Transcript Heading heading heading heading
District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan
Pro Walk/Pro Bike September 5, 2008 George Branyan Pedestrian Coordinator DC Department of Transportation
Presentation Agenda
Scope of the Plan Public involvement process Methodology Recommendations Implementation
1. Scope of Work
Key work tasks 1.
Public involvement 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Review existing policies and guidelines Identify sidewalk deficiencies in neighborhoods Identify priority pedestrian corridors; conduct detailed field analysis Develop design guidelines and conduct training Develop prioritized recommendations and a final plan
1. Public Involvement
Varied approach to encourage participation from diverse groups • • • • • • • Technical Advisory Committee Study website Pedestrian survey (online) Focus groups with key stakeholders Corridor-based intercept surveys Citywide public meeting Follow up public meetings
Pedestrian Survey Results
• • • Available online (and paper versions) for two months Broad participation – over 4,800 responses (self-selected) Gather information on: –Walking habits –Critical issues for pedestrians in DC –Priorities for improvements –Specific destinations and roadways in need of improvements
Public Involvement
• Key concerns: – Unsafe street crossings / intersections – Construction blocking sidewalks – Motorist behavior – Poor sidewalk surface quality and maintenance – Safety on major corridors – Accessibility – Personal safety while walking
Wisconsin Ave
46%
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Unsafe street crossings
24% 16% 14%
Lack of personal safety Missing or poorly maintained sidew alks Other (please specify)
Which factors make it more difficult/unpleasant for you to walk in the District? Choice #1 Online Survey Results
Drivers not stopping for peds in crossw alks Worries about personal safety (crime) Drivers running red lights Fast vehicle speeds Poor sidew alk surface quality (cracks holes) No sidew alks or gaps in the sidew alk Not enough time to cross intersections Places I need to go, not in w alking distance Poor/inadequate lighting Unattractive/unappealing streets Heavy traffic Sidew alks too narrow Other Weather 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Public Involvement
The most frequently cited corridors needing improvements for pedestrians include: – Connecticut Ave – Wisconsin Ave – 14th Street – Massachusetts Ave – New York Ave – Florida Ave
2. Review Existing Policies and Guidelines
Policies that affect comfort along the roadway: – Driveway width & Access Management – Sidewalks – Tree boxes & furnishing area Policies that affect safety crossing the roadway: • Crosswalks: – Marking and design • Intersections Treatments: – Signage – Signal timing – Restrictions – Push buttons • • • Uncontrolled crossing treatments: – Signage – Physical changes – Beacons & special signals School Zones WMATA bus stop design guidelines/practices
3. Neighborhood Sidewalk Deficiencies
• Identification of sidewalk gaps for entire network of roads in the District
Neighborhood Sidewalk Deficiencies
4. Priority Pedestrian Study Areas
• Select priority corridors – Locations with most people and worst conditions – 8 corridors were analyzed • Field analysis of priority corridors – Existing conditions – Key deficiencies for walking along the road and crossing the road – Concept recommendations
Identifying Priority Pedestrian Study Areas
1.
Pedestrian Potential Index: Locations with high levels of pedestrian activity – Population and Employment Density – Roadways near: • Metro stations and bus stops • Schools, colleges/universities • Shopping destinations • Major park entrances • Senior centers • Tourist & special event destinations (convention center)
Identifying Priority Pedestrian Study Areas
2.
Pedestrian Deficiency Index: Locations with poor conditions for pedestrians – Roadways with: • Sidewalk gaps • Narrow sidewalks (under 4’ or 5’ wide) • Higher traffic volumes (ADT) • Higher posted speed limit • Lack of planting strip • Lack of street trees • Higher number of vehicle travel lanes • Lack of median island • Longer distance between signalized intersection
Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalk:
Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations:
Uncontrolled crossing index
Uncontrolled crossing index
Uncontrolled crossing index
High-risk uncontrolled marked crosswalks on Piney Branch & GA Ave.
Priority Pedestrian Study Corridors
Analyzing Priority Pedestrian Study Areas
WARD 1 – 16th Street Date: June 12, 2007; Time: 9:00 AM Weather: Sunny (about 80 degrees) Surveys Completed: 98
1. What is the primary purpose of your walk today? (check one)
(44) To access transit (metro station or bus stop) (15) To go to work (16) To go shopping, run errands (05) To go to a restaurant/movies/other entertainment (05) To visit friends, go to the gym, etc.
(05) For exercise only (01) To go to school (07) Other: Sell papers, On vacation, Walk dog, Move car
2.Where is the most difficult place to cross the road along 16th Street?
Irving (31) Harvard (22) New Hampshire (19) U Street (14) Columbia (11) Florida (2) Beekmon Place Kalorama Girard Spring Cave George K Street
Analyzing Priority Pedestrian Study Areas 3. Why is it difficult to cross at that location?
