Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook (2017)

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.

104 A P P E N D I X B This appendix provides an overview of pedestrian crossing treatments that were evaluated in this and prior research. The discussion for each treatment includes a description of its function- ality and purpose, an estimate of installation cost, field test results for application to roundabouts and/or CTLs, limitations of the treatments, and links to additional resources and information. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Crossing improvement category: Driver information treatment Purpose(s): Pedestrian signal to stop vehicular traffic Cost of initial leg: $68,000–$133,000 Cost of subsequent legs: $29,000–$80,000 Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) or HAWK signals aim to be more efficient than a conven- tional signal by allowing vehicular traffic to move during the pedestrian flashing do not walk interval. PHBs are user-actuated beacons that give pedestrians a calculated time to cross streets when activated. PHBs could also be used at a mid-block location or in a zig-zag arrangement, combining advan- tages of the extra queue storage capacity at the exit leg of the roundabout with more efficient signal phasing. Depending on pedestrian route patterns, these configurations may result in an increase in the travel time for pedestrians compared to a crossing at the traditional splitter island. The loca- tion of the mid-block crosswalk requires a median refuge island to be used if a two-stage crossing is necessary. Functionality and Purpose PHBs are installed to stop vehicular traffic during the pedestrian phase. When the pushbutton is activated, a flashing yellow starts followed by a solid yellow and solid red. The solid red phase coincides with the WALK interval, which last approximately 4 to 7 seconds. During the pedestrian clearance interval when a flashing do not walk interval is displayed for pedestrians, an alternating flashing red indication is displayed to the driver. The flashing red indication for drivers allows traffic to proceed after stopping, if no pedestrian is in the crosswalk. This phasing scheme allows for less vehicular delay while providing similar pedestrian-related benefits of a regular signal. Effectiveness Results from before-and-after treatment studies assessing the effectiveness of PHB treatments at roundabouts have been summarized below. The measures of effectiveness were defined in Summary of Crossing Treatments

Summary of Crossing Treatments 105 Figure B-1. PHB at a two-lane roundabout. Figure B-1 shows an installation of a PHB at the entry leg of a two-lane roundabout in Golden, Colorado. This location was studied as part of NCHRP Report 674. terms of orientation and mobility interventions and the average delay experienced by blind sub- jects, and are summarized in Tables B-1 and B-2. PHBs were effective in reducing both interventions and delay in all studied conditions. PHBs reduced the rate of interventions to zero at the Golden, Colorado, roundabout, a feat nearly replicated at two-lane and three-lane entry legs at an Oakland County, Michigan, roundabout. For the two-lane and three-lane exit legs in Oakland County, some interventions remained even in the PHB posttest condition, although at a statistically significant reduction over the pretest, where intervention rates were extremely high. PHB installations also had a consistent impact on the average pedestrian delay, which was reduced in all tested installations. Figure B-2. PHB sequence. Figure B-2 shows the phasing sequence of a pedestrian hybrid beacon. The sequence involves six phases: (1) dark until activated, (2) flashing yellow upon activation, (3) steady yellow, (4) steady red during pedestrian walk interval, (5) alternating flashing red during pedestrian clearance interval, and (6) dark again until activated.

106 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook Limitations Driver education may be required for the alternating flashing red signals; drivers are more likely to stop for a familiar control device such as a traffic signal. Driver unfamiliarity with a treatment, as well as installation of a treatment in an unexpected location, may result in reduced compliance with the red signal indication. Most state laws require drivers to treat dark signals, other than ramp meters, like a four-way stop, so drivers may stop unnecessarily when the signal is dark. A re-configured signal is currently in development to reduce driver confu- sion about dark signals. However, PHBs seem to be effective. According to an 8 month study conducted by the City of Tucson, the PHBs increased driver yielding to pedestrians from 30% in the before case to 93% stopping at the red signal in the after installation case. Similarly high rates of driver compliance with the PHB have been observed at roundabout entry legs. How- ever, compliance rates were only about 85% at two tested two-lane roundabout exit legs, and only 70% at a tested three-lane exit, causing some concern for elevated risk of red-light running at multilane roundabout exits. Cost Summary Table B-1. Summary of PHB effectiveness—orientation and mobility interventions (%). Location No. of Lanes Golden, CO Two Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Two Two Three Three Entry/Exit No Treatment With Treatment Combined 2.4% 0.0% Entry 1.9% 0.0% Exit 8.7% 1.7% Entry 7.7% 0.0% Exit 9.6% 0.8% Table B-2. Summary of PHB effectiveness—pedestrian delay (sec). Location No. of Lanes Golden, CO Two Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Two Two Three Three Entry/Exit No Treatment With Treatment Combined 16.0 5.8 Entry 15.4 11.5 Exit 19.0 11.2 Entry 20.1 14.2 Exit 22.3 11.7 Infrastructure Cost Range (2014$) Cost Unit PHBs with mast arms (initial leg) $98,000–133,000 Per leg PHBs with mast arms (subsequent Legs) $59,000–80,000 Per leg PHBs with pedestal poles (initial leg) $68,000–93,000 Per leg PHBs with pedestal poles (subsequent legs) $29,000–40,000 Per leg Table B-3. Summary of cost estimate for a PHB installation.

