1. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
DPS 201
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)

2. Why? pedestrians need to cross
Video: This is at a midblock location in Seattle Shows how RRFB works. Can note in this location they also put in Advance Yield lines with sign and pedestrian crossing island.

3. Case study: RRFB (St. Petersburg, FL)
Problem/Background
Multi-lane, high-speed roadways
Conflicts at uncontrolled crosswalks
Motorist yielding rates less than 2% at the city’s 100 uncontrolled crosswalks
Pedestrian injury rate higher than the county/state averages
This case study looks at St. Petersburg, FL, which had many multi-lane, high-speed roadways presenting conflicts for pedestrians using uncontrolled crosswalks. The motorist yielding compliance rates were less than 2 percent overall at these crosswalks.
The city had over 100 uncontrolled crosswalks, and as of 2003 its pedestrian injury rate of per 100,000 people was higher than both the county's and the state's rates.

4. Case study: RRFB (St. Petersburg, FL)
Solution
In 2003 city listed enhancements to uncontrolled crosswalks as top priority
Vendor offered to install RRFB’s at two locations
City agreed, conducted studies
Cost was $10,000-15,000 dollars for purchase and installation, which was less expensive than other options
In 2003, the City of St. Petersburg listed enhancements to uncontrolled crosswalks as a top priority in its Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan.
At that time, a vendor offered to install a new traffic control device, the Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB), under crosswalk signs at two uncontrolled crosswalk locations. The City agreed to let the vendor install the RRFBs, and conducted studies at the two crosswalks and analyzed the results.
RRFBs were an attractive alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals because their cost of 10,000-15,000 dollars for the purchase and installation of two units was significantly less expensive than other options. The solar power needed to operate the LED beacons also reduced operating costs.
The City, which requested permission to use the nonstandard traffic control device by following the Permission to Experiment protocol described in section 1A.10 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) of the FHWA, compared pedestrian crossing compliance of the RRFBs to dual overhead round amber flashing beacons and side-mounted round flashing beacons at the two crosswalks. Both of these round beacons produced disappointing yielding compliance rates of 15.5% for the dual overhead round beacons and 11.5% for the side-mounted round beacons. The City experimented with two-beacon RRFB systems and four-beacon RRFB systems at the same crosswalks, for comparison. Four-beacon systems allowed for the placement of beacons in the center median, which gave motorists traveling on inside lanes of multi-lane roadways a better view of activated beacons. In all cases, there were yield markings at 30 ft in advance of the crosswalks that were used in conjunction with the RRFBs to alert motorists of upcoming crosswalks and to encourage them to stop in advance of the crosswalk to reduce the chance of a screening crash.

5. Case study: RRFB (St. Petersburg, FL)
Details
Compared RRFB’s with dual overhead round yellow flashing beacons and side-mounted round flashing beacons
RRFBs provided higher yielding compliance
Also compared two-beacon and four-beacon RRFB systems
In all cases, yield markings placed 30 feet before crosswalks
Before
The City, which requested permission to use the nonstandard traffic control device by following the Permission to Experiment protocol described in section 1A.10 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) of the FHWA, compared pedestrian crossing compliance of the RRFBs to dual overhead round amber flashing beacons and side-mounted round flashing beacons at the two crosswalks. Both of these round beacons produced disappointing yielding compliance rates of 15.5% for the dual overhead round beacons and 11.5% for the side-mounted round beacons.
The City experimented with two-beacon RRFB systems and four-beacon RRFB systems at the same crosswalks, for comparison. Four-beacon systems allowed for the placement of beacons in the center median, which gave motorists traveling on inside lanes of multi-lane roadways a better view of activated beacons. In all cases, there were yield markings at 30 ft in advance of the crosswalks that were used in conjunction with the RRFBs to alert motorists of upcoming crosswalks and to encourage them to stop in advance of the crosswalk to reduce the chance of a screening crash.
After