(check all that apply)
(36) Drivers’ behavior (failing to yield to pedestrians, speeding, running red lights and stop signs) (15) Traffic signal is not long enough for me to cross (13) No crosswalks (04) No traffic light to stop cars (03) Lack of personal safety (from crime) (08) Crossing distance is too long (01) No median island (or refuge) – – – – – – – – Missing or poorly maintained curb ramps – (30) Other: Accidents (3) Light is to long (8) Very congested (3) Lights favor cars Rush hour Hard to get on and off of bus Confusing (5) Lights do not coincide with each other (2) Angle on New Hampshire is odd and catches people off guard North corner of New Hampshire needs a stop sign/no turn on red sign
4. Design Guidelines and Training
• Pedestrian Design Guidelines – New and innovative tools for pedestrian safety – Details to illustrate appropriate design measures for pedestrians • Training – Two training sessions for DDOT staff – Best practice pedestrian design and construction guidelines – Tailored to the District
Major design recommendations to meet national best practices
4.
5.
6.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
Crosswalk Marking Policy a. Based on Zegeer Study (2002) and Boulder, CO Research (2006), and VDOT policy b. Requires enhancements for multi-lane arterials with high volumes Advance Stop Lines on multi-lane arterials at: a. Uncontrolled marked crosswalks b. Rapid Flash Beacon marked crosswalks c. Pedestrian Hybrid Signal marked crosswalks Uncontrolled Crosswalk Side-of-Street Sign (Boulder, CO and MDSHA) Rapid Flash Beacons (St. Petersburg, FL and Boulder, CO) Pedestrian Hybrid Signals (Tucson, AZ) Far Side Bus Stops (Arlington, VA and Portland, OR) Pedestrian Refuge Islands Curb Extensions Leading Pedestrian Interval Signal Timing
Uncontrolled Crosswalk Matrix
Advance Stop Lines: Multiple threat crash problem 1 st car stops to let pedestrian cross 1 st car masks 2 nd car, which doesn’t stop, hits pedestrian at high speed
Multiple threat crash solution Advance stop/yield line 1 st car stops further back 1 st car no longer masks 2 nd car, which can be seen by pedestrian
Advance Stop Lines at uncontrolled crosswalks
Proposed Side of Street Crosswalk Sign
Enhanced Uncontrolled Crosswalk
Rapid Flash Crosswalk Beacon For use at selected crosswalks on collector and minor arterial streets
Enhanced Uncontrolled Crosswalk on major arterial
Pedestrian Hybrid Signal Pedestrian-activated signal For Use at selected currently uncontrolled crosswalks on major arterial streets.
Pedestrian Hybrid Signal
Major roadway gets traffic signal.
Minor roadway keeps stop sign but gets pedestrian signal.
Minor roadway doesn’t get cut through traffic.
Curb Extensions
Source: Toole Design Group
Curb Extensions
Source: Toole Design Group Source: Richard Drdul
Importance of Reducing Speed
A pedestrian’s chance of death if hit by a motor vehicle
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 20 mph 30 mph 40 mph
Killing Speed and Saving Lives
, UK Department of Transportation
Bus Stop Placement • • • Current DC practice is on the near side of an intersection – – Requires a longer no parking zone (100-120 ft) Bus “hides” pedestrian crossing in front of bus – – Best practice is on the far side of an intersection – Requires a shorter no parking zone (50-80 ft) – Right turning vehicles can cut off bus Bus can get stuck at red light adding time to the trip Pedestrian crossing behind bus – – Right turning vehicles are not an issue Bus is on the other side of light saving time for the trip Best, Best practice is curb extended bus stop!
Bus driver concern: farside or nearside stops?
Farside generally preferred at intersections because: • • • Driver can pull across intersection before light turns red Nearside can mean waiting an extra signal cycle Farside increases likelihood that pedestrians will cross behind bus
Farside = patrons cross behind Nearside = patrons cross in front
On streets with permanent on street parking, “bus bulbout” saves parking spots.
These two spots would be prohibited if bus has to pull up to curb line.
Leading Pedestrian Interval
LPI
LPI gives pedestrians a head start
Looks like a regular signal to drivers
Works at locations where right on red is prohibited
Typical Signal Timing Pedestrian starts crossing at same time as RT-turning car; Pedestrian and car on collision course
LPI Signal Timing: Pedestrian starts crossing before RT-turning car; Pedestrian gets head start and driver sees ped before entering crosswalk
Ward 4 Priority Pedestrian Study Corridor New Hampshire Ave., Park Rd. NW – Peabody St. NE
Ward 4 Priority Pedestrian Study Corridor New Hampshire Ave., Park Rd. NW – Peabody St. NE Taylor Street, NW
Priority Pedestrian Study Corridors Citywide
• • • • • Enforcement & Education Recommendations Increase penalties for motorists who fail to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks Expand MPD Photo Radar speeding reduction program Expand pedestrian safety campaign efforts such as “STREET SMART” Develop a tag line that conveys the walkability of the District Expand the Implementation of the Safe Routes to School program
Implementation
• • • $18 million, 10 year implementation schedule Success will depend on integrating design and policy recommendations into all DDOT projects Performance Measures: