Design Guidance for Channelized Right-Turn Lanes (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Chapter 3. Pedestrian Behavior at Channelized Right-Turn Lanes This chapter presents the results from studies of pedestrian behavior at channelized right- turn lanes conducted as part of the research, including observational field studies of pedestrian crossing behavior and interviews with orientation and mobility (O&M) specialists who teach pedestrians with vision impairment to traverse intersections with channelized right-turn lanes. Observational Field Studies 3.1 One of the concerns with channelized right-turn lanes has been the interaction between vehicles and pedestrians at the point where pedestrians cross the right-turn roadway. Figure 10 illustrates a typical channelized right-turn lane with vehicles yielding to a pedestrian. While the yield behavior of drivers at channelized right-turn lanes has not been well documented, channelized right-turn lanes present a scenario where a driver's attention could be focused on the cross-street traffic or the placement of pedestrian crosswalks or signals may violate driver expectancy. Figure 10. Channelized Right-Turn Lane with Vehicle Yielding to Pedestrian Another concern with channelized right-turn lanes has been the potential challenge for pedestrians with vision impairment. For pedestrians with no vision impairment, watching for a gap in traffic and then physically negotiating the crossing of a channelized right-turn roadway may be a relatively easy task because such roadways are not very wide and because traffic is approaching from a single direction. However, pedestrians with vision impairment may have difficulty detecting approaching traffic because (a) right-turning vehicles are traveling a curved rather than a straight path; (b) there is not a systematic stopping and starting of traffic, as there would be at a conventional signal- or stop-controlled intersection; and (c) the traffic sounds from the major streets may mask the sound of traffic on the right-turn roadway. To address the concerns of interactions between pedestrians and vehicles at channelized right-turn lanes, observational field studies were conducted at intersection approaches with 28

channelized right-turn lanes to document pedestrian and vehicle behaviors and interactions. To address the concern of pedestrians with vision impairment at channelized right-turn lanes, interviews with orientation and mobility specialists were conducted. Each is described below. Observational field studies were conducted at 35 intersection approaches with channelized right-turn lanes. The primary objectives of the observational studies were to: • Observe the interaction of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles at various channelized right-turn lane configurations. • Document the frequency of given types of interactions considering geometric design, traffic control, and traffic volume data. • Observe how well pedestrians “obey” crosswalks and traffic control at different crosswalk locations (i.e., upstream end, center, and downstream end) and directions (i.e., perpendicular or parallel to the sidewalk) within a channelized right-turn roadway. • Observe how well motorists yield to pedestrians at different crosswalk locations (i.e., upstream end, center, and downstream end) and directions (i.e., perpendicular or parallel to the sidewalk) within a channelized right-turn roadway. 3.1.1 Site Selection Over 100 candidate study sites were identified and reviewed for geometric, pedestrian, and traffic characteristics in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Oregon, and Washington. A key priority was the selection of intersections where pedestrian activity was estimated to be moderate to high. Figure 11 illustrates the geographic locations (city and state) of the 35 sites that were ultimately selected for conducting observational field studies. Intersections were selected to best represent an accurate cross section of channelized right- turn lanes based on differing geometric design and traffic control characteristics that make up such facilities, such as island type and size, presence of deceleration or acceleration lane, crosswalk location, and traffic control on the channelized right-turn roadway. 3.1.2 Data Collection Methodology At each site, video cameras were used to observe motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle interactions, document pedestrian crossing behavior and motor vehicle yielding behavior, and record motor vehicle and pedestrian volumes at each channelized right-turn lane site. Video cameras were mounted unobtrusively on utility poles or traffic signal poles at the study intersection approaches. Three video cameras were typically used at each site to cover the entire channelized right-turn lane. The data collection methodology and general camera setup was similar at all sites, although the specific camera locations were determined on a site-by-site basis to optimize the viewing angle for each camera. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the video camera setup for two typical sites, one in Baltimore, Maryland, and one in San Francisco, California, respectively. 29

Figure 11. Observational Field Study Locations Figure 12. Data Collection Field Setup for an Intersection in Baltimore, Maryland 30