6. Case study: RRFB (St. Petersburg, FL)
Results
Initial success led city to install 17 more RRFB’s
Two-year review of the crosswalks
RRFB’s led to sustained yielding over time
Performed equally well at night
Four-beacon system had highest yield rates
RRFB’s also improved yield distance
In May 2012 City had 42 RRFBs and plans for more
The initial success of the RRFBs at the two crosswalks led the City to install 17 more RRFBs and conduct a two-year review of the 19 crosswalks, during which over 16,000 individual crossings were evaluated. As a result of this two-year study, it was determined that RRFBs led to sustained yielding over time. The baseline yielding percentage prior to the installation of RRFBs was 2%. The graph shows the average yielding compliance results over time at the sites.
The RRFBs performed equally well at night. One site at 1st Street just south of 37th Avenue North had a yielding percentage of 99.4 percent at night when using the four-beacon system. The yielding compliance rate was dramatically higher than the baseline nighttime percentage of 4.8%. This increase in yielding percentage at night can probably be attributed to LED lights being very visible at night.
The four-beacon system produced a statistically significant increase in motorist yielding compared with the two-beacon system. The average increase in yielding from the baseline to a two-beacon system was 18.2 percent to 81.2 percent, while the four-beacon system led to an average increase in yielding of 87.8 percent.
RRFBs improved the yielding distance as well. There was a 9% increase over the baseline in yielding at greater than 30 ft in advance of the crosswalk when using the four-beacon system, and yielding at greater than 100 ft in advance of the crosswalk almost doubled. Greater yielding distances made crosswalks safer for pedestrians because the pedestrians had a better view of approaching vehicles in all oncoming lanes. The increases in yielding percentages and yielding distances also led to fewer vehicles attempting to pass yielding vehicles.
The installation of RRFBs and advance yield markings greatly improved mid-block crossing safety in St. Petersburg. As of May 2012, the City of St. Petersburg had 42 RRFBs with advance yield markings in place with another 20 to 30 scheduled for 2014.

7. Where they’ve been used
Mid-blocks crossings
Uncontrolled intersection approaches
Does not have similar language in the MUTCD regarding use at an intersection like the PHB
RRFBs may control both uncontrolled legs at an intersection
RRFBs may be used at roundabout crosswalks
Trail crossings
Key Points: Some common locations where they been installed. Most common is the mid block.

8. Safety CMF & Research
“Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks” (Publication No. FHWA-HRT ) 2010
Main Point: There is research from FHWA on the RRFB. Some of the main points will be stated on the next few slides

9. Research
Objective
Examine effects of side-mounted RRFB at uncontrolled marked crosswalks for driver yielding behavior
22 Sites in 3 Cities
St. Petersburg, FL
Washington, DC
Mundelein, IL
18 Sites studied for 2 years for long-term effects
Compare RRFB with traditional overhead yellow flashing beacon and a side-mounted traditional yellow flashing beacon
Identify ways to further increase effectiveness of RRFB
From TechBrief
Objective
This study examined the effects of side-mounted yellow light-emitting diode (LED) rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs) at uncontrolled marked crosswalks in a series of experiments. Many methods have been examined to increase driver yielding behavior to pedestrians at multilane crosswalks at uncontrolled sites with relatively high average daily traffic (ADT). Only treatments that employ a red phase have consistently produced sustained high levels of yielding in previous studies.(1) A series of five experiments examined the efficacy of RRFBs to
increase driver yielding behavior. These studies examined the effects of RRFBs at 22 sites in 3 cities in the United States (St. Petersburg, FL; Washington, DC; and Mundelein, IL). Data were also collected over a 2-year follow-up period at 18 of these sites to determine the long-term effects of the RRFB treatments. Another objective of the study was to compare the RRFB with a traditional overhead yellow flashing beacon and a side-mounted traditional yellow flashing beacon. A final objective of the study was to attempt to identify ways to further increase the effectiveness of the treatment. Variants subjected to evaluation included mounting additional units on a median or pedestrian refuge island and aiming the RRFB system to maximize brightness at a target site.

