Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

New pp chip

225 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

New pp chip

  1. 1. Crosswalk Safety
  2. 2. Problem Statement The purpose of this paper will be to determine the best pedestrian traffic control device to install on the 27 crosswalks on Fort Myers Beach, in order to increase pedestrian safety by encouraging drivers to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
  3. 3. T Town of Fort Myers Beach The town was created in 1995. The town is run by a town council consisting of a mayor, a vice mayor, and 3 council member. The town employs a town manager, an administrative assistant, a town clerk, a contracts manager, and a receptionist. The town has an annual budget of 28,656, 308 dollars.
  4. 4. Departments Community Development Environmental Sciences Division Finance Public Works Parks and Recreation
  5. 5. Jurisdiction 2.9 square miles of land Area of water extending 1000 feet from the shoreline Population in 2,000 was 6,561 residents. Median age for residents is 59.1 years.
  6. 6. Three Main Business Clusters Downtown area known as time square and the pier. A mid island cluster which includes Town Hall, Bay Oaks, and the Library. The south end of the island includes Santini Plaza, the Holiday Inn, CVS Pharmacy, and many high rise condominiums.
  7. 7. The Problem From November through April the population increases dramatically when approximately 30,000 visitors descend on the island. This triples the amount of traffic that travels on the islands main road known as Estero Blvd.
  8. 8. The Problem In the past year, four pedestrians have been killed while crossing Estero Blvd at crosswalks. According to former Mayor Larry Kiker, there were 24 pedestrian accidents on the island last year.
  9. 9. Problem Estero is a very busy road with major traffic congestion especially during the tourist season. There has been a 20 percent increase in the number of pedestrian accidents this year (Kiker, 2013)
  10. 10. Root Causes The main cause of this problem is congestion. Visitors are on vacation and do not pay attention when they cross the road. They walk out in front of traffic assuming the drivers will stop because they are in a crosswalk. Likewise, the drivers are also on vacation and are paying attention to their surroundings, rather than the people in the crosswalk.
  11. 11. Stakeholders Residents of Fort Myers Beach. Visitors to Fort Myers Beach. Town Council of Fort Myers Beach. Lee County Sheriffs Department. Lee County Commission
  12. 12. Miami Case Study Miami has one of the highest pedestrian fatality rates in the state. In order to solve this problem, the city set up research teams to explore different countermeasures that could be used in the city to help make it a safer place for pedestrians. These included “intelligent video pedestrian detection devices” and rapid flash beacons (RRFB).
  13. 13. Miami Results The results showed that some of the countermeasures worked very well, while others had no significant effect on the behavior of the drivers or the pedestrians. In Miami the use of the RRFBs increased the percentage of drivers who yielded to the pedestrians quite a bit. At site #1 the yielding rate went from 0 percent to 65 percent. At site #2, the rate went from 1 percent to 92 percent.
  14. 14. Seattle Case Study City leaders were not happy with the fact that 398 pedestrians were killed from 2000-2009. The city began installing overhead crosswalk signs at their busiest crosswalks.
  15. 15. Seattle Results Before the signs were installed, the driver yielding rate was 45 percent. After the signs were installed, the driver yielding rate went up to 52 percent. The crosswalk signs were also effective in improving the behavior of the pedestrians in the crosswalk. Before the signs were installed 58 percent of the pedestrians “ran, aborted, or hesitated” in crossing the road. After the signs were installed, this rate went down to 43%.
  16. 16. Lakeland Case Study Lakeland, Florida is located in Polk County where there were 13 pedestrians killed last year (Parody, 2013). The city has tried to improve the safety of the pedestrians in crosswalks by installing “flashing crosswalks.” This device embeds lights into the roadway on both sides of a marked crosswalk. When a pedestrian approaches the crosswalk, he or she will see a button to push that will turn on the flashing lights. The flashing lights are designed to warn approaching drivers that someone is waiting to cross the road.
  17. 17. Lakeland Results The flashers were effective in increasing the number of drivers who yielded to pedestrians. Before the flashers were put in, the percentage of drivers who yielded to pedestrians was 15.8 percent. After the flashers were installed, the rate went up to 41.0 percent.
  18. 18. Lit Review One Huang, Zegeer, and Nassi (2000) Studied three different traffic control systems that have been employed in various locations to make it safer for pedestrians to cross the road. Safety Cones in New York Pedestrian Activated Flashing Amber Beacon Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalks signs.
  19. 19. Results Huang, et al (2000) The device that produced the most consistent results was the pedestrian safety cones. Before the cones were put up, 69.8 percent of the drivers yielded to the pedestrians. After the treatment, this rate went up to 82.1 percent.
  20. 20. Lit Review Two: Federal Highway Administration (2001) Purpose was to find out if marked crosswalks were effective traffic control devices. Second objective was to come up with recommendations to improve pedestrian safety.
  21. 21. Lit Review Three: Federal Highway Administration (2007) Studied automated video detection of pedestrians. Flashing beacons In street pedestrian signs Median refuge islands Lasted 6 years
  22. 22. Results FWA (2007) Most effective were Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons. Next was in street lighting Pedestrian Countdown signals came in third Yield here signs came in fourth.