Figure 13. Data Collection Field Setup for an Intersection in San Francisco, California A minimum of 8 hours of video was recorded at each site. The following information was documented for each channelized right-turn lane: • Number of pedestrians crossing the channelized right-turn lane • Number of vehicles traversing the channelized right-turn lane • Geometric design and traffic control information • Area type (residential/commercial/industrial) • Posted speed limit on major road and minor road • Intersection traffic control (signalized/unsignalized) • Traffic control on channelized right-turn lane (STOP/yield/signal/none) • Type (raised or painted) and size (small/medium/large) of channelizing island • Width of channelized right-turn roadway • Type of pedestrian signal head (countdown, hand/person, other) • Presence of crosswalk (yes/no) • Location of crosswalk (upstream/middle/downstream) • Presence of bicycle lane on major road (yes/no) • Driveways present within 76 m (250 ft) of channelized right-turn lane 31

3.1.3 Site Characteristics The site characteristics of the observational field study sites are summarized as follows: Number of sites Area type Residential 4 Commercial 28 Industrial 3 Intersection traffic control Signalized 35 Unsignalized 0 Island type Painted 0 Raised 35 Island size Small 9 Medium 20 Large 6 Deceleration lane Yes 21 No 14 Acceleration lane Yes 7 No 28 Crosswalk location Upstream 6 Middle 25 Downstream 4 Traffic control for CRT Yield 19 Stop 2 Signal 5 None (free) 9 3.1.4 Vehicle and Pedestrian Counts Table 7 presents the vehicle and pedestrian counts that were obtained during the evening peak period (5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) of each observational study. Right-turn volumes ranged from 11 veh/h to 719 veh/h, but about half of the study sites had volumes between 100 and 300 veh/h. Most sites experienced peak-period volumes of 200 ped/h or fewer, although two sites had nearly 350 ped/h during the peak period (Boulder and Chicago), and one site in San Francisco had over 1,800 ped/h in the peak period. 32

Table 7. Vehicle and Pedestrian Counts During Evening Peak Period (5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) Location Intersection Traffic control (direction) Right-turn volume (veh/h) Conflicting through volume (veh/h) Pedestrian volume (ped/h) Boise, ID Broadway Street and Myrtle Street Unsignalized (EB) 719 690 10 Broadway Street and Warm Springs Boulevard Unsignalized (EB) 299 875 11 Eagle, ID SH 44 and SH 55 Unsignalized (NB) 549 384 0 Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue Unsignalized (EB) 176 1,070 5 Boulder, CO Arapahoe Avenue and 28th Street Unsignalized (WB) 299 1,487 104 Colorado Avenue and 28th Street Unsignalized (SB) 162 564 73 Unsignalized (EB) 533 2,116 57 Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street Unsignalized (EB) 222 737 44 Unsignalized (SB) 300 1,301 196 Baseline Avenue and Broadway Street Unsignalized (WB) 491 694 120 Broadway Street and University Avenue Unsignalized (NB) 335 152 335 Chicago, IL S. Cicero Avenue and 55th Street Signalized (SB) 58 771 4 Grand Avenue and Lake Shore Drive Signalized (WB) 53 594 429 Franklin Boulevard and Sacramento Boulevard Unsignalized (EB) 52 0 0 Unsignalized (SB) 112 62 1 College Park, MD MD 193 (University Boulevard) and New Hampshire Avenue (MD 650) Unsignalized (NB) 230 968 163 Unsignalized (EB) 291 678 39 Towson, MD Dulaney Valley Road and Fairmont Avenue Unsignalized (WB) 638 1,206 50 Unsignalized (SB) 219 629 29 Tualatin, OR Highway 99W and 124th Avenue Signalized (WB) 391 930 0 Bridgeport Road and 72nd Avenue Unsignalized (WB) 614 95 7 Portland, OR 23rd Avenue and Burnside Road Unsignalized (SB) 175 1,111 82 33

Table 7. Vehicle and Pedestrian Counts During Evening Peak Period (5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) (Continued) Location Intersection Traffic control (direction) Right-turn volume (veh/h) Conflicting through volume (veh/h) Pedestrian volume (ped/h) Sacramento, CA J Street and Carlson Drive Unsignalized (EB) 221 617 118 Unsignalized (NB) 631 1,498 7 Franklin Boulevard and Fruitridge Boulevard Unsignalized (WB) 174 896 12 Fruitridge Road and Freeport Boulevard Unsignalized (WB) 556 157 3 Bruceville Road and Consumnes River Signalized (NB) 759 1,111 27 San Francisco, CA Market Street and Duboce Avenue Unsignalized (WB) 22 743 166 Ocean Avenue and Phelan Avenue Unsignalized (SB) 130 992 116 Unsignalized (WB) 604 170 60 Sloat Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard Signalized (EB) 463 1,089 48 Stockton Street and Post Street Unsignalized (EB) 154 827 1,810 Seattle, WA Aurora Avenue and Denny Way Unsignalized (WB) 189 1,008 74 Lake Washington Boulevard and E. Madison Street Unsignalized (WB) 217 451 22 Yesler Way and 3rd Avenue Unsignalized (SB) 11 307 197 3.1.5 Observational Study Results Pedestrian crossing behavior and yield behavior of motorists were documented from the video for each pedestrian crossing at each of the sites. From the 35 sites, over 2,800 pedestrian crossing observations were recorded, primarily during the evening peak period. In addition to general information that was documented (e.g., pedestrian arrival and crossing time, number of vehicles present during crossing, whether pedestrian was traveling alone or in a group), the pedestrian and motorist behavior obtained from the video was organized into three categories: • Avoidance maneuvers • Pedestrian crossing behaviors • Yield behavior of motorists 34

Avoidance Maneuvers The types of avoidance maneuvers that were documented include: • Pedestrian hesitates, stops, or retreats in crosswalk due to presence of vehicle • Motorist swerves or abruptly stops to avoid pedestrian Results of the observational field studies suggest that avoidance maneuvers are relatively rare. Approximately 17 percent of the over 2,800 pedestrian crossings occurred with a motor vehicle present in the channelized right-turn lane; and out of those, only 12 pedestrian and 10 vehicle avoidance maneuvers were observed. Thus, avoidance maneuvers were made in less than one percent of all observations and less than five percent of observations with approaching vehicles. Pedestrian Crossing Behaviors The types of pedestrian crossing behaviors that were documented include: • Pedestrian uses the crosswalk for the entire crossing • Pedestrian follows (“obeys”) the pedestrian signal (if present) • Pedestrian has difficulty finding a gap • Pedestrian crosses aggressively (e.g., runs) or crosses between stopped vehicles Overall, the results showed that 72 percent of all pedestrians crossed the entire channelized right- turn roadway within the crosswalk. With respect to following the pedestrian signal, the results showed that 72 percent of all pedestrians crossed during the pedestrian crossing phase and 28 percent crossed against the signal. While 21 percent of pedestrians crossed the channelized right-turn lane aggressively (i.e., running or darting across the roadway, potentially in a small gap of traffic), only 4 percent of pedestrians walked between stopped vehicles to cross the channelized right-turn lane. Yield Behavior of Motorists The types of motorist yield behavior that were documented include: • Motorist yields to pedestrian in crosswalk • Motorist or pedestrian performs an avoidance maneuver • Motorist yields to pedestrian waiting at curb • Motorist stops but blocks the crosswalk Over 96 percent of the observations in which a vehicle was present and a pedestrian was in the crosswalk, the vehicle yielded to the pedestrian or was unaffected by the pedestrian crossing. In some cases, the vehicle slowed or stopped; in other cases, the pedestrian crossed without substantially impacting the vehicle speed. This finding also confirmed the resulted that avoidance maneuvers occurred at approximately 1 percent of all observations. 35

When pedestrians were waiting at the curb, a yield rate of approximately 41 percent was observed. Some of the data points included both a pedestrian in the crosswalk as well a pedestrian at the curb at the same time, which could have confounded the observed yield rate. Stopped or queued vehicles tended to keep the crosswalk open to pedestrians. Only 7 percent of vehicles stopped in a location that blocked the crosswalk. At those locations where a stop bar was present, 62 percent of observed vehicles stopped at the proper location relative to the stop bar. Effect of Special Crosswalk Signing and Marking The observational field study sites in Boulder, Colorado, included special crosswalk signing and marking. Figure 14 illustrates a raised crosswalk on a channelized right-turn roadway with special pavement markings. An informal comparison of pedestrian and motorist behavior was made between the sites in Boulder, which have special crosswalk treatments, and the observational field study sites at all other locations. Table 8 presents the results of the informal comparison. While no statistical analyses can be performed due to the small sample sizes, the comparison suggests that the additional signage and pedestrian crosswalk treatments may improve the motorist yield behavior and pedestrian use of the crosswalk. Figure 14. Raised Crosswalk at Channelized Right-Turn Lane in Boulder, Colorado 36