10. Research 5 experiments
1st compared both sides of the crosswalk (2 sets of beacons) to both sides of the crosswalk plus on the median island (4 sets of beacons).
2nd compare traditional overhead flashing beacon & traditional beacons mounted beside pedestrian signs
3rd long-term & short term effects 18 sites in St. Petersburg, FL & 3 sites in two other parts of the country respectively
4th efficacy of direct-aim technology allows RRFBs maximum brightness at particular point in roadway
5th Effects of additional RRFBs on crosswalk advance warning signs
This came from the research report Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks Publication No. FHWA-HRT
The first experiment compared the effects of installing RRFBs on pedestrian signs on both sides of the crosswalk (two sets of beacons) to installing them on both sides of the crosswalk plus on the median island (four sets of beacons).
The second experiment compared RRFBs with a traditional overhead flashing beacon and traditional beacons mounted beside the pedestrian signs.
The third experiment examined the long-term effects of RRFBs at 18 sites in St. Petersburg, FL, and the short-term effects of RRFBs at three sites in two other parts of the country.
The fourth experiment examined the efficacy of direct-aim technology that allowed RRFBs to have maximum brightness at a particular point in the roadway.
Finally, the fifth experiment examined the effect of placing additional RRFBs on the crosswalk advance warning signs.

11. MUTCD IA Memo/Research
Very high rates of motorist "yield to pedestrians"
RRFB - Mostly high 80% & close to 100%
15 to 20% yield rate for standard yellow beacons
Very high yield rates sustained after 2 years operation
No identifiable negative effects have been found
Information from MUTCD Interim Approval memo
Main Point: High yield rates sustained over time.

12. MUTCD IA memo/Research
RRFB's very high compliance rates are previously unheard of for any device other than a full traffic signal and a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK)
St. Petersburg data shows drivers exhibit yielding behavior much further in advance of the crosswalk with RRFB than with standard yellow flashing beacons
From MUTCD Interim Approval mem
The RRFB's very high compliance rates are previously unheard of for any device other than a full traffic signal and a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK), both of which stop traffic with steady red signal indications.
The St. Petersburg data also shows that drivers exhibit yielding behavior much further in advance of the crosswalk with RRFB than with standard yellow flashing beacons.

13. MUTCD IA Memo/Research
Data from locations other than St. Petersburg is limited but shows similar results
Data from DC shows driver yielding compliance rates increased from 26% to 74% after 30 days in operation
DC advance yielding distances increased comparable to St. Petersburg results
Study of 2 RRFB locations in Miami-Dade County, FL reported in TRB paper – The following were significantly reduced to negligible levels:
Evasive conflicts between drivers and pedestrians
Percentage of pedestrians trapped in the center of an undivided road because of a non-yielding driver in the second half of the roadway
From MUTCD Interim Approval memo, Data from locations other than St. Petersburg is limited but shows results similar to those from St. Petersburg.
Data from one RRFB site in DC shows driver yielding compliance rates increased from 26% to 74% after 30 days in operation
DC advance yielding distances also increased comparable to St. Petersburg results
A study of 2 RRFB locations in Miami-Dade County, FL, reported in TRB paper – The following were significantly reduced to negligible levels:
Evasive conflicts between drivers and pedestrians
Percentage of pedestrians trapped in the center of an undivided road because of a non-yielding driver in the second half of the roadway

14. MUTCD IA Memo/Research
St. Petersburg, FL
City collected "before“ & "after" data at intervals for 1 year at all sites and for 2 years at the first 2 implemented sites.
Put RRFBs on some higher volume, higher-speed locations to test the “envelope.”
All performed well 75%+ Yield rates, not caused a crash problem
St. Petersburg, FL experimented with the RRFB at 18 uncontrolled crosswalk approaches and submitted their final report.
City collected "before“ & "after" data at intervals for 1 year at all sites and for 2 years at the first 2 implemented sites.
For the first 2 sites, the city collected data for overhead and ground-mounted pedestrian crossing signs supplemented with standard round yellow flashing beacons, for comparison purposes, before the RRFBs were installed.
St. Petersburg, FL has put RRFBs in some higher volume, higher-speed locations to test the “envelope.”
All performed well 75%+ Yield rates, not caused a crash problem

