Cynecki, M.J., Pedestrian Signalization Alternatives, Report No. FHWA-RD-83-102, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 1985. 40. Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K., Regression Analysis of Count Data, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998. 41. Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., and Welsch, R.E., Regression Diagnostics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1980. 104 Page 128 Best Practices for Traffic Control at Regional Trail Crossings A Collaborative Effort of Twin Cities Road and Trail Managing Agencies Introduction The Twin Cities region is served by hundreds of miles of trails, used by people of all ages for walking, bicycling, and skating on both recreational and non -recreational trips. The Twin Cities also has many miles of on -street bikeways. This system is built and maintained by a variety of agencies, including the Department of Natural Resources, eleven regional park implementing agencies, seven counties, and hundreds of cities and local park systems. There are plans to add hundreds of additional miles of trails to this system, in addition to expanding the region's on -street bicycle and pedestrian connections. In Fall of 2009, Hennepin County staff invited representatives from cities, counties, and stakeholders across metro region to meet on October 29, 2009 to assess the need for a regional collaboration on trail signing practices. At the initial meeting, it was determined that directional wayfinding signage and roadway crossings were the two primary issues for which additional guidance and consistency was needed. Furthermore, it was determined that these two topics were best addressed by creating two separate work groups that would develop guidelines to present to the full group of stakeholders. The work group charged with trail crossing signage, informally referred to as the Safe Crossings group, identified a lack of consistency in traffic control practices at trail crossings and a lack of understanding by drivers and trail users regarding crosswalk and trail crossing regulations. The Safe Crossings group, composed of representatives from state and local road authorities, park management agencies, and walking/biking advocacy groups in the Twin Cities metro area, sought to create a document which would clarify existing regulations and provide a summary of best practices at trail crossing locations, in order to improve the safety and consistency of trail crossing locations throughout the region. The types of trail crossing treatments at a given location are, and should be, highly dependent on the type of roadway and on the traffic levels of the roadway and trail, including the type of trail facility and user characteristics. This document is not intended to provide new requirements, nor specific traffic thresholds to trigger particular traffic controls, nor to supersede engineering judgment or the provisions of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Rather, it is intended to provide a clarification of state statutes regarding crossing locations, and to provide a set of general principles and options to consider when evaluating traffic control configurations at trail crossings. These principles include maximizing visibility between drivers and trail users, controlling maintenance costs, preserving driver and trail user respect for the signs that are used, and preserving the momentum of bicyclists to maintain the appeal of trail usage. Page 1 1 July 26, 2011 Page 129 State Laws Regarding Pedestrian Crossings Minnesota state law provides legal definitions and responsibilities for crosswalk users which provide the framework for various traffic control configurations. Local ordinances may provide additional regulations but may also be less familiar to motorists and trail users. Crosswalks are narrowly defined in statute to prevent unpredictable interactions and unnecessary braking by vehicles when pedestrians do not intend to cross. To prevent these unpredictable interactions, mutual responsibilities are placed on drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, as outlined in the sections below. Drivers must stop for, and yield to, pedestrians within marked or statutory crosswalks, however pedestrians and bicyclists may only enter crosswalks when it is possible for drivers to safely stop and yield. At locations where crosswalks do not exist, pedestrians must yield to vehicles. Bicyclists may operate as a vehicle within the traffic lanes or as a pedestrian. When a bicyclist is riding on the street as a vehicle, they are subject to the same rights and responsibilities as other drivers. When a bicyclist is crossing a roadway as a pedestrian, they are subject to the same rights and responsibilities as pedestrians. Some uncertainty exists as to whether a bicycle route or shared use path which does not parallel a roadway should be considered to be roadway which prohibits motor vehicles. This distinction is important in that it affects many of the rules affecting bicycle right-of-way. Regardless of this uncertainty, road authorities should design within the boundaries of state statute, but traffic controls at crossing locations should be clear and readily understandable to drivers, pedestrians, and vehicle operators, most of who are not aware of some of the finer details of Minnesota statutes. Definition of a Crosswalk Under state law, crosswalks exist at intersections where sidewalks are present even if the crossing is not marked. However, a crosswalk does not exist at midblock locations unless crosswalk pavement markings are present: Statute 169.011, Subd. 20. Crosswalk. Crosswalk" means (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Because a crosswalk is defined as a portion of a roadway, it is also important to note the statutory definition of roadway": Statute 169.011, Subd. 68. Roadway. Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder. During periods when the commissioner allows the use of dynamic shoulder lanes as defined in subdivision 25, roadway includes that shoulder. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways, Page 12 July 26, 2011 Page 130 the term "roadway" as used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all such roadways collectively. The above statute specifically excludes the shoulder or sidewalk from the definition of "roadway". Because a crosswalk is defined as only a portion of the roadway, a pedestrian would not be considered to be within the crosswalk if they are behind the curb or on the shoulder, even though crosswalk markings may extend onto the shoulder. While a crosswalk is deemed to exist at intersections by statute, as the prolonged boundaries of sidewalks, the definition of sidewalk does not require that the sidewalk be paved, so long as the area is "intended for the use of pedestrians". If a roadway shoulder is "intended for the use of pedestrians", it might be considered to be a sidewalk: Statute 169.011, Subd. 75. Sidewalk. Sidewalk" means that portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines intended for the use of pedestrians. Responsibilities of Drivers As is consistent with other states based on the Uniform Vehicle Code used nationwide, drivers are required to yield to pedestrians under the conditions set forth below. It is important to note that a pedestrian must be within the "roadway" for this statute to apply. It is not applicable to a pedestrian not