Table 8. Comparison of Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior Between Boulder, Colorado, Sites and Other Sites Pedestrian or motorist behavior Percent of total observations Boulder, CO, sites All other sites Pedestrians use entire crosswalk 86 72 Vehicles yield to pedestrians waiting at curb 47 40 Vehicles yield to pedestrians in crosswalk 99 96 Vehicles block crosswalk when stopped 4 7 Interviews with Orientation and Mobility Specialists 3.2 Interviews with ten orientation and mobility (O&M) specialists were conducted to learn of their experience in teaching pedestrians with vision impairment to traverse intersections with channelized right-turn lanes and to determine their recommendations on how channelized right- turn lanes might be better designed for all pedestrians with disabilities. During the interviews, O&M specialists were asked to describe strategies that pedestrians with vision impairment use at intersections with channelized right-turn lanes to: • Locate the crossing starting point • Align to cross • Decide when to start crossing • Alert drivers of their intention to cross • Other techniques or comments These interviews were conducted by Ms. Janet Barlow, the O&M specialist on the research team. Interviews were conducted via email, phone, or in person depending on the preference and location of the respondent. 3.2.1 Design and Crosswalk Location It was apparent from the interviews that there is considerable variation in the design of channelized right-turn lanes. Most of the O&M specialists stated that the channelized right-turn lanes in their area were yield-controlled, although two of the O&M specialists were aware of locations in their area where the channelized right-turn roadway was signalized. One person commented that many channelized right-turn lanes in her area had STOP signs, rather than yield signs. Another noted that the designs in his area were mostly low speed without deceleration or acceleration lanes. Variation in locations for crosswalks was noted by all, with frustration expressed about not being able to easily provide clients with a clear understanding of channelized right-turn lane layout because of the lack of consistency in geometry, crosswalk location, and control. One instructor noted that “the more rounded the corner, the more difficult it seems to be to get a good read of the traffic. These lanes appear to make the intersection wider and add to confusion to sound cues.” Most commented that channelized right-turn lanes with acceleration lanes were 37

virtually uncrossable for their clients/students, because of the speed of vehicles and lack of yielding by drivers. The interview participants’ opinions about crosswalk location (upstream, center, or downstream) varied. Four of the instructors indicated a preference for the crosswalk at the downstream end because the vehicles on the downstream street serve as “blocker cars,” preventing vehicles from exiting the channelized right-turn lane and providing a cue about a time to begin crossing. Additional arguments for the downstream location were: • “I like downstream better because that's where the two streets actually merge (and thus where the merging car must yield if traffic on the entering street is moving) and that's where I teach my clients to cross in most cases. The ones that are upstream I think are done that way because field of view to see oncoming cars is better. That often confuses a lot of my clients who have some vision but poor depth perception.” • “I prefer the downstream end because this is where drivers tend to slow down and look around before continuing. Of course, this makes more of a difference if the pedestrian is going from the driver's left to his right (island to curb), because the driver is already looking left for oncoming traffic.” Four other instructors supported the center location because they felt their clients were more visible at that location, as well as for reasons associated with alignment for crossing: • Crosswalks at the center of the turn “seem best, as this may put the pedestrian and driver in better line of sight, and also it's easier for a blind pedestrian to hear, as the cars about to turn are less masked by traffic in the intersection. Also, it may be easier for some to get their alignment as the curb is straighter here.” Two instructors described pros and cons of each location, with one stating that the upstream position, especially with a deceleration lane, usually provides the best visibility position for the pedestrian to see/hear and be seen and allowed another crossing timing (of crossing in front of a stopped car without driver contact). The other instructor stated that the center crosswalk location made it easiest to find the island, but more difficult to use traffic cues. Both said that the center position allows the pedestrian with vision impairment to use the curb, ramp, and detectable warning edges for alignment to cross, while the alignment to cross is more challenging at upstream and downstream crosswalk locations. O&M specialists were asked about the techniques and strategies they teach at channelized right-turn lanes. Some commented that painted islands were of little use to their clients/students because they do not provide the tactile cues provided by a raised island, particularly a raised island with a “cut-through” pedestrian path. In fact, the importance of cut-through areas with detectable warnings was emphasized. One instructor said that it was better to have some slope on the cut-through area to provide an additional cue to the pedestrian with vision impairment that they had reached the island, and to prevent accumulation of debris in the cut-through area. Some instructors stated that landscaping on islands (if difficult to step into, such as holly bushes), or low signs on islands, could be problematic if a pedestrian with vision impairment is not aligned correctly when crossing to an island. Some instructors commented that channelized right-turn 38