15. Mutcd Interim approval July 16, 2008

16. Interim Approvals Valid Under the 2009 MUTCD
Key Point: Advise participants to look at the interim approval criteria per the MUTCD and note there are official interpretation on certain questions agencies had.
DO NOT go into details on each of the official interpretations based upon questions about the design and operation of the RRFB

17. Interim Approvals Issued by FHWA
Letter of request (on agency letterhead) - addressed to the Director of the Office of Transportation Operations, FHWA. Send electronically as an attachment to :
Remember to copy the FHWA Division office
Indicate blanket jurisdiction-wide approval or state the location(s) where the device will be used
A State may request Interim Approval for all jurisdictions in their State.
Key Point: Process to go through if agency wants to use the RRFB

18. Conditions of Interim Approval
Must Agree to:
Restore site(s) of Interim Approval to a condition that complies with the provisions in the MUTCD within 3 months following the issuance of a Final Rule on TCD
Terminate use of device or application at any time it is determined a significant safety concern is directly or indirectly attributable to the device or application
FHWA's Office of Transportation Operations has right to terminate the Interim Approval at any time if there a safety concern
Key Point: Noting the conditions for Interim Approval
Must agree to restore site(s) of the Interim Approval to a condition that complies with the provisions in the MUTCD within 3 months following the issuance of a Final Rule on traffic control device.
Must agree to terminate use of the device or application at any time it is determined that a significant safety concern is directly or indirectly attributable to the device or application.
The FHWA's Office of Transportation Operations has right to terminate the Interim Approval at any time if there a safety concern.

19. Conditions of Interim Approval General Conditions
Following design & operational requirements shall apply & shall take precedence over any conflicting provisions of the MUTCD
RRFB shall consist of two rapidly & alternately flashed rectangular yellow indications having LED-array based pulsing light sources, and shall be designed, located, and operated in accordance with the detailed requirements specified
If an agency opts to use an RRFB under this Interim Approval, the following design and operational requirements shall apply, and shall take precedence over any conflicting provisions of the MUTCD for the approach on which RRFBs are used
An RRFB shall consist of two rapidly and alternately flashed rectangular yellow indications having LED-array based pulsing light sources, and shall be designed, located, and operated in accordance with the detailed requirements specified

20. Conditions of Interim Approval Allowable Uses
Shall only be installed as a Warning Beacon
see 2009 MUTCD Section 4L.03 Warning Beacon
Shall only be used to supplement a W11-2 (Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning sign with a diagonal downward arrow (W16-7p) plaque, located at or immediately adjacent to a marked crosswalk
Shall not be used for crosswalks controlled by YIELD or STOP signs, or traffic signals.
May be used at a crosswalk across the approach to or egress from a roundabout controlled by YIELD signs.
Key Point: note conditions of interim approval
RRFB Shall only be installed as a Warning Beacon
see 2009 MUTCD Section 4L.03 Warning Beacon
RRFB Shall only be used to supplement a W11-2 (Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning sign with a diagonal downward arrow (W16-7p) plaque, located at or immediately adjacent to a marked crosswalk
RRFB Shall not be used for crosswalks controlled by YIELD or STOP signs, or traffic signals.
RRFB May be used at a crosswalk across the approach to or egress from a roundabout controlled by YIELD signs.

21. Conditions of Interim Approval Allowable Uses
If sight distance approaching crosswalk is less than deemed necessary by the engineer an additional RRFB may be installed in advance of the crosswalk as a Warning Beacon to supplement a W11-2 (Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning sign with an AHEAD: (W16-9p) plaque.
This additional RRFB shall be supplemental to and not a replacement for RRFBs at the crosswalk itself.
Key Point: note conditions of interim approval
In the event sight distance approaching the crosswalk at which RRFBs are used is less than deemed necessary by the engineer, an additional RRFB may be installed on that approach in advance of the crosswalk, as a Warning Beacon to supplement a W11-2 (Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning sign with an AHEAD: (W16-9p) plaque.
This additional RRFB shall be supplemental to and not a replacement for RRFBs at the crosswalk itself.