within the "roadway" as defined above. A driver must stop to yield to a pedestrian that is within the crosswalk but has not yet entered their lane of traffic, but the driver may proceed once the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is traveling. Statute 169.21, Subd. 2a. Rights in absence of signal. Where traffic -control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. ... As noted in the statute listed below, it is unlawful for a driver to pass a stopped vehicle at a crosswalk when a pedestrian is crossing. This provision is intended to prevent "Multiple threat" crashes, where a pedestrian steps out past a stopped vehicle and into an adjacent lane, as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. But, as discussed later in this document, the approaching driver cannot always determine the reason why vehicles in the adjacent lane have stopped, and may not be able to comply with this provision because the pedestrian may not be visible to the approaching driver. The approaching driver may incorrectly assume that the first driver has slowed or stopped in order to make a turn rather than stopping for a crossing pedestrian. As a result, marked crosswalks alone have been shown to increase the pedestrian crash rate under many conditions, as detailed in Figure 3 and as discussed in more detail later in this document. Page 13 July 26, 2011 Page 131 Statute 169.21, Subd. 2b. Rights in absence of signal. When any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle. Of course, even if a pedestrian fails to obey the law and enters the roadway in an illegal manner, drivers must always use due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian or bicycle: Statute 169.21, Subd. 3d. Crossing Between Intersections every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. Responsibilities of Pedestrians and Bicyclists State law places several requirements on pedestrians who are crossing or walking along roadways. Statute 169.21, Subd. 2a. Rights in absence of signal. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision. Statute 169.21 Subd. 3. Crossing between intersections. a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.(b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of- way to all vehicles upon the roadway. c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic -control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. These requirements also apply to bicyclists using crosswalks as pedestrians. Bicyclists are not required to dismount when using a crosswalk, however the higher approach speeds of bicyclists, as compared to pedestrians, can lead to potential vehicle conflicts when the driver's available reaction time is reduced. While bicyclists may operate under the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians (unless restricted by local ordinances), bicyclists are also permitted to operate as vehicles when operating within the roadway, subject to the same rights and responsibilities as drivers, as noted in the Statute 169.222. Page 14 July 26, 2011 Page 132 Statute 169.222, Subd. 1. Traffic laws apply. Every person operating a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by this chapter, except in respect to those provisions in this chapter relating expressly to bicycles and in respect to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature cannot reasonably be applied to bicycles. Statute 169.222 Subd. 4f. Riding on Roadway or Shoulder. A person lawfully operating a bicycle on a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances. Riding in the roadway or on the shoulder, in the same direction as traffic, ensures that bicyclists are well- positioned to be visible to drivers on both the mainline and any cross streets. However, riding within the roadway or on the shoulder may not be appropriate for all bicyclist skill levels. Riding in the roadway may also be difficult when vehicles are unable to pass bicyclists due to limited roadway space or high traffic volumes. Riding in the roadway, or on the shoulder, in the opposite direction of traffic is illegal for bicyclists, as it becomes very difficult for other road users to see and react to an approaching bicyclist. Trail Crossing" and Other Warning Signs While crosswalks and their associated rules are defined clearly in statute, trail crossings are not defined. Many varieties of trails exist throughout the state, from urban routes heavily used by bicycles to unimproved rural hiking trails. Some trails may be seasonal in nature such as snowmobile or ski trails which are not designed or intended for pedestrian travel. The trail's level of use can also vary, from major state or regional trails to minor trails maintained by homeowner associations. The trail's purpose and level of usage, along with the characteristics of the roadway being crossed, should always be taken into account when choosing the type of traffic controls, if any, to be used at roadway crossings. A variety of warning signs may be used where roadways approach trail crossing locations, including signs with a pedestrian symbol, a bicycle symbol, a combination of symbols, and a variety of other symbols including horses and snowmobiles. Also available is a word message sign which reads "Trail Crossing". These signs can be used interchangeably, and, as noted above, there is no Minnesota statutory definition of a trail crossing. Therefore, while these signs may be used, installation of warning signs does not affect rules of right-of-way nor designate a legal crosswalk. However, these signs may be used with or without crosswalk pavement markings or other treatments to advise approaching drivers of a potential hazard. Similarly, the use of crosswalk markings does not necessitate the use of any signs, though signs may help to alert drivers to the potential hazard during inclement weather when pavement markings are not visible. Warning signs for approaching roadway traffic may be placed at the crossing location, in advance of the crossing, or both. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices provides the criteria for the usage and placement of warning signs and pavement markings. Page 15 July 26, 2011 Page 133 Common Hazards at Trail Crossing Locations Within state statutes, bicyclists are generally treated as vehicles and expected to ride within the roadway, in the same direction as traffic. However, it has become common practice to construct separated trails away from vehicle traffic for pedestrians, skaters, and recreational and child bicyclists. Although Minnesota statutes provide bicyclists with the same rights and responsibilities as pedestrians when using a crosswalk, bicyclists and pedestrians have very different operating characteristics and capabilities, and the higher speeds of many bicyclists can lead to hazardous situations not readily addressed by state statutes which assume low crossing speeds. Additionally, some crossing locations can present inherently hazardous conditions for both bicyclists and pedestrians if visibility is restricted between drivers and trail users. Recognizing these common hazards can lead to improved design when facilities are constructed and also to the array of traffic control solutions presented later in this document. Hazards from Turning Vehicles As noted in the previous section, riding with traffic ensures that bicyclists are well-positioned to be seen by vehicle drivers on both the mainline and any cross streets. For