  23. 23. Lit Review Four: Do, et al (2011) The purpose of this study was to identify some countermeasures that could make crosswalks safer for pedestrians. The countermeasure study included RRFB, HAWK, Shared Lanes, and Crosswalk Markings. Results showed signals were effective in reducing accidents by 69 percent. The type of marking made a difference. Bar pairs and continental markings were most effective.
  24. 24. Lit Review Five: Bartlett, et al (2012) Bartlett, et al, studied medians and pedestrian refuge areas. Reports showed that using medians and walkways can reduce the number of pedestrians killed.
  25. 25. Alternative 1: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon RRFB contains two LED flashers. Distance between flashers is 9 inches. Flashing pattern catches drivers attention. Uses a stutter flash effect similar to EMS vehicles.
  26. 26. Alternative 1: RRFB In St. Petersburg, this was the most effective countermeasure for increasing the number of drivers who yielded to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The cost for two units ranges from 10,000 to 15,000 dollars.
  27. 27. Alternative 2: HAWK Crossing System Uses standard crosswalk signal with two red lights over one yellow light. Light is dark until button is pushed and system is activated. Yellow light changes from flashing to solid. Alerts drivers to stop. The two red lights come on and the pedestrians get a walk signal.
  28. 28. Alternative 2: HAWK Overall reviews were good but there were two issues with this system. The dark beacons are hard to see. Some people think it is a broken traffic light and stop unnecessarily. Cost is 80,000 dollars.
  29. 29. Alternative 3-Medians Medians are areas between lanes of traffic. Raised medians are the most effective but they cost anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 dollars per 100 feet. The road also needs to be wide enough for the raised median.
  30. 30. Alternative 3-Flashing Crosswalk Flashing crosswalks are a series of flashing lights installed just below the pavement surface. They warn motorists that pedestrians want to cross. Cost is 15,000 to 18,000 dollars. They increase the yielding rate from 16 percent to 92 percent.
  31. 31. Methodology The purpose of the ARP was to provide the best solution to a problem in a public service organization. The project was designed to use a quantative methodology to select the most effective traffic control device to improve pedestrian safety on Fort Myers Beach. The comparative analysis will determine which of the four traffic devices studied will be the best choice for the Town of Fort Myers Beach.
  32. 32. ResultsAlternative Legal Financial Organizationa l Political Total #1-RRFB 50 45 33 38 166 #2-HAWK 40 42 32 32 146 #3-Medians 41 43 32 39 145 #5-Flashing Crosswalk 50 52 30 38 172
  33. 33. Selection of Best Alternative The quantative and comparative analysis concluded that the best alternative for Fort Myers Beach is the flashing crosswalks. Alternative 4 scored 172 points. The rectangular rapid flashing beacon came in second with 166 points. The raised medians was third at 146. HAWK system came in last with 145.
  34. 34. Implementation Year One-Set up control crosswalks using only zebra stripes to determine which 10 crosswalks will get the treatment. YearTwo-Determine the total cost and work with Lee County to secure funding and install the treatment on the 10 crosswalks that were chosen. YearThree-Begin the evaluation process which will compare the crosswalks with and without treatment to determine if the system is effective. Year Four- If the system is effective, install it in the remaining crosswalks.
  35. 35. Evaluation Observe and record the behaviors of the drivers and the pedestrians as they interact with the crosswalk system. Observe and record the number of times a driver or pedestrian is forced to take evasive action to avoid an accident in the crosswalk. Study the number of accidents that have occurred in the crosswalk before and after the install.
  36. 36. Conclusion Thank you for taking the time to listen to my presentation. The Town of Fort Myers Beach should make every effort to install the flashing crosswalk to ensure the safety of all residents and visitors.
  37. 37. References Bartlett, Jennifer, Brett Graves, Theo Petritsch, and Tamara Redmon. (2012). Proven countermeasures for pedestrian safety. Public Records. United States Department of Transportation. FHWA-HRT-12-003. Retrieved from www.flfhwa.dot.gov/publications/public roads 29 May 2013. Do, Ann, Kay Fitzpatrick, Susan Chrysler, Jim Shurbutt, William Hunter, and Shawn Turner. (2011) Safety Strategies Study. Public Roads. United States Department of Transportation. FHWA Number: HRT- 11-004. Retrieved from www.flhwa.dot.gov/publications/public roads. 20 May 2013 Federal Highway Administration.(2010). Safety benefits of raised medians and pedestrian refuge areas . United States Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/medians_brochure/ medians_brochure.pdf1 June 2013.
  38. 38. References  Godfrey, David. (1999). Kirkland's experience with in-pavement flashing lights at crosswalks. Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting.  Retrieved from http://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/Public_Works/Transportation___Street s/Kirkland_s_Experience_with_In-avement_Flashing_Crosswalks.htm? PageMode=Print. 29 May 2013.  Hefferan, Jennifer and Peter Laggerwey (2004). The city of Seatle, WA, USA, crosswalk and inventory improvement plan. ITE Journal. Retrieved from www. Ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2/2004. 24 May 2013.  http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/Effects_Un_MarkedCrosswalks_ Summary.pdf  Huang, Herman, Charles Zeeger, and Richard Nassi (2000). Effects of innovative pedestrian signs at unsignalized locations: three treatments. In Annual meeting compendium of technical papers [CD-ROM]. ITE. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/AB00H5102.pdf. 17 May 2013.

×