22. Conditions of Interim Approval Sign/Beacon Assembly Locations
For any approach on which RRFBs are used, two W11-2 or S1-1 crossing warning signs (each with RRFB and W16-7p plaque) shall be installed at the crosswalk, one on the right-hand side of the roadway and one on the left-hand side of the roadway.
On a divided highway, the left-hand side assembly should be installed on the median, if practical, rather than on the far left side of the highway.
An RRFB shall not be installed independent of the crossing signs for the approach the RRFB faces. The RRFB shall be installed on the same support as the associated W11-2 (Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning sign and plaque.
Key Point: note conditions of interim approval

23. Conditions of Interim Approval Dimensions & Placement Sign Assembly
Each RRFB shall consist of two rectangular-shaped yellow indications, each with an LED-array based light source. Each RRFB indication shall be a minimum of approximately 5 inches wide by approximately 2 inches high.
The two RRFB indications shall be aligned horizontally, with the longer dimension horizontal and with a minimum space between the two indications of approximately seven inches (7 in), measured from inside edge of one indication to inside edge of the other indication.
Key Point: note conditions of interim approval

24. Conditions of Interim Approval Dimensions & Placement Sign Assembly
The outside edges of the RRFB indications, including any housings, shall not project beyond the outside edges of the W11-2 or S1-1 sign.
As a specific exception to 2003 MUTCD Section 4K.01 guidance, the RRFB shall be located between the bottom of the crossing warning sign and the top of the supplemental downward diagonal arrow plaque (or, in the case of a supplemental advance sign, the AHEAD plaque), rather than 12 inches above or below the sign assembly.

25. Conditions of Interim Approval Beacon Flashing Requirements
Flash in a rapidly alternating "wig-wag" flashing sequence
RRFBs shall use a much faster flash rate.
Specific exception to 2003 MUTCD Section 4K.01 requirements for the flash rate of beacons
During each of its 70 to 80 flashing periods per minute, one of the yellow indications shall emit two rapid pulses of light and the other yellow indication shall emit three rapid pulses of light.
A second flash pattern (Wig Wag + Solid Flash) is also allowed
Key Point:
When activated, the two yellow indications in each RRFB shall flash in a rapidly alternating "wig-wag" flashing sequence (left light on, then right light on).
As a specific exception to 2003 MUTCD Section 4K.01 requirements for the flash rate of beacons, RRFBs shall use a much faster flash rate. Each of the two yellow indications of an RRFB shall have 70 to 80 periods of flashing per minute and shall have alternating but approximately equal periods of rapid pulsing light emissions and dark operation. During each of its 70 to 80 flashing periods per minute, one of the yellow indications shall emit two rapid pulses of light and the other yellow indication shall emit three rapid pulses of light.

26. Conditions of Interim Approval Beacon Flashing Requirements
The flash rate of each individual yellow indication, as applied over the full on-off sequence of a flashing period of the indication, shall not be between 5 and 30 flashes per second, to avoid frequencies that might cause seizures.
The light intensity of the yellow indications shall meet the minimum specifications of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J595 (Directional Flashing Optical Warning Devices for Authorized Emergency, Maintenance, and Service Vehicles) dated January 2005.
Key Point:
The flash rate of each individual yellow indication, as applied over the full on-off sequence of a flashing period of the indication, shall not be between 5 and 30 flashes per second, to avoid frequencies that might cause seizures.
The light intensity of the yellow indications shall meet the minimum specifications of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J595 (Directional Flashing Optical Warning Devices for Authorized Emergency, Maintenance, and Service Vehicles) dated January 2005.