example, a driver who intends to turn right at a stop sign is generally looking to the left for gaps in cross traffic. However, a bicyclist approaching from the right or from the rear, whether on the roadway or a separated pathway, will not be readily seen by a right -turning driver, as shown in Figure 1. Wrong -Way Right Turn L Correct bleyelisl is is easily seen Dn ers fOpUs 0 ysiOR Cycling Hazard — from Cross Road YM1Ir°ng-way bicyclist won't be seen Source: Bicycle Facility Design, Richard C. Moeur P.E., 2004. http://www.richardcmoeur.com/docs/bikepres.pdf Figure 1 Page 16 July 26, 2011 Page 134 Even when riding in the same direction as adjacent traffic, a bicyclist on a separated bikeway may be difficult to see for some drivers, particularly by drivers making right turns when a bicyclist is approaching from the rear, as shown in Figure 2. When bicyclists ride within the roadway, this conflict is less likely to occur because an approaching bicyclist is better able to observe that a car is turning, and because passing on the right shoulder is illegal for all vehicles, including bicyclists. However, riding in the roadway may not be appropriate for all cycling skill levels, such as young children who have not yet been taught the rules of right-of-way. Separated bikeway - Riding in the same direction as adjacent traffic I F Figure 2 NOISOME 04949 Source: Washington County, MN It has been commonplace for trails to be constructed parallel to roadways to prevent conflicts between high- speed traffic and lower -speed bicyclists, especially children and recreational bicyclists. However, by providing increased separation between motorists and trail users, it becomes more difficult for bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians to be visible to each other and allow proper yielding when trails cross roadways, regardless of whether the crossing is controlled by a stop sign, signal, or other crosswalk treatment. Therefore, caution should be taken in roadway and trail design and traffic controls to ensure adequate visibility between drivers and bicyclists when approaching potential conflict areas. However, even clear sight lines cannot guarantee that drivers or bicyclists will look rearward before turning, which neither are trained to do. Page 17 July 26, 2011 Page 13 5 The Multi -Lane Threat to Trail Users A 2005 national study It' by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the University of North Carolina found that marking crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches provided, at best, no significant safety benefit, and that crosswalk markings substantially degraded pedestrian safety when used across uncontrolled multi -lane approaches. The results of these findings are shown below in Figure 3. 1.4 rA c rn 12 L Q} U C 14 t R U y L C 0.6 a L Q} L c Y 0.4 0.2 0. nq U W—C.00) NI u NI u Sig. Crosswalk Type 1.37 No Raised Median 0 M= Marked Sig. = Significant Difference 0 U= Unmarked N.S. = No Significant Difference r 12,000 ADT V-0.02) Sig. Sig. 2 Lanes 013-3 3 to 8 Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes p=0.62)(=0.87) 3 to g Lames N.S. 0.25 EL 028 N.S. 0.17 15 0.17 17.17 173 Sites) 0 nq U rA u NI u NI u 11. u No Median No Raised Median No Raised Median No Raised Median Raised Median Raised Median All ADT's r 12,000 ADT 122000-15,000 AIT > 15,000 ADT 15.000 ADT 15.000 ADT 2 Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes 3 to g Lames 914 Sites) 260 Sites) 149 Sites) (417 Sites) 87 Sites) 173 Sites) Type of Crossing Figure 3 [13 Pedestrian crash rate versos type of crossing. Although drivers are prohibited by statute from passing a stopped vehicle at a crosswalk when a pedestrian is crossing, the approaching driver's view of a pedestrian can be obscured by the stopped vehicles in the adjacent lane, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Because of this restricted view, it may not be possible for the approaching driver to comply with the law because the distance necessary to stop the vehicle can be far greater than the distance at which the pedestrian first becomes visible to the driver. 1] "Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines (FHWA-HRT-04-100)", August 2005, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center & Federal Highway Administration Office of Research & Development. Page 18 July 26, 2011 Page 136 For the purposes of roadway design, engineers typically assume that 2.5 seconds pass before the brakes are first applied, as the driver first recognizes the hazard, makes the decision to stop, and moves their foot onto the brake pedal ". An additional 86.4 feet, or 3.9 seconds, are needed once the brakes are applied before a 30 mph vehicle comes to a stop, assuming a level surface and wet pavement conditions. Therefore, under these typical assumptions, a pedestrian must be visible to an approaching 30 mph driver when the driver is approximately 200 feet from the crosswalk. At this speed, the driver will need a total of 6.4 seconds in order to apply the brake and bring the vehicle to a stop" based on standard assumptions for reaction time and pavement friction. Even if the driver's reaction times are exceptional (1.0 seconds), and the pavement is dry allowing for aggressive braking (0.5G or 16.1 ft/sz), a driver travelling at 30 mph will still need 3.73 seconds, or 104 feet in order to stop the vehicle from the time a hazard is first observed. However, because vehicles in adjacent lanes are typically separated by approximately 4 feet, a pedestrian crossing in front of a stopped vehicle, and walking at a typical speed of 4 feet per second, would be visible for as little as 1.0 seconds before stepping into the path of an approaching vehicle in an adjacent lane. For a bicyclist riding in a crosswalk at a modest 12 feet per second (8.1 mph), the bicyclist and approaching driver would be visible to each other for only 0.33 seconds, far below the necessary reaction and braking times for both the driver and the bicyclist. Because available sight distance can be far less than the necessary reaction and braking distance even under ideal conditions, marked crosswalks cannot be relied upon to provide safe pedestrian or bicyclist crossings at uncontrolled multi -lane approaches. Figure 4 Is this left -turning truck stopped to yield to oncoming traffic? Or is there also a pedestrian or bicyclist crossing from the left? Right -lane drivers would not be able to stop if a pedestrian or bicyclist emerged at normal travel speeds. Figure Is this transit bus stopped to pick up passengers? To turn right? Or is it stopped because a pedestrian is crossing from the right? Left- lane drivers would not be able to stop if a pedestrian or bicyclist emerged at normal travel speeds. The FHWA study referenced on the previous page contains a table which may be used to identify candidate locations for marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, and where marked crosswalks should be avoided unless other effective safety treatments are provided. This table is shown as Figure 6 in this document and is available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf. 2] "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets', 2004 Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Page 19 July 26, 2011 Page 137 Table 11. Recommendations foi, installing mai ketI c 'osswalks and other needed wdestrian iinC;f1'Ca1-elnellt3 at uncontrolled lac;itions. These euideltnes include intersection and rnidblock locations with no traffic signals or stop suns 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, wntplex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy tntcks, or Other dangers, ti ithout first pro -,siding adequate desi,grt features and `or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Miether 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-ealtuing measures, curb extensions)_ as needed, to imlprDve the safety of the crossing_ These are general recommendations, good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding inhere to install crosswalks. Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km -'h (40 mi -1a), marked crosswalks alone should not be used at mtsignalized locations. The raised median Or crossing island mist be at least 1-2 m (4 ft) nide and 1.8 in (6 ft) long to sense adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with NfUTCD and ArneriCan Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (.PASHTO) guidelines. C: = C:antlidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswralks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosses alks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk- For an engineering stud%, . a site rev ieu, may be sufficient at some locations; while a more indepth study of pedestrian Y. olunue_ vehicle speed; sight distance, vehicle snits, and other factors may be needed at other sites_ It is reconunended that a minimum utilization of "[l pedestrian crossings per peak hoar (Or 15 or more elderly and -or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk mai- occur if crosswalks are added vkithout other pedestrian facility- enhanceLueuts. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improl.ernents, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. 1 = ]larked crass -walks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash. riisk inay be increased by providing marked Cros"valks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic -calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranred; or other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. Source: "Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines (FHWA-HRT-04- 100)", August 2005, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center & Federal Highway Administration Office of Research & Development. Figure 6 Page 138 Vehicle ADT Vehicle ADT Vehicle -ADT Vehicle ADT Roadway T-pe 9.,000 9,000 to 12,00 12.000-15,000 15,000 Number of Travel Lanes Speed Limit"` and Median Type) 43.3 56.4 64.4 48.3 56.4 64.4 48.3 56.4 64.4 48,3 56.4 64.4 ktnrh kink Mull ktnlh km. -'h lan: It kinh l in ]i ktnlh km,h km, -'Ii km/h 30 35 40 30 35 40 30 35 40 30 35 40 milh) mi'h) m:U11) mill} mVh) midi) mi(h) mi/h) mii/h) m") milk) mifh) Two lades 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 Multilobe (foux or more lanes) C C P C P N P P N N N N with raised median:`:* * Multilane (four or more la -ties) C P N P P N N N N N N N 1-vithout raised inediatt These euideltnes include intersection and rnidblock locations with no traffic signals or stop suns 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, wntplex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy tntcks, or Other dangers, ti ithout first pro -,siding adequate desi,grt features and `or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Miether 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-ealtuing measures, curb extensions)_ as needed, to imlprDve the safety of the crossing_ These are general recommendations, good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding inhere to install crosswalks. Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km -'h (40 mi -1a), marked crosswalks alone should not be used at mtsignalized locations. The raised median Or crossing island mist be at least 1-2 m (4 ft) nide and 1.8 in (6 ft) long to sense adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with NfUTCD and ArneriCan Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (.PASHTO) guidelines. C: = C:antlidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswralks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosses alks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk- For an engineering stud%, . a site rev ieu, may be sufficient at some locations; while a more indepth study of pedestrian Y. olunue_ vehicle speed; sight distance, vehicle snits, and other factors may be needed at other sites_ It is reconunended that a minimum utilization of "[l pedestrian crossings per peak hoar (Or 15 or more elderly and -or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk mai- occur if crosswalks are added vkithout other pedestrian facility- enhanceLueuts. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improl.ernents, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. 1 = ]larked crass -walks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash. riisk inay be increased by providing marked Cros"valks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic -calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranred; or other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. Source: "Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines (FHWA-HRT-04- 100)", August 2005, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center & Federal Highway Administration Office of Research & Development. Figure 6 Page 138 Typical Crossing Scenarios The following pages provide traffic control guidelines for various scenarios under which trails cross roadways and traffic control options which may be used for each. Always consult the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for requirements and recommendations regarding the use of any of the devices shown. Traffic control devices discussed in the following pages include signs, pavement markings, traffic signals, and pedestrian beacons and are discussed only in the context of at -grade crossing locations. Other potential safety improvements besides traffic control devices are also available, including construction of grade -separated crossings (bridges or tunnels), installation of median refuge islands, and installation of appropriately placed street lighting to improve nighttime visibility. While marked crosswalks alone have been shown to not improve safety at uncontrolled locations, many other devices and technologies are available for use. However, data is limited regarding the effectiveness of other devices on pedestrian safety, including traffic signals, pedestrian -activated red or yellow beacons, or in -roadway lighting. The implementation of any devices should always consider the available data and desired effect of a particular device. For example, some treatments may increase motorist awareness of the crossing location, but may not increase the number of gaps available to pedestrians or bicyclists who wish to cross. Similarly, a device that improves a motorist awareness of the crossing location, but where pedestrians and bicyclists are not visible to a driver due to obstructed sight lines, may not improve safety. A device which is overused, such as pedestrian crossing signs at a location where pedestrian volume is low, or a trail stop sign at a location where vehicle conflicts are rare, may fail to command the respect of drivers and trail users and therefore decrease the effectiveness of the same devices at other locations where their use may be warranted. The use of any traffic control device or design treatment