lanes with acceleration lanes are very difficult for pedestrians with vision impairment to cross due to higher vehicle speeds and lower yield rates by motorists. 3.2.2 Relevant Findings from NCHRP Project 3-78A As part of NCHRP Project 3-78A, Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Right Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities (20), data were collected on crossings by pedestrians with vision impairment at a channelized right-turn lane in Charlotte, NC. The data were collected by Ms. Janet Barlow, the same O&M specialist who conducted the interviews for the current research. The data from NCHRP Project 3-78A showed that many of the pedestrians with vision impairment had very little experience with channelized right-turn lanes. Although they may have crossed a channelized right-turn roadway, they had minimal understanding of the layout and variations in design of channelized right-turn lanes. Some pedestrians crossed the channelized right-turn lane when it seemed quieter, or when they thought there was a break in traffic, but it was difficult for most participants to clearly describe their strategy for crossing a channelized right-turn lane. Interesting anecdotal information from that research is that several participants said they could hear better to make crossing decision from the curb as opposed to from the island. They stated that the sound of traffic behind them made the crossing decision more difficult when waiting on the island. This is an interesting point because it is expected that pedestrians are more visible to drivers when on the island, since drivers are predominantly focusing to their left, on the traffic they will be merging into. Summary of Findings from Observational Field Studies and 3.3 Interviews with Orientation and Mobility Specialists Channelized right-turn lanes generally operate well for motorists and most pedestrians. There are very few instances of motorist or pedestrian avoidance maneuvers, and motorists generally yield to pedestrians. Pedestrians with vision impairment, however, find channelized right-turn lanes to be more of a challenge to traverse. Key findings from the observational field studies and interviews with O&M specialists are as follows: • Field observational studies of vehicle and pedestrian intersections were conducted at 35 channelized right-turn lanes with pedestrian crossings. A majority of the sites (nearly 70 percent) had marked crosswalks located near the center of the channelized right-turn roadway; only about 30 percent of crosswalks were located at the upstream or downstream end of a channelized right-turn lane. The highway agency survey conducted in NCHRP Project 3-72 (3) confirms that highway agencies prefer a crosswalk location near the center of a channelized right-turn lane; over 70 percent of highway agencies reported that their practice was to place crosswalks near the center of channelized right- turn lanes. • Over 2,800 pedestrian crossings of channelized right-turn lanes were observed in the observational field studies. Avoidance maneuvers (e.g., pedestrian hesitates, stops, or retreats in crosswalk due to presence of vehicle; motorist swerves of abruptly stops to 39

avoid pedestrian) appear to be relatively rare and were made in less than one percent of all observations. • Approximately 25 percent of pedestrians did not cross within the crosswalk. This may indicate the need to better plan pedestrian routing adjacent to the intersection such that the crosswalk provides the most direct route. However, the pedestrians who crossed outside the crosswalk generally did so when no vehicular traffic was presented and this behavior did not cause any traffic conflicts. • At sites with pedestrian signals, approximately 72 percent of pedestrians crossed during the pedestrian crossing phase; the remainder crossed against the signal. However, the pedestrians who crossed against the pedestrian signal indication generally did so when no vehicular traffic was present and this behavior did not cause any traffic conflicts. • While 21 percent of pedestrians crossed aggressively, only 4 percent walked between stopped vehicles to cross the channelized right-turn lane. • Less than half (40 percent) of observed vehicles yielded to a pedestrian waiting at the curb, but nearly all motorists yielded to pedestrians when they were in the crosswalk (rather than waiting at the curb). The failure of vehicles in yielding to pedestrians waiting to cross at a marked crosswalk is a general problem at pedestrian crossing that is not unique to channelized right-turn lanes. The yield behavior of motorists was slightly better (47 percent vs. 40 percent) at sites with special crosswalk treatments (e.g., raised crosswalk, pavement markings, signing). This may indicate that additional emphasis on signing or other treatments may be needed to increase yielding for pedestrians waiting at the curb. • Only 7 percent of vehicles stopped in a location that blocked the crosswalk. • O&M specialists do not have a unified preference for crosswalk location at channelized right-turn lanes, but would like to see more of a consistency in crosswalk locations. This would make it easier to teach pedestrians with vision impairment how to better traverse a channelized right-turn lane. • O&M specialists have a strong preference for raised islands with “cut-through” pedestrian paths, which provide better guidance for pedestrians with vision impairment than painted islands. • Use of a consistent design with respect to traffic control and crosswalk location is recommended. • Channelized right-turn lanes with acceleration lanes are very difficult for pedestrians with vision impairment to cross due to higher vehicle speeds and lower yield rates by motorists. 40