Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2016)

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.

95 APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaire and Summary of Survey Responses NCHRP Project 20-05/Synthesis Topic 46-10 Purpose: The purpose of this questionnaire is to document pedestrian safety crossing treatments being used by state and local jurisdictions around the country, what practices are used to select and prioritize where and when to use which treatments, and information on local treatment experiences and evaluations that may expand the knowledge base. About the survey: Each of you has been sent a link that is unique for your state DOT or local jurisdiction. Your answers will be automatically saved and you can return to your questionnaire as many times as needed until you complete and submit the survey. Practices may vary throughout a state or municipal organization, such as a state DOT, and it may be necessary to seek input from others in your jurisdiction. We ask that the initial contact please ensure completion and submission. If multiple people are needed to complete the questionnaire for your jurisdiction, the unique questionnaire link may be forwarded to other individuals to complete portions. The questionnaire will not be closed until you or the final respondent indicates it is complete and submits the survey. The questionnaire is divided into two main sections: • Part I is about policies and guidance pertaining to identifying and prioritizing pedestrian crossing safety improvements. • Part II is about which, and under what circumstances, specific pedestrian crossing treatments have been implemented by your jurisdiction. We ask you to please complete all questions to the best of your ability. Part I—Methods and Practices for Implementing Pedestrian Crossing Treatments 1. What is the name of your jurisdiction? • If you are a city, report city and state: • If you are a county, report county and state: • If you are a state, report only state: 2. Which comprehensive or general guiding policy(ies) does your jurisdiction have or use in consideration of pedestrian safety needs? Please indicate any federal, state, or local policies used, besides the MUTCD [Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices] or state-adopted versions of the MUTCD. [Examples of guiding policies/plans include, but are not limited to: Complete Streets policies or guides, local transportation or pedestrian plans, public health policies, access and livability policies/goals (e.g., 8 80 Cities), climate change-related policies or goals, sustainability goals, etc.] • Federal (name policies/guides): • State (name policies/guides): • Local (name policies/guides):

96 Now for questions regarding your (state or local) jurisdiction’s procedures relating to prioritizing pedestrian crossing improvements. 3. First, please briefly describe how your jurisdiction identifies locations that are in need of pedestrian crossing safety improve- ments. [There may be more than one process or set of criteria for different types of projects or situations. If so, please describe all.] 4. Please indicate the extent to which your jurisdiction uses the following specific types of procedures to identify locations in need of pedestrian crossing improvements.

97

98

99 5. Does your jurisdiction need additional guidance on how to identify locations for pedestrian crossing improvements? …… Yes [Please describe what type of guidance is needed.] …… No 6. Now, please briefly describe how your jurisdiction selects which safety countermeasures to use at which locations to improve pedestrian crossings. [There may be more than one process or set of criteria for different types of projects or situations. If so, please describe all.]

100 7. Please indicate the extent your jurisdiction uses the following to help identify potentially appropriate pedestrian safety cross- ing treatments.

101

102

103

104 8. What type of resource that does not already exist would be most beneficial to help your jurisdiction select pedestrian crossing improvements? 9. Does your jurisdiction use a formal design or treatment selection review process? …… Yes [Please describe.] …… No Part II—Treatments Used to Improve Pedestrian Safety at Crossing Locations. Now we would like to ask a few questions about what treatments have been implemented and how they were used. We will first ask you about design or geometric treatments. 10. Please indicate if your jurisdiction uses the below types of DESIGN features to improve safety for pedestrians crossing streets or highways. If the treatment is used, please answer the remaining questions for each treatment. [NOTE THAT RESPONSE SUMMARIES TO THE BELOW QUESTIONS ARE PROVIDED IN THE MAIN TEXT.] Question 10 Does your jurisdiction sometimes use the below design features to improve safety for pedestrians? What are the key situations or location types for when this treatment has been used? Are there other treatments that are typically used in combination with this treatment? Is there published guidance for when this treatment is considered for use by your jurisdiction? Has this treatment been evaluated for safety effects by or for your jurisdiction? Yes No Please describe. (Input field contin- ues to the right.) Please describe. (Input field continues to the right.) If yes, please provide a link. If yes, please provide a link. Raised median m m • • • • Pedestrian refuge/ median crossing island m m • • • • Raised crosswalk or speed table m m • • • • Curb extension/ bulb-out m m • • • • Reduce corner radius m m • • • • Road diet m m • • • • Narrow lane width [What width does your jurisdiction consider to be a narrow lane?] m m • • • • Corridorwide speed calming [What measures are used to calm speeds corridorwide?] m m • • • • Pedestrian over- pass/bridge m m • • • • Pedestrian under- pass/tunnel m m • • • • Enhanced illumina- tion at pedestrian crossings m m • • • •

105 Question 10 Does your jurisdiction sometimes use the below design features to improve safety for pedestrians? What are the key situations or location types for when this treatment has been used? Are there other treatments that are typically used in combination with this treatment? Is there published guidance for when this treatment is considered for use by your jurisdiction? Has this treatment been evaluated for safety effects by or for your jurisdiction? Yes No Please describe. (Input field contin- ues to the right.) Please describe. (Input field continues to the right.) If yes, please provide a link. If yes, please provide a link. Other design fea- tures that are used frequently to improve pedestrian crossings [Please describe.] m m • • • • Other design fea- tures that are used frequently to improve pedestrian crossings [Please describe.] m m • • • • Other design fea- tures that are used frequently to improve pedestrian crossings [Please m m • • • • 11. Do you have any other feedback or experiences to share on any of the above DESIGN treatments and their use to improve the safety of pedestrian crossings? For example, your jurisdiction may have tried a treatment and removed it, or you may have other important knowledge to share about the use or non-use of certain treatments. [Please be sure to mention which treatment(s) you are discussing in your answer.] 11.) Do you have any other feedback or experiences to share on any of the above DESIGN treatments and their use? Local State Total 3 PHS were installed along a regional trail and we are only achiev- ing 78% motorist yielding compliance to a solid red beacon. RRFBs [rectangular rapid flash beacons] at 54 locations are achieving 90% + compliance. 1 0 1 Can’t say that we use it frequently, but we have been able to use traffic signals or ped actuated signals to improve a few crossings. Also, at signals, we’ve used leading pedestrian intervals in a few high ped vol. areas. Lastly, we’ve used a dynamic No Turn on Red sign to help protect a ped actuated phase at a busy location. 1 0 1 Driver confusion with HAWKs [high-intensity activated cross walk signals], compliance with the various treatment types, and long-term compliance. Issues of overhead versus side-mounted signs effectiveness, with speed and volumes variability. Questions about blind and low vision users, and how they use these type of treatments. 0 1 1 FDOT is moving toward more systematic use of modern roundabouts. 0 1 1 For many of the treatments described it depends when it’s used. For example, we look at improve an at-grade crossing, evaluate location, and use before just recommending a grade separated crossing. Some of the corridor-wise speed measures are also implemented during construction projects to deter diverted cut- through traffic. 0 1 1 From a cost/impact perspective the tunnels and pedestrian bridges can be complex and significant resource intensive efforts. Often the schedules are longer than initially anticipated and cost over- runs have been encountered on some high profile efforts. 0 1 1 In-pavement crosswalk lights were installed and then removed. 0 1 1 In-pavement pedestrian actuated lights have been used in the past, but have not been used recently due to reliability issues. 0 1 1

106 11.) Do you have any other feedback or experiences to share on any of the above DESIGN treatments and their use? Local State Total In-pavement warning lights are not allowed due to unreliability. Enhanced colors are reserved for school zones. Continental crosswalk markings are recommended for most marked unsignalized crosswalks. Pedestrian hybrid beacons are on a case-by-case basis, but have only been installed at two state highway locations to date. Chris Monsere at Portland State University is just beginning an ODOT- sponsored research project that will look at the safety effects of various crosswalk treatments. 0 1 1 NA or unknown 0 2 2 Need better design guidance for right-turn islands. Some addi- tional pedestrian volume threshold guidance could be helpful. 1 0 1 No 1 5 3 Our HAWKs are operating successfully and our RRFBs have been well accepted. The HAWK crossing Scottsdale Road for the new Scottsdale Quarter on the border of Phoenix and Scottsdale just met the pedestrian warrant of 20 pedestrians per hour. Only a month later there were 360 pedestrians in an hour and it went as high as 660 pedestrians per hour. This two-stage crossing treat- ment connects two major commercial centers in both cities. Super successful! 1 0 1 Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons were replaced with a HAWK signal. Motorists were not slowing down or stopping for pedestrians. 0 1 1 RRFB and HAWK installation at multi-lane roundabouts was stud- ied in response to a lawsuit brought against the agency claiming that the roundabout crossings were not ADA compliant. Complete study is available on the RCOC website at www.rcocweb.org. 1 0 1 SCDOT’s Traffic Calming Guidelines apply (http://www.scdot. org/doing/technicalpdfs/publicationsmanuals/trafficengineering/ scdot_tcg_06.pdf). We have one Hawk signal and one RRFB installation under our guidelines. PDF copies of these latter two guideline will be supplied as they are not online. 0 1 1 See answers to above. All treatments follow the Better Streets Plan: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/BetterStreets/ 1 0 1 Street lighting needs to be further investigated. 1 0 1 The geometry of the roadway changes behavior more than artifi- cial speed limits. 0 1 1 Try to tie ped accommodations to signal upgrades funded through HSIP whose cost elements are not B/C driven. For example, add sidewalk connections and countdown ped signals. 0 1 1 TxDOT has guidelines for using Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB) and Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB): • an engineering study must be performed and meet the guidelines detailed in Chapter 4F of the TMUTCD: • an established crosswalk with adequate visibility, markings, and signs • a posted speed limit of 40 mph or less (does not include school speed zones) • 20 pedestrians or more crossing in one hour • location deemed as a high risk area (e.g., schools, shopping centers, etc.) • crosswalk is more than 300 ft from an existing, traffic controlled pedestrian crossing. 0 1 1

107 11.) Do you have any other feedback or experiences to share on any of the above DESIGN treatments and their use? Local State Total We do have evaluations of many of our projects; these are whole project evaluations and links can be found here: http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Transportation/projects/com- pletedprojects.aspx. http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Transportation/projects/ traffccalmingprogram.aspx 1 0 1 We use these treatments when we determine they are appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 0 1 1 We’ve tried pavement lighting as well as pedestrian detection mats based on weight. Both were maintenance nightmares. 0 1 1 With street lighting, the push by LED light manufacturers to pro- vide only full cutoff lighting is very disappointing since the verti- cal lighting aspect is critical to pedestrian safety, as well as secu- rity. Without the vertical lighting element, pedestrian visibility is reduced to shadows, rather than full visibility of pedestrians for better recognition of the person crossing and for identification. Good illumination of pedestrians and their features is critical for safety, but little emphasis is being placed on this. Unfortunate the dark skies issues are dominating the need for safety, particularly in dense urban areas. 1 0 1 No Answer 8 15 23 Total 18 36 54 Now we would like to ask you about traffic control devices (signals, signs/beacons, and markings). 12. Please indicate if your jurisdiction uses the below types of TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES to improve conditions for pedestrians crossing streets or highways. Again, if the treatment is used, please answer the other questions with respect to each treatment. Question 12 Does your jurisdiction sometimes use the below types of traffic control devices to improve safety at pedestrian crossings? What are the key situations or location types for when this treatment has been used? Are there other treatments that are typically used in combination with this treatment? Is there published guidance for when this treatment is considered for use by your jurisdiction? Has this treatment been evaluated for safety effects by or for your jurisdiction? Yes No Please describe. (Input field contin- ues to the right.) Please describe. (Input field continues to the right.) If yes, please provide a link. If yes, please provide a link. High-visibility crosswalks (e.g., continental, zebra, bar pairs) m m • • • • Advance stop/yield bars and signs m m • • • • Install traffic signal without pedestrian countdown signal m m • • • • Install traffic signal with pedestrian countdown signal m m • • • • Hybrid beacon (for- merly called HAWK signal) m m • • • • Rectangular rapid flash beacon m m • • • • Overhead or road- side-mounted flash- ing beacon m m • • • • Leading pedestrian interval to pedes- trian walk phase (traffic signal) m m • • • •