at a trail crossing location should always consider the factors specific to the particular crossing location, including approach volumes, approach speeds, available sight lines, the number of lanes, and geometric factors such as curves or hills. Documenting these findings and the reason for a decision to use, or not to use, a particular traffic control device and help to protect a road or trail agency from legal challenges if a crash were to occur. Page 1 11 July 26, 2011 Page 139 Midblock Crossings Midblock crossings, where a trail crosses a roadway away from a street intersection, can be advantageous in that there is no turning traffic and crossing distances are often shorter due to the lack of turn lanes. For drivers, a vehicle stopped at a midblock crossing is a relatively clear indication that a pedestrian is crossing, even if the pedestrian is not visible to the approaching driver, whereas this may not be the case for a vehicle stopped at an intersection. However, midblock locations also typically involve higher vehicle approach speeds. Pavement markings are required in order for a midblock crossing location to be considered a legal crosswalk. On high-volume roadways, yielding to roadway traffic may result in long waits for pedestrians or bicycles waiting to cross at uncontrolled locations. Marking a crosswalk can increase the number of legally available gaps, and signalization can provide right-of-way to the trail user without requiring the trail user to enter the roadway. Without crosswalk markings, pedestrians and bicyclists at midblock locations are permitted to cross the roadway, but are required to yield to roadway traffic, crossing only when traffic is clear. In many locations, it has been shown that omitting crosswalk markings can substantially improve safety. Ill To maximize safety at midblock trail crossing locations, the following guidelines should be considered: 1. Refer to the FHWA study table (Figure 6) when considering installation of a marked crosswalk at a midblock or uncontrolled location. The table will provide recommendations for where marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations should be avoided or supplemented with additional treatments. 2. Stop signs facing trails are likely to be disregarded especially when used unnecessarily. Avoid using stop signs facing trails except where a full and complete stop is absolutely necessary. YIELD signs can effectively assign right-of-way while maintaining bicyclist momentum and respect for stop signs where a full stop is truly needed. 3. Consider pedestrian -activated red beacons or other signal options for multi -lane crossings or where safe gaps in vehicle traffic are insufficient in frequency or duration. 4. Do not use YIELD signs facing the trail if also using crosswalk markings at the same location, as this creates a conflicting message to users. STOP signs, however, may be used with marked crosswalks where necessary to require that bicyclists enter the crosswalk only at low speeds after stopping. 5. Encourage construction of refuge islands in the roadway median so that crossings may be made in two stages. This can be an effective treatment for both two-lane roads and multi -lane roads. 6. At locations where high-volume trails cross low-volume roadways, the roadway may be yield -controlled, or stop controlled if warranted. Under this condition: Page 1 12 a. If the roadway approach is controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, the crosswalk should be marked, as the purpose for the YIELD or STOP might otherwise not be recognized by drivers and could lead to noncompliance. A sign showing the trail name may also be provided for recognition. b. STOP or YIELD signs facing the roadway maybe supplemented with "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" plaques or similar messages. c. YIELD signs should not face the trail if the roadway is stop or yield controlled. d. STOP signs should not be used facing the trail when the roadway is stop -controlled unless all - way stop control has been determined to be necessary according to an engineering study. July 26, 2011 Page 140 Midblock Crossings x® 33e 4 C i F Ff Uncontrolled & Unmarked Not a legal crosswalk. Trail users must select gaps large enough to avoid conflicts with cross traffic. I 0 I —V Trail Yield Control Do not mark crosswalk if using trail yield control. Optional T L 10 1 10, 74, 01 Optional Roadway Yield or Stop Control Consider MN MUTCD stop warrants before installing roadway stop signs. Stop signs may not be used in combination with yield signs. v_a Uncontrolled & Marked Pavement markings create a legal crosswalk. Trail users must select gaps large enough to allow cross traffic to stop safely. Objects obstruct sight lines y40> Trail Stop Control Avoid use except where a full stop is necessary for all trail users, usually due to obstructed sight lines. Crosswalk may be marked, check FHWA table. m Stop Ahead or Yield Ahead signs are required only when the stop or yield sign is not visible for a sufficient distance to permit the approaching user to respond to the device. Otherwise, they are optional, but consider ongoing maintenance costs and the creation of an additional fixed object hazard versus the expected benefit. Crosswalk may be marked, but may degrade safety in some circumstances. Refer to FHWA table. Q Warning signs are optional and may be used with or without a marked crosswalk, however pavement markings are required in order to legally designate a crosswalk. Other W11 series warning signs may be substituted. Such warning signs have not been shown to improve safety. Figure 7 Page 141 Crossing Uncontrolled Approaches to Intersections Crossings of uncontrolled intersection approaches pose additional challenges beyond those of midblock crossings. A trail user crossing an uncontrolled intersection approach must be cognizant not only of crossing traffic but also of turning traffic from the other approaches. A driver approaching such a crossing must also be aware of both trail users and other vehicular traffic. If a driver stops at the crosswalk to allow a trail user to cross, other drivers may assume the driver is stopping to make a turn at the intersection and pass the stopped vehicle, while the trail user may not realize that other traffic is approaching. Even in the absence of trail users, marking the uncontrolled approaches of a two-way stop may give the false impression to drivers that the intersection is an all -way stop, increasing the vehicle crash risk. To maximize safety where a trail crosses an uncontrolled intersection approach, the following guidelines should be considered: 1. Refer to the FHWA study table (Figure 6) when considering installation of a marked crosswalk at any uncontrolled location. The table will provide recommendations for where marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations should be avoided or supplemented with additional devices such as traffic signals. 2. Stop signs facing trails are likely to be disregarded especially when used unnecessarily. Avoid using stop signs facing trails except where a full and complete stop is absolutely necessary. YIELD signs can effectively assign right-of-way while maintaining bicyclist momentum and respect for stop signs where a full stop is truly needed. 3. Consider installing pedestrian -activated red beacons or other signal options for multi -lane crossings or where safe gaps in vehicle traffic are insufficient in frequency or duration. 