27. Conditions of Interim Approval Beacon Operation
Shall be normally dark
Shall initiate operation only upon pedestrian actuation
Shall cease operation at a predetermined time after the pedestrian actuation or, with passive detection, after the pedestrian clears the crosswalk
All RRFBs associated with a given crosswalk (including those with an advance crossing sign, if used) shall, when activated, simultaneously commence operation of their alternating rapid flashing indications and shall cease operation simultaneously
Key Point:
The RRFB shall be normally dark, shall initiate operation only upon pedestrian actuation, and shall cease operation at a predetermined time after the pedestrian actuation or, with passive detection, after the pedestrian clears the crosswalk.
All RRFBs associated with a given crosswalk (including those with an advance crossing sign, if used) shall, when activated, simultaneously commence operation of their alternating rapid flashing indications and shall cease operation simultaneously.

28. Conditions of Interim Approval Beacon Operation
If pedestrian pushbuttons (rather than passive detection) are used to actuate the RRFBs, a pedestrian instruction sign with the legend PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON WARNING LIGHTS should be mounted adjacent to or integral with each pedestrian pushbutton.
Key Point: Conditions of interim approval
If pedestrian pushbuttons (rather than passive detection) are used to actuate the RRFBs, a pedestrian instruction sign with the legend PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON WARNING LIGHTS should be mounted adjacent to or integral with each pedestrian pushbutton.

29. Actuation options Push-button activated or passive detection
If push button activated needs to be ADA compliant
Locator tone
Message should only let blind pedestrian know beacon is flashing, not when they can cross.
Passive detection options bollards, video, microwave
Key Point: RRFB can be activated by either method. Push buttons should include a locator tone and the message should only let the blind pedestrian know the beacon is flashing, not when they can cross. Passive can be video, microwave, bollards

30. Additional Design considerations

31. Not a substitute for good design
RRFBs are NOT a substitute for good crosswalk placement and design.
The Crosswalk is still the primary traffic control element that assigns ROW to the pedestrian. 
Note that in the event a user does not activate the RRFB (assuming manual actuation) the crosswalk still assigns ROW to the pedestrian.
RRFBs supplement the crosswalk - call attention to the crosswalk warning signs
Pre-requisites for RRFB: Use best practices for
Crosswalk placement
Pavement markings
Lighting
Key Point: RRFB’s are a supplement to the crosswalk and signing, not a substitute for good design

32. RRFB’s on higher volume & speed streets in St. Petersburg
Since the initial “Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks” (Publication No. FHWA-HRT ) was published in 2010, St. Petersburg has installed RRFBs in some higher-volume, higher-speed locations that test the “envelope” of where they may be applied. 
Preliminary results: These have all performed well (75%+ Yield rates, no crash problem).
Key Point: Although the initial results look good for higher volume roads and speeds up to 40 mph caution should be used on 40+ mph roadways and on higher volume streets.

33. All other rules apply
All other rules for crosswalk placement and pavement marking apply (sight distance, advance stop/yield bar, lighting, clear pedestrian desire lines, etc.)
Key Point: The RRFB once again is a supplement to all the other good practices for designing safe pedestrian crossings

34. Timing duration
Flash duration of RRFBs should be based on the MUTCD procedures for clearance times at pedestrian signals
MUTCD: Section 4E.06 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases
May allow pedestrians to actuate RRFB immediately after a flash interval has ended
Key Points: Follow the MUTCD for timing duration. Unlike the PHB, there is no wait time before the beacon can be actuated again

35. Indicator light for pedestrian
A small light directed at and visible to pedestrians in the crosswalk may be integral to the RRFB or push button confirm that the RRFB is in operation.
Key Point: Although not required some manufacturers have a light that is visible to the pedestrian so they know the RRFB is actuated.