108 Question 12 Does your jurisdiction sometimes use the below types of traffic control devices to improve safety at pedestrian crossings? What are the key situations or location types for when this treatment has been used? Are there other treatments that are typically used in combination with this treatment? Is there published guidance for when this treatment is considered for use by your jurisdiction? Has this treatment been evaluated for safety effects by or for your jurisdiction? Yes No Please describe. (Input field contin- ues to the right.) Please describe. (Input field continues to the right.) If yes, please provide a link. If yes, please provide a link. Pedestrian-only walk phase or pedestrian scramble m m • • • • “No Turn on Red” restrictions m m • • • • In-roadway “Yield to Pedestrians” signs m m • • • • Pedestrian warning signs m m • • • • Parking restrictions m m • • • • In-pavement flash- ing lights (associ- ated with crosswalks) m m • • • • Other traffic control device frequently used to improve safety at pedestrian crossings [Please describe.] m m • • • • 13. Do you have any other feedback or experiences to share on any of the above TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE treatments and their use to improve the safety of pedestrian crossings? For example, your jurisdiction may have tried a treatment and removed it, or you may have other important knowledge to share about the use or non-use of certain treatments. [Please be sure to mention which treatment(s) you are discussing in your answer.] 13.) Do you have any other feedback or experiences to share on any of the above TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE treatments and their use? Local State Total We have found that actuated beacons yield better results than bea- cons that flash all the time. 0 1 1 A separate document has been developed titled Traffic Safety for School Areas Guidelines—see http:/azdot.gov/docs/business/adot- traffic-safety-for-school-area-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=0 0 1 1 As previously noted, we’ve installed a dynamic no turn on red restriction for motorists for a ped actuated phase on a heavy turn- ing movement location. Have not done a compliance study, but observations have been positive and we have received positive feedback from the public. 1 0 1 Based on preliminary information, the lone RRFB installation is being considered for removal and replacement by a yet-to-be- determined device or devices of some sort. 0 1 1 CDOT is using a combination flashing yellow arrow and blank-out sign with the message “yield to pedestrian” at several high volume intersections. The sign is activated when a ped pushes the button. A NO TURN ON RED sign first shows up and is displayed with the red arrow. 1 0 1 Countdown ped signals were removed from our PHB locations because cyclists were using it to run the crossing. 1 0 1 FDOT is “data driven” and relies heavily on counts, projections, and crash statistics to justify implementing pedestrian control at appropriate locations. The agency is moving toward a context- based approach that better recognizes conditions where pedestri- ans are as much a part of the system as motorists to allow pedes- trian treatments as a default setting. However, we’re not there yet. 0 1 1

109 13.) Do you have any other feedback or experiences to share on any of the above TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE treatments and their use? Local State Total For many of the treatments described it depends where and when it’s used—what are the site conditions and the proposed treatment appropriate. For example, in-road lighting and in-road signage depends on roadway type, location, and local community interest of installation and maintenance. As a state standard, all round- abouts and traffic signals have lighting installed at its approaches, enhancing both driver and pedestrian visibility. 0 1 1 For the “Yield to Pedestrians,” we allow one community to utilize a removable sign on a county road. There are other local commu- nities in Oakland County that use these signs on their roads. 1 0 1 Here are the guidelines for PHB and RRFB again: • an engineering study must be performed and meet the guidelines detailed in Chapter 4F of the TMUTCD: • an established crosswalk with adequate visibility, markings, and signs • a posted speed limit of 40 mph or less (does not include school speed zones) • 20 pedestrians or more crossing in one hour • location deemed as a high risk area (e.g., schools, shopping centers, etc.) • crosswalk is more than 300 ft from an existing, traffic controlled pedestrian crossing 0 1 1 In-street yield signs. No longer being recommended for use due to average life of signs (less than six months) due to the number of times struck; only used on two lane roadways—never on multi- lane roadways; must be removed seasonally for snow and ice con- trol operations. 1 0 1 In-pavement lights were tried but were unreliable and system was removed (not a proven safety problem, just that they were not reli- ably turning off/on when desired). 1 0 1 More information is needed on pedestrian crossing treatments for very wide (8–12 lane), high speed (45–55 mph) arterials. We have many of these in urban areas such as the Las Vegas Valley. 0 1 1 Most times, we try a small improvement and then enhance the crossing as needed. All crosswalks must meet warrants, signals, HAWKS, etc. 0 1 1 Often treatments (not exclusive to pedestrian measures or TRAF- FIC CONTROL DEVICE) have been applied without benefit of full engineering study regarding pedestrian demand, traffic, user compliance, concentration of crossing traffic, time of day consid- erations, and other behavioral factors. It is difficult to isolate the effect that treatments may have when a solid baseline condition was never established. Our Safety Evaluation Team has empha- sized the need to conduct a meaningful before condition assess- ment to determine factors such as compliance, yielding behaviors, diagonal crossings, vehicle speeds, etc., so that when the treatment is installed and after condition is assessed—the results will hope- fully be meaningful in relation to the baseline conditions. 0 1 1 Question of winter maintenance and durability of in-pavement lighting in winter/snowy climates and snowplows. 0 1 1 Roving eyes used and removed 0 1 1 See answer to #11 regarding the use of in-pavement flashing lights 0 1 1 See answers to above. Also, we find that signalizing uncontrolled intersections or performing signal upgrades tend to increase visi- bility of pedestrians and overall safety of intersections. 1 0 1 See last question. 1 0 1 Trouble with in-roadway lights: Maintenance issues, crest vertical curves, higher volume roads where cars block the view. 0 1 1