4. Do not use YIELD signs facing the trail if also using crosswalk markings at the same location, as this creates a conflicting message to users. STOP signs, however, may be used with marked crosswalks where necessary to require that bicyclists enter the crosswalk only at low speeds after stopping. 5. Encourage construction of refuge islands in the roadway median so that crossings may be made in two stages. This can be an effective treatment for both two-lane roads and multi -lane roads. Page 1 14 July 26, 2011 Page 142 Crossing Uncontrolled Approaches at Intersections Uncontrolled & Unmarked Considered a legal crosswalk if the crossing is part of the intersection. If the space between the trail and the roadway is excessive, treat as a midblock crossing. T d, XVa T i I Uncontrolled & Marked Pavement markings create a legal crosswalk. Trail users must select gaps large enough to allow cross traffic to stop safely. See Note #2. 14 rb r © gA (3) SID\ Vy It 11 Trail Yield Control Trail Stop Control May be used when the cross traffic is uncontrolled, May be used for consistency with stop signs on even if the parallel street is stop controlled. Do not parallel street or where a full stop is necessary. mark crosswalk if using trail yield control. Crosswalk may be also marked, check FHWA table. Stop Ahead or Yield Ahead signs are required only when the stop or yield sign is not visible for a sufficient distance to permit the approaching user to respond to the device. Otherwise, they are optional, but consider ongoing maintenance costs and the creation of an additional fixed object hazard versus the expected benefit. Crosswalk markings may cause drivers and trail users to believe that the intersection is an all -way stop. Crosswalk may be marked, but may degrade safety in some circumstances. Refer to FHWA table for markings on uncontrolled approaches. Q Warning signs are optional and may be used with or without a marked crosswalk. Other W11 series warning signs may be substituted. Such warning signs have not been shown to improve safety. Figure 8 Page 143 Crossing Stop -Controlled or Signal -Controlled approaches to Intersections Trail crossings of stop -controlled intersection approaches typically involve the lowest vehicular speeds, but may still involve multiple lanes or directions of approach. One of the more common hazards at stop -controlled crossings is encroachment into the crosswalk by right -turning vehicles and the failure of drivers to see bicyclists or pedestrians walking in the opposite direction of the adjacent parallel traffic, as shown in Figure 1. One of the most difficult locations to prevent conflicts is also one of the most common scenarios. When a trail running parallel to a roadway crosses a controlled sidestreet, trail users generally expect to pass without stopping, especially when the minor street has low traffic volumes. However, free-flow operation of the trail can create conflicts with turning vehicles as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Placement of stop or yield signs facing the trail at all such crossings involves a large capital investment and ongoing maintenance liabilities, and also creates an additional safety hazard if the sign itself is struck by a trail user. Yield signs facing the trail can create potential confusion for pedestrians who would otherwise be afforded the legal rights of a crosswalk. Stop signs facing the trail are likely to be disregarded by bicyclists, especially when conflicting traffic is not present, and can encourage disrespect of other more important stop signs. There is no known effective signage to treat this common scenario. The State of Arizona has adopted an official policy that signs and markings are not to be used on shared use paths that parallel roadways, attached to this document as Figure 9. The practice of other jurisdictions, including some in Minnesota, has been to install signs at all such crossings along particular trail corridors. Although many types of treatments are allowable, some treatments and combinations should be avoided, as noted in the list below and in Figure 8. To maximize safety where a trail crosses a stop -controlled or signal -controlled intersection approach, the following guidelines should be considered; 1. Crosswalks may be marked and/or stop bars provided. However, neither is required. 2. Do NOT provide ped crossing or trail crossing signs at or in advance of all -way stops or signals, as drivers should always expect a crosswalk at all -way stop or signalized intersections. Additionally, at signalized crossings, the right-of-way is based on the signal indications rather than crosswalk statutes. 3. Stop signs may be provided facing trails, though the vehicular stop sign may also suffice. 4. Geometric treatments may also help to prevent high-speed entries into a crosswalk, particularly where the "Walk" indication is operated on each signal cycle rather than triggered by a pushbutton. 5. Special bicycle traffic signals may be used where justified to prevent conflicts between trail bicyclists and motor vehicles at signalized intersections. 6. Where possible, bicyclists should be accommodated within the roadway design even when parallel pathways are present. Appropriate in -roadway accommodations depend on traffic volumes and speeds, and should always be designed in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In -roadway accommodations may include wide shoulders, shared use of vehicle lanes, or exclusive bike lanes. Page 1 16 July 26, 2011 Page 144 ADr;1= I= fiic ET a-2CrLT-. Gui3eliaes. and ProCedureE J --'7r 2XD4 32_-,-J-Da ICC"' 'a: aaz a=ark_an 1 131 SIGNING AND M AR I -.I (7 ()F I',_:'5HAIR ED -LYSE PATH Bicyclists operating on public roadways axe recognized in State law as having the sante rights and responsibilities as. operators of vehicles_ Nevertheless. shared -use path2, i -e. separated from motorized vehicular traffic and also used by pedestrians, skaters, joggers. etc_, are also frequentl`- used by biQ-clists.. Such shared -used path,- are often placed parallel and adjacent to roa>duva.y s used by motorized vehicles. Experience has shoe that signing and niarkings along shared -use paths do notassist adjjacent drivers of motowized vehicles in anticipating land avoiding colbsior:s wide) bicyclists when the motorists turns onto an intersecting i1oad1.va4. Wirth which the adjacent shared -use path also intersects. For their part, bicyclists traveling on shared -use paths which parallel public roadways have been observed to take thein right-of-way cues not from sigm or traffic control devices which matt- be placed on the shared -use loath. but. from the traffic movements on the parallel roadway. Bicyclists also tend to ignore STOP sigm along shared -use parlim,ays xhich they perceive to be unnecessary- or which conflict with the might-+cdf-may along the parallel roadway. Iforeom er. signs and markings placed along shared -use paths are sometimes interpreted as impL--ring t-.nrc clists are expected to use the path instead of the adjacent. roadvsw,- This can leatd to harassment of bic -elists who are otherwise sa fel.