36. Overhead placement Overhead placement is an option
Originally permission was for the event that the shoulder mounting would be sight-obstructed, but then granted to supplement shoulder and median mounted beacons
Undetermined whether or not supplemental overhead placement improves yield rate or reduces crashes
Key Point: Overhead placement is an option (originally in the event that the shoulder mounting would be sight-obstructed) but Phoenix got permission to build with overhead beacons to supplement shoulder and median mounted beacons. 
Undetermined whether or not supplemental overhead placement improves yield rate or reduces crashes

37. Design Criteria Guidance
When there is a median (which is preferred for crossing multi-lane roads) a RRFB should be placed in the median
Key Point: where there is a median the yielding rate was higher with a RRFB in the median. Results from research on next slide

38. Research Median RRFB
Standard yellow overhead beacon increased yielding compliance from 11 to 16 percent.
Side-mounted RRFBs replaced the overhead beacon, yielding compliance increased to 78 percent.
Adding the RRFB to the median island increased yielding compliance to 88 percent.
Standard yellow side mounted beacons increased yielding compliance from zero to 16 percent.
Side-mounted RRFBs increased yielding compliance to 72 percent.
The installation of a standard yellow overhead beacon increased yielding compliance from 11 to 16 percent. When side-mounted RRFBs replaced the overhead beacon,
yielding compliance increased to 78 percent. Adding the RRFB to the median island increased yielding compliance to 88 percent. The installation of standard yellow sidemounted
beacons increased yielding compliance from zero to 16 percent. The installation of side-mounted RRFBs increased yielding compliance to 72 percent. The increases
produced by the RRFB system were statistically significant.

39. Enforcement for new installations
New installations should be accompanied by education and enforcement
Yielding compliance should be monitored by police
Exception - a new installation along a corridor with multiple beacons or in a community where RRFBs are common throughout 
No specific threshold or standard but a logical approach is to continue enforcement until yield rates achieve 75%
Do added enforcement if yield rates drop precipitously
Key Point: Don’t forget the other E’s and some best practices for enforcement. Follow the Click it or Ticket model where they educate and then after a period of time do enforcement
Video of Pedestrian Enforcement News Story in Orlando FL - IF internet access clicking the photo will take it to Youtube news story. NOTE: This enforcement was not done at a RRFB location, just at a standard crosswalk.
If there is internet connection click photo to go to YouTube news story of pedestrian enforcement in Orlando FL

40. Cost
From PEDSAFE
Easy to install since they communicate wirelessly and may be solar powered
This is the cost per installation (not per unit)

41. Case Study

42. Case study: RRFB (Elmwood Park, NJ)
Problem/Background
Uncontrolled crossing between a commuter parking lot and a train station on a four-lane highway
Average pedestrian volume: during commute hours
Heavy traffic: 39,490 ADT and
35 mph speed limit
Standard crosswalks existed
Signs were not consistent
Did not meet traffic signal warrant
This case study looks at Elmwood Park NJ, where pedestrians found it difficult to cross a four-lane highway at an uncontrolled crossing between a commuter parking lot and a train station.
New Jersey Route 4 (Broadway Avenue) is a 4-lane highway, with a NJ Transit rail station located on the north. East 55th Street, a local roadway and the site of an 80-space commuter parking lot, forms a t-intersection with Route 4 from the south. The parking lot generates many of the pedestrian trips crossing Route 4 to access the rail station, with other commuters traveling from the large residential neighborhood on the south side of Route 4. Commuters are also dropped off along the shoulder of Route 4 in an informal "kiss 'n' ride" arrangement, or by local bus routes. Pedestrian counts in 2008 indicated crossing volumes of 85 pedestrians from 6 to 9 AM and 58 pedestrians from 4 to 7 p.m.
The speed limit is 35 mi/h and the roadway is heavily trafficked, with an average daily traffic volume of 39,490. There are two 11-ft lanes and a 10-ft shoulder in each direction. The roadway is divided, with a 10-ft wide grass median to the west of East 55th Street and a 10-ft wide raised concrete barrier to the east. Route 4 is unsignalized at East 55th Street. Standard crosswalks were marked across Route 4 on the west leg of this intersection, and signage was inconsistent, with both pedestrian warning signs and school crossing signs present. Pedestrians traveling from the parking lot to the train station had to travel well out of their way to cross Route 4 at a signalized intersection, located 620 ft away in either direction.
Elmwood Park officials met with the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and requested that a traffic signal be installed due to the difficulty of crossing the roadway. A field investigation confirmed the problem, but the signal warrants to install a traffic signal were not met.