110 13.) Do you have any other feedback or experiences to share on any of the above TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE treatments and their use? Local State Total VDOT has found in-pavement warning lights to be a significant maintenance headache. They are no longer recommended, espe- cially with the advent of newer technologies such as RRFBs. Also—we are likely to start shifting away from longitudinal lines (“continental”) crosswalks, and toward “Bar Pairs” crosswalks. NCHRP research has demonstrated that Bar Pairs crosswalks per- form very similar to Longitudinal Lines crosswalks in terms of driver behavior, but at reduced installation and maintenance cost (less thermoplastic). 0 1 1 We are currently conducting research on the placement of Yield to Pedestrian signs in the roadway to improve driver yield compliance. 0 1 1 We removed an exclusive pedestrian phase at T intersection in the university area due to low compliance. It was also without diago- nal crossings, which we probably will try before removal now. 1 0 1 We use these treatments when we determine they are appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 0 1 1 We’ve relied heavily on rectangular rapid flash beacons over pedestrian hybrid beacons and they work well, especially when combined with median islands. 0 1 1 West Virginia has a higher number of exclusive pedestrian walk phases than other states. We have seen many instances in our state of motorists not yielding to pedestrians even at signalized intersec- tions with countdown pedestrian heads. 0 1 1 NA or unknown 0 2 2 No 1 2 3 No answer 8 14 22 Total responding 18 36 54 14. Please share any other thoughts or comments on the topic of pedestrian safety crossing improvements. 14.) Please share any other thoughts or comments on the topic of pedestrian safety crossing improvements. Local State Total We have found that infrastructure improvements alone will not accom- plish the goal of enhancing pedestrian safety. There really needs to be a 3 “E” approach. Another thing we have learned is that some of the newer traffic control devices are not always understood by the end user. 0 1 1 A large portion of pedestrian fatalities in PA happens at night, in unlighted areas on roadways that separate a parking area from an adult beverage dispensary. We need guidance as to how to bridge those agency gaps that can make a difference: Liquor Control Board, Department of Education [Driver’s ed.], Department of Health [teaching/outreach for better ped outcomes]. 0 1 1 Additional Content on Project Prioritization and Highway Safety Improvement Efforts STI/SPOT reference for TIP Projects http://www.ncdot.gov/performance/reform/prioritization/ HSIP: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/NC-Hihway- Safety-Program-and-Projects.aspx https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/NC-Highway-Safety- Program-and-Projects.aspx (Reference Bike-Ped Intersection Reports) 0 1 1 Federal guidance should be promoted that would allow implementation of devices and treatments not based solely on crashes or volume matrix. 1 0 1 How are jurisdictions handling large complex intersections? Are they installing more traffic controls or changing intersection geometry to make intersections smaller? How are other cities combining bike safety improvements with ped safety improvements? 1 0 1 I would like to be a part of this peer review/group if one is established. 0 1 1

