1. 80 th and Foster Intersection Analysis Kevin Hace Chris Hass Matt Palmer CE 410/510: Bicycle and Pedestrian Engineering Design

2. Purpose Determine effectiveness of 2010 crosswalk enhancement project by comparing before and after video data. Recommend mobility and safety changes.

3. Project Vicinity

4. Zoning Designation and Crime Rates Zoning: General Commercial300-500 crimes annually

5. Previous Projects Existing Crossing Infrastructure (2004) Crossing at street corner Limited/ no signage Crossing moved to Mid-Block (2005) Pedestrian refuge Added signage and striping

6. Issues at Mid-Block Crossing Many vehicle-pedestrian accidents at crossing Limited warning of crossing pedestrians to approaching vehicles High volume arterial makes crossing safely a difficult task. Low visibility at night

7. Before Treatment (2005) Crossing warning signs with arrows Advance warning signs on both approaches Center refuge for pedestrians Continental road markings

8. After Treatment In addition to before items: Rectangular signs (yellow and black striping) Pedestrian-activated rectangular LED flash beacon (solar powered) Stop bar and associated signage to designate the area where cars are to stop.

9. Research Methodology Field site visit – Measurement of roadway geometrics – Flashing beacon phase time – Characterize surrounding neighborhoods and land uses Video review – Traffic video reviewed and analyzed by project team – Pedestrian wait times, non-compliance rates with regard to pedestrian and vehicles, crossing times, etc. – Video data provided by PBOT

10. Analysis Period Before Treatment: Wednesday November 18,2009: 5pm – 6pm Thursday November 19, 2009: 8am – 9am & 5pm – 6pm Friday November 20, 2009: 8am – 9am After Treatment: Monday March 8, 2010: 5pm – 6pm Tuesday March 8, 2010 : 8am – 9am & 5pm – 6pm Wednesday March 8, 2010 : 8am – 9am *Mondays and Fridays were originally going to be excluded, but were included to provide an adequate number of analysis periods.

11. Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes Pedestrian movements dominate crossing (70-95%). When bicyclist dismount they are considered pedestrians in this research. Bicycle volumes are low possibly due to the lack of bicycle facilities in the surrounding area.

12. Crossing Direction NE bound movements dominate. Primary reasons: Fred Meyer on NE side of crossing SW neighborhood accessing bus stop to head downtown on NE side SW crossings increase in the evenings due to pedestrians returning to their homes from work.

13. Pedestrian Delay Increased wait times after crosswalk improvements. May be due to people becoming reliant on the flasher and not stepping out into the roadway, thereby completely relying on the beacon to stop traffic flow.

14. Average Crossing Times Crossing times decreased after the crossing enhancement, although the decrease’s significance is questionable. Pedestrian crossing times may be decreasing due to the feeling of safety from the flashing beacon. People feel more confident when crossing when a beacon is notifying motorists.

15. Vehicle Violations per Pedestrians Increase in non-compliant vehicles after crossing enhancement. Based on our data, more notification is equating to less compliance. Commuter traffic may be conditioned to ignore beacon warning. Police enforcement may be necessary to minimize vehicle violations.

16. Percentage of Pedestrian Violations Pedestrian violations (e.g. not crossing at the designated crosswalk) were statistically insignificant Before evening data was recorded as zero pedestrian violations.

17. Percentage Signal Actuations The percentage of pedestrians not utilizing the actuated flash beacon was unexpected. Nearly half of all pedestrians did not actuate the flash beacons upon crossing. It was observed that the flash beacon enhanced non-compliant crosses. Pedestrians would hurry and cross diagonally to cross before the flash beacon phase ended.

18. Recommendations Increase beacon size – Could increase vehicle compliance rates Medium-mount lighting on sidewalk – Vehicles can see pedestrians waiting to cross – Pedestrians waiting at bus stop feel more “safe” Bollards with low-mounted lighting – Bollards increase protection of pedestrians within refuge – Low-mounted lighting will assist pedestrians in navigating at night Reduce signal phase – For research data, the average crossing time is much lower than the existing flashing phase. – Reducing the flashing length will result in increased traffic flows during peak hours.

19. Lessons Learned Just because infrastructure is installed does not mean that pedestrians will utilize the infrastructure. – Pedestrians not utilizing flash beacon at high rates The beacon was not the primary reason for motorists to stop; it is the pedestrian in the roadway that prompts motorists to stop. More rigid review criteria for data analysis – E.g. how exactly will pedestrian delay be measured?

20. Questions?