- and legall y- using the roaacbxk - It is therefore intended that sidewalks or shared -use paths on Mate right -of -way parallel and adjacent to shall not be marred or signed for the precerential or exclusive use of bicyclists. This includes the use of centerline maxkings, B= RO L'TE signs, STOP or MELD signs. or similar devices.. R5-3 NO MOTOR VEHI LE signs inky be. in tailed at entrances to sidewalks or shared -use paths. This policy does not appLy. to .shared -use paths on independent alignments that are not parallel and adjacent. to roadways and intersect. State highways at locations away &oin roachvky intersections, or in locations Where the adjacent roadway is a controlled -aces freeway where kri.cdv- ists have been prohibited in accordance with PGP li)30- Exceptions to this policy may be made on the recomm endation of the Di strii+ct Engineer with the appraval of the State Traffic Engineer_ Source: Arizona Department of Transportation. http://www.azdot.gov/highways/traffic/standards/PGP/rM103l.pdf Figure 9 Page 1 17 July 26, 2011 Page 145 Other Resources Various sources were used in the development of this document and can provide additional detail and requirements regarding trail design, user characteristics, safety research, and traffic control devices: Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines (FHWA-HRT-04-100)", August 2005, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center & Federal Highway Administration Office of Research & Development. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety (FHWA-HRT-04-103)", October 2004, Sprinkle Consulting Inc. & Federal Highway Administration Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04103/04103.pdf Signing and Marking of Shared Use Paths (Policy Subsection # 1031)", Arizona Department of Transportation July 2004. http://www.azdot.gov/highways/traffic/standards/PGP/TM1031.pdf Bicycle Facility Design", Richard C. Moeur, P.E., L.C.I. April 2004. http://www.richardcmoeur.com/bikestuf.html Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition", American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1999. https:Hbookstore.transportation.org/item details.aspx?ID=104 Revising the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Final Report", National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 15-37 & Toole Design Group, 2010. (Not yet approved by AASHTO as of December 2010). http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP 15-37 FR.pdf Mn/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual", Minnesota Department of Transportation, March, 2007. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/designmanual.html Share the Road Minnesota, http://www.sharetheroadmn.org/index.html How Not to Get Hit By Cars: Important Lessons in Bicycle Safety" Michael Bluejay. http://www.bicyclesafe.com John Forester, M.S., P.E. http://www.johnforester.com Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices", Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2005. Current edition available at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mutcd/index.htmI Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices", Federal Highway Administration, 2009. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf index.htm (Note: For reference use only. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is the governing document for use within the State of Minnesota.) Guidance for the Installation of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities", North Central Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers — Pedestrian Safety Committee, 2008. http://www.nc-ite.org Page 1 18 July 26, 2011 Page 146 Credits The following people and agencies contributed their expertise to this set of best practices for trail crossings as part of the Safe Crossings work group. Joe Gustafson (Editor) Washington County Greta Alquist Minnesota Department of Transportation Lisa Austin Minnesota Department of Transportation Lisa Bender Hennepin County Boe Carlson Three Rivers Park District Brent Christensen Three Rivers Park District Steve Clark Transit for Livable Communities Nik Costello Washington County Marc Culver City of Maple Grove Eric Drager Hennepin County Cris Gears Three Rivers Park District Amy Gurski Three Rivers Park District David Kuebler City of St. Paul Danny McCullough Three Rivers Park District Police Tim Mitchell Minnesota Department of Transportation Shaun Murphy City of Minneapolis Karen Nikolai Hennepin County Tim Plath City of Eagan Margie Dahlof (Walz) Three Rivers Park District John Tripp Hennepin County Ken Wehrle Ramsey County Tony Winiecki Scott County Scott Yonke Anoka County Jody Yungers Ramsey County An additional thanks to the members of the Wayfinding work group for their feedback as part of the regional coordination effort, and to Phil Eckert of Hennepin County for beginning this important regional collaboration. Page 1 19 July 26, 2011 Page 147 rp)City of Agenda 2 CPlymouthNumber: v Adding Qwfity to Life To: Dave Callister, City Manager SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Prepared by: Diane Evans, Director of Parks & Recreation January 14, 2014 Reviewed by: Item: Plymouth Ice Center Training Area 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council regarding a new training facility at the Plymouth Ice Center. 2. BACKGROUND: The proposed project would be a public-private partnership between Acceleration Minnesota NW, Wayzata Youth Hockey Association and the City of Plymouth for the construction of a 7,220 square foot training facility at the Plymouth Ice Center. The City would lease the training facility to Acceleration Minnesota NW, a Plymouth Company. Acceleration Minnesota NW would operate the facility, providing athletic training and skill development for all sports programs (i.e. soccer, baseball, basketball, football, hockey, etc.). Components of their training program include plyometrics (ground based speed work), strength training, and use of specialized treadmill equipment. Benefits/Opportunities: Growing trend for ice center facilities Convenience for training facility customers Enhanced access to health, wellness and nutrition guidance (including concussion awareness) Potential for increased ice rental and concessions revenue Provides valuable off -ice revenue ($64,980+ per year) to help offset facility improvements and future repairs (i.e. refrigerant conversion, roof repair/replacement, etc.). Without a new source of revenue, it will be difficult for the PIC enterprise fund to operate without a levy in the long term The training facility space will recoup capital construction costs within a 10 year period Currently, Wayzata Youth Hockey Association (WYHA) has confirmed a $100,000 donation and an additional $75,000 in years 2 through 5, for a total contribution of $400,000 for the training facility. Acceleration Minnesota NW will enter into a 10 -year lease agreement that will include a yearly lease rate of $9 per square foot with a 3% yearly inflator ($64,980-$84,784). Acceleration Minnesota NW (Acceleration) will prepay their year -one lease of $64,980 prior to 2014 construction. Lease Page 1 payments for years 2-10 will be paid monthly following the terms of the lease agreement. The lease terms would require Acceleration to pay all utilities, taxes and interior improvements. The lease revenue after the eighth year would be available for other facility improvements and/or needs. 