111 14.) Please share any other thoughts or comments on the topic of pedestrian safety crossing improvements. Local State Total In Albany, we have some locations where pedestrian crossings are chal- lenging. Streets with steep slopes or other locations that have long blocks. It would be good to have guidance on how to address these types of locations. 1 0 1 Most of our Traffic Safety Engineers are concerned about Pedestrian Safety, but lack the justification to use limited funding on pedestrian improvements. Credible crash modification factors are key for imple- mentation of pedestrian safety improvements. 0 1 1 Most of the answers to the questions posed in the previous two sections can be found by reviewing our VTrans 2015 Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, which can be found here: http://vtransengineering. vermont.gov/bureaus/mab/local-projects/bike-ped 0 1 1 Our small city does not have the resources to do much comprehensive planning for pedestrian safety crossing improvements (or, I suppose, we haven’t chosen to do so). With just a few staff focusing on the topic, and with a heavy workload, we mostly try to take advantage of opportunities as they come. 1 0 1 Pedestrian safety is high on our priority list. We have installed a number of RRFBs at school crossings recently. They are effective in getting driv- ers’ attention and our community loves them! 1 0 1 Some of the pedestrian safety crossing improvements, including design or geometric treatments and speed calming devices “Your Speed” elec- tronic signs, are also utilized by other local jurisdictions in the county on their locally owned roads. If needed, contact information could be pro- vided upon request. 1 0 1 Texas is looking at a systemic approach to pedestrian safety improvements. 0 1 1 This is a great survey. I can’t wait to see the results! Thank you. 0 1 1 This seems to be a continuous, on-going challenge of balancing local demands with trunk highway functionality. There is also the big question of which treatments are truly effective and which are just “feel good” treatments. 0 1 1 We continue to look for new ideas, which have been tested and found to improve pedestrian safety, and have experiments with many new innova- tions—sometimes successful and other times not so much. Have to deal with drivers who grew up being taught that you stand on the corner and wait for traffic to clear before crossing, and expect the same currently—little notion to yield to pedestrians as required by law. Lack of driver education, and other efforts to teach drivers. Pedestrians also must recognize that they have some responsibility to ensure they can cross the street safely—never assume that the driver sees you and will stop. 1 0 1 We look at locations on a case-by-case basis. 0 1 1 We look forward to the results of this research. 0 1 1 We may be able to provide some limited further information on topics. Although resources and time are limited. 0 1 1 We’re always looking for more tools for our toolbox. 1 0 1

112 14.) Please share any other thoughts or comments on the topic of pedestrian safety crossing improvements. Local State Total While we’ve been quite successful deploying medians, curb extensions, rapid rectangular flashing beacons, and the like, we continue to favor roadway cross sections that we know are difficult for pedestrians to cross. I think our favorite is the 5-lane section with two-way center turn lane. Because there is no REQUIREMENT to provide a high-quality ped crossing at regular intervals these features are not included in initial con- struction. Then local agencies are forced to seek limited grant funding to retrofit for pedestrian crossings. We also face significant challenges due to freight mobility policies. There is even a freight mobility committee that gets to vote up or down on certain roadway design features—specifically curb extensions, medi- ans, and roundabouts. Some roadway typologies cannot be fixed; 40 mph+ facilities with pedestrian generators, such as regional shopping centers cannot be reclaimed for pedestrians. We need strong guidance/requirements pro- hibiting high-speed facilities adjacent to roadside development that gen- erates significant pedestrian trips: grocery stores, schools, recreational facilities transit corridors, etc. We should build it correctly to begin with. 0 1 1 Work to better integrate pedestrian in design. Often addressed by a pro- gram advocate outside of project development and this creates issues related to delivery and funding. 0 1 1 NA 0 2 2 No answer 10 20 30 Total 18 36 54 15. Is your jurisdiction willing to provide further information about these topics? …… Yes …… No 16. If yes, please provide contact information for the best person in your jurisdiction to contact for follow-up information. • Name • Title • E-mail • Telephone