43. Case study: RRFB (Elmwood Park, NJ)
Solution
RRFB installed on each side of the road
Each RRFB had a fluorescent yellow-green pedestrian warning sign, a two-section beacon, and a downward-pointing arrow sign
Signs and beacons faced both directions
High-visibility crosswalk markings also installed
Upon ped activation, yellow lights flashed in an alternating pattern
Before
The New Jersey Department of Tranpsortation (NJDOT) decided to install an RRFB on each side of Route 4 in June 2011, about 20 ft in advance of the crosswalk on the westbound side of Route 4, and about 50 ft in advance of the crosswalk on the eastbound side. Each installation consisted of a fluorescent yellow-green pedestrian warning sign (W11-2), a two-section beacon, and a downward-pointing arrow sign (W16-7P). The mounted signs and beacons faced both directions, and high-visibility crosswalk markings were installed. Following activation of the RRFB by a pedestrian, the yellow lights flashed in an alternating pattern.
After

44. Case study: RRFB (Elmwood Park, NJ)
Results
Increase in number of motorists stopping and decrease in number of pedestrians waiting for gap
More successful in the morning than afternoon due to higher p.m. traffic
Possibility of a multiple threat crash still a concern, especially with increased pedestrian confidence
Pedestrian Crossing Events: Conflicted Crossings
A.M. Before
A.M. After
P.M. Before
P.M. After
Crossed after vehicle stopped 3 75 2 38
Percent
2.2%
52.8%
2.3%
35.8%
Waited or aborted 48 15 41 43
35.3%
10.6%
47.7%
40.6%
Hurried or went around vehicle 17 12 9
13.5%
8.5%
10.5%
1.9%
A pedestrian count was conducted before and after installation of the RRFB during the morning peak period (6 to 9 am) and the evening peak period (4 to 7 pm). The table summarizes pedestrian behavior before and after installation.
It shows a large increase in the number of pedestrians that were able to cross Route 4 following a stop by motorists. This percentage increased from 2.2 to 52.8 percent in the morning period and 2.3 to 35.8 percent in the evening period. Correspondingly, the percentage of pedestrians choosing to wait for a gap in traffic fell from 35.3 to 10.6 percent in the morning and 47.7 to 40.6 percent in the evening. The percentage of pedestrians who hurried to avoid vehicles fell from 13.5 to 8.5 percent in the morning and 10.5 to 1.9 percent in the evening.
Additionally, the percentage of crossing events involving a full stop by motorists grew from 4.4 to 73.5 percent in the morning period and from 3.8 to 45.8 percent in the evening period.
*Although the RRFB was successful in increasing the number of stopping motorists, pedestrians must still apply caution in crossing at these locations because a certain percentage of motorists do not stop. This point was reinforced during the field views conducted for this study. A group of schoolchildren was observed walking their bikes from south to north across Route 4. Waiting in the median, they began to cross the westbound roadway when the approaching motorist in the inner lane stopped. However, the motorist in the outer lane failed to see the crossing group and drove through the crosswalk, hitting the bicycle of the lead pedestrian and knocking it out of her hands. Although the pedestrian was unhurt and the bicycle undamaged, this incident indicates that the possibility of a multiple threat crash is present on multilane roadways.
Additional improvements, including curb extensions and stop bars, are being investigated by the city as ways to further enhance safety.
Pedestrian Behavior Before and After Installation of RRFB

45. Questions / resources
Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks” (Publication No. FHWA-HRT ) 2010
MUTCD Interim Approvals
RRFB Specific
Before-and-after study of the effectiveness of rectangular rapid-flashing beacons used with school sign in Garland, Texas
Driver-Yielding Results for Three Rectangular Rapid-Flash Patterns