3. BUDGET IMPACT: The construction estimate for the training facility is $1,000,000. CAPITAL OVERVIEW INITIAL FUNDING TOTAL INVESTMENT Wayzata Youth Hockey Association $100,000 400,000 City of Plymouth $900,000 600,000 TOTAL $1,000,000 1,000,000 REVENUE OVERVIEW 5 YEAR TERM (10 YEAR) Acceleration MN NW 344,987 744,922 The capital costs payback period would be just over eight years as shown on the attached projected pro -forma. The cities portion of the project construction costs would be an internal loan from the Fieldhouse Fund. This fund currently has a balance of $1,270,423. Page 2 PLYMOUTH ICE CENTER EXPANSION DRY LAND TRAINING AREA Revenue Assumptions Loan Assumptions Leaseable s.f. 7,220 Rate Lease Rate 9.27 Term Inflator 3% Amount Dated Date 100,000 First Payment WYHA Contributions r;b City of Plymouth Addlny Quollty to Life 1.50% 10 835,020 Includes $164,980 upfront WYHA & Accel. contribution 1/1/15 Assumes no accrued/capitalized interest 12/31/15 Project cost estimate is $1,000,000. Page 3 2013 2014 100,000 2015 75,000 2016 75,000 2017 75,000 2018 75,000 Total 400,000 Beginning Interest Principal Ending Year Revenue Balance Payment Payment Payment Balance 2015 141,929.40 835,020 12,525.30 129,404.10 141,929.40 705,616 2016 143,937.28 705,616 10,584.24 133,353.04 143,937.28 572,263 2017 146,005.40 572,263 8,583.94 137,421.46 146,005.40 434,841 2018 148,135.56 434,841 6,522.62 141,612.94 148,135.56 293,228 2019 75,329.63 293,228 4,398.43 70,931.20 75,329.63 222,297 2020 77,589.52 222,297 3,334.46 74,255.06 77,589.52 148,042 2021 79,917.20 148,042 2,220.63 77,696.57 79,917.20 70,346 2022 82,314.72 70,346 1,055.18 81,259.54 82,314.72 10,914) 2023 84,784.16 10,914) 163.71) 84,947.87 84,784.16 95,862) Project cost estimate is $1,000,000. Page 3 PLYMOUTH ICE CENTER DRY LAND TRAINING AREA Revenue Assumptions Project Cost 1,000,000 Training Area Leaseable S.F. 7220 Public Warm-up Area 0 Contributions Total Leaseable S.F. 7220 WYHA 400,000.00 Lease Rate 9.00 S.F. City 535,020.00 Inflator 3 % Hennepin County 0.00 Lease Agreement 10 years Acceleration 64,980.00 Total 1,000,000.00 Annual Monthly Year S.F. Rate Lease Total Lease Total 2014 9 64,980.00 * Paid upfront 2015 9.27 66,929.40 5,577.45 2016 9.55 68,937.28 5,744.77 2017 9.83 71,005.40 5,917.12 2018 10.13 73,135.56 6,094.63 2019 10.43 75,329.63 6,277.47 2020 10.75 77,589.52 6,465.79 2021 11.07 79,917.20 6,659.77 2022 11.40 82,314.72 6,859.56 2023 11.74 84,784.16 7,065.35 10 -YEAR TOTAL 744,922.88 Page 4 rp)City of Plymouth Adding Quaky to Life SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING January 14, 2014 Agenda 2DNumber: To: Mayor and City Council Prepared by: Dave Callister, City Manager Item: Set Future Study Sessions 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the list of pending study sessions and set meetings as desired. Calendars are attached to assist with scheduling. Staff is requesting the Council add to the January 21 Study Session agenda a discussion on the noise wall south of County Road 47 and west of I-494. PENDING STUDY SESSION TOPICS at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list): None at this time. OTHER REQUESTS FOR STUDY SESSION TOPICS Quarterly update with the City Manager Page 1 r Plymouth Adding Quality to Life January 2014 Modified on 01/01/2014 Page 2 1 2 3 4 NEW YEAR'S DAY CITY OFFICES CLOSED 5 6 7 8 7:00 PM 9 7:00 PM 10 11 ENVIRONMENTAL PARK ft REC QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMISSION EQC) MEETING PRAC) MEETING Medicine Lake Room Council Chambers 12 13 14 5:00 PM 15 7:00 PM 16 17 18 SPECIAL COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING* COMMISSIONMedicineLakeRoom MEETING 7:00 PM Council Chambers REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 19 2 0 21 5:30 PM 22 7:00 PM 23 24 257:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL PLYMOUTH ADVISORY HRA MEETINGMEETINGCOMMITTEEON MARTIN LUTHER Goals Setting TRANSIT (PACT) Medicine Lake Room KING JR. Medicine Lake Room REGULAR MEETING BIRTHDAY Medicine Lake Room Observed CITY OFFICES CLOSED 26 27 28 5:30 PM 29 30 31 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Status Update on TMDLs Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL Update on Hollyd le 11 5K Project and Subst tion Site, CrosswalkMEETINGSigningandMarking, a d Plymouth Ice Center Tr ning Facility UpdateCouncilChambers Modified on 01/01/2014 Page 2 r Plymouth Adding Quality to Life February 2014 Modified on 01/01/2014 Page 3 1 2:00 PM Fire It Ice Festival Parkers Lake 2 3 4 5 7:00 PM 6 7 5:00 PM 8 PLANNING Skate with theCOMMISSION Mayor MEETING Parkers Lake Council Chambers Ash Wednesday 9 10 11 5:30 PM 12 7:00 PM 13 7:00 PM 14 15 SPECIAL COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL PARK 8 REC MEETING QUALITY ADVISORY Social Media Policy COMMITTEE COMMISSION and Update from EQC) MEETING PRAC) MEETINGWestHealth Medicine Lake Room Medicine Lake Room Council Chambers 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 16 17 18 19 7:00 PM 20 21 22 PLANNING COMMISSION PRESIDENTS MEETING DAY Council Chambers CITY OFFICES CLOSED 23 24 25 26 27 287:OOPM 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY HRA MEETINGISD284COMMITTEEONMedicineLakeRoom ELECTION DAY TRANSIT (PACT) WORK SESSION Medicine Lake Room 8:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers Modified on 01/01/2014 Page 3 City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life March 2014 Modified on 01/01/2014 Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 7:00 PM 6 7:00 PM 7 8 PLANNING POLICE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT MEETING RECOGNITION Council Chambers EVENT Plymouth Creek Center 9 10 11 12 7:00 PM 13 5:30 PM 14 15 9:00 AM - 7:30 AM ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE AND 12:00 PMSTATEOFTHECITY Council Chambers QUALITY COMMISSION City Sampler COMMITTEE (EQC) RECOGNITION Plymouth City Hall MEETING EVENT Medicine Lake Room Plymouth Creek Center 7:00 PM Daylight Savings REGULAR Time Begins COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 16 17 18 19 7:00 PMPLANNING 20 21 22 COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 2324 2 5 7:00 PM 26 7:00 PM 2 7 7:00 PM 28 29 REGULAR COUNCIL PLYMOUTH HRA MEETING MEETING ADVISORY Medicine Lake Room 30 Council Chambers COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) WORK SESSION 31 Medicine Lake Room i Modified on 01/01/2014 Page 4 r Plymouth Adding Quality to Life April 2014 Modified on 01/01/14 Page 5 1 2 7:00 PM 3 5:00-9:00 PM 4 5:00-9:00 PM 5 10:00 AM -4:00 F PLANNING PRIMAVERA PRIMAVERA PRIMAVERA COMMISSION Plymouth Fine Plymouth Fine Plymouth Fine MEETING Arts Council Arts Council Arts Council Council Chambers Show Show Show Plymouth Creek Plymouth Creek Plymouth Creek Center Center Center 6 7 8 9 7:00 PM 10 11 12 9:00 AM - 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL 6:00-8:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 -4:00 PM M-4: 10:00 AM -4:00 P REGULAR COUNCILQUALITY YARD Ft GARDEN YARD i* GARDEN PRIMAVERA 7:00 P 0 PM MEETING COMMITTEE EXPO EXPO Plymouth Fine PRIMAVERA Council Chambers Plymouth Creek Plymouth Creek Arts Council Plymouth Fine EQC) MEETING Center Fieldhouse Center Fieldhouse Show Arts Council Medicine Lake Room Plymouth Creek Show Center Plymouth Creek Center 13 14 15 16 7:00 PM 17 18 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers Passover Begins at Sunset Good Friday 20 21 22 2 3 7:00 PM 24 7:00 PM 25 26 6:00 PM PLYMOUTH HRA MEETING BOARD OF ADVISORY Medicine Lake Room EQUALIZATION COMMITTEE ONCouncilChambers TRANSIT (PACT) Immediately REGULAR MEETING Following BOE Medicine Lake Room REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers Easter Sunday 27 28 29 30 Modified on 01/01/14 Page 5