Summary of Crossing Treatments 107 Assumptions • Installation at existing multilane roundabout • One signal cabinet (with controller) and service cabinet per roundabout (included in initial leg cost), cost increases if multiple controllers are used • Accessible (audible) pedestrian signals • Direct power connection (no solar power) • Signing costs included • Illumination, striping, traffic control, and other miscellaneous costs not included • Engineering cost varies from 10 to 50% of construction cost. This can vary greatly depending on the contracting mechanisms used. Additional Information and Links • FHWA Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guide. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/ fhwasa14014/. • FHWA Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Overview and Links. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/proven countermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_012.cfm . • NCHRP Report 674. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_674.pdf. • Oakland County hawk and RRFB Study. http://www.rcocweb.org/Lists/Publications/ Attachments/126/HAWK%20Final%20Report%202011.pdf. Item Unit Assumed Unit Cost Quantity Need Signal cabinet + controller + foundation Each $24,000 1 per intx 1 per intx Required Service cabinet + foundation Each $3,000 Required for direct power connection. Signal pole, mast arm, anchor bolts Each $10,000 2 per leg Required for mast arm installation Signal pole foundation Each $3,000 2 per leg Required for mast arm installation Push Button post + foundation Each $750 2 per leg Required for mast arm installation Pedestrian signal pole (no mast arm) + foundation Each $1,250 4 per leg Required for non-mast arm installation PHB signal display head Each $900 4 per leg Pedestrian signal display head Each $600 4 per leg Audible push button assembly Each $950 4 per leg Audible push button control unit Each $2,500 1 per intx Required Required Required Required Aluminum sign assembly Each $300 8 per leg Number may vary based on agency standards. Conduit trench + conduit + wiring Linear foot $30 100 feet per leg Required for wired power/communication, specific length will vary based on project Junction box each $450 4 per leg Required for wired power/communication, specific number will vary based on project Contingency -- 20% -- Unforeseen items Engineering -- 10% to 50% -- Varies based on project Table B-4. Cost estimate details for a PHB installation.

108 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon Crossing improvement category: Driver information treatment Purpose(s): User-actuated supplement for static warning signs Cost (per leg): $26,000–$49,000 Also known as LED rapid-flash systems, rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs) seek to reduce crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings by increasing driver awareness of pedestrians preparing to or actively cross- ing the vehicle’s path. Functionality and Purpose RRFBs are installed at intersections or mid-block crosswalks to supplement warning signs on two-lane or multilane roads. The beacons are user-actuated by manual push activation or automatic pedestrian detection. The amber LEDs flash in an irregular pattern similar to that of emergency vehicles. RRFBs have reduced costs compared to traffic signals and pedestrian hybrid signals, and have been found to improve driver yielding behavior when supplementing standard pedestrian crossing signs and other treatments. Effectiveness Results from a detailed FHWA study assessing the effectiveness of RRFB treatments at two- lane roundabouts have been summarized in Table B-5. The measures of effectiveness were defined in terms of orientation and mobility interventions, the average and 85th percentile delay experienced by blind subjects, and the average yield rate by drivers. The results showed that of the twelve studied entries, the worst performance was observed at a channelized turn lane, which showed a 13.5% intervention rate. Of the remaining 11 entry legs, none had 10% or more interventions, and nine had 5% or less interventions. Figure B-3. RRFB at a two-lane roundabout. Figure B-3 shows an RRFB at a two-lane roundabout.

Summary of Crossing Treatments 109 Two of the studied entry legs had 0% interventions. Of the twelve studied exit legs, six had 10% or more interventions and five out of 12 had 5% or less interventions. Two exit legs had 0% interventions. The study found a strong effective of the roundabout controlling radius at the crosswalk, and results suggest that a threshold may exist at an entry and exit radius of around 91.4 m (300 ft). At entry crosswalks, where all approaches had a radius of less than 91.4 m (300 ft), all percent interventions were less than 10%, and nine out of 11 approaches had less than 5% intervention. Similarly, the study suggests that the observed percent interventions changes noticeably at a vehicular free-flow speed of around 35 km/h (22 mph). For sites with free-flow speed below 35 km/h (22 mph), all but one location had less than 10% intervention, and 12 out of 14 had less than 5% intervention. For sites with free-flow speeds greater than 35 km/h (22 mph), five out of seven had more than 10% intervention, and six out of seven had more than 5% intervention. This finding does not imply that all crosswalks with a controlling vehicle path radius of greater than 91.4 m (300 ft) or a speed greater than 35 km/h (22 mph) are assured to be less accessible, nor that all crosswalks with a controlling vehicle path radius of less than 91.4 m (300 ft) or speed less than 35 km/h (22 mph) are assured to be more accessible. In a series of studies performed in Oakland County in this and prior projects, the effectiveness of RRFBs was tested with and without raised crosswalks at a two-lane and three-lane roundabout approach as summarized in Tables B-6 and B-7. City, State Approach Entry/Exit Average Estimated Intervention (%) 85th Percentile Participant Delay Average Participant Delay Average Yielding Rate+ (%) Fuller North Entry (n=59)** 13.6 9.8 24.4 36.0 Fuller North Exit (n=60) 21.7 28.2 70.4 0.0 Fuller South Entry (n=60) 1.7 8.5 19.1 39.0 Albany, NY Albany, NY Albany, NY Albany, NY Fuller South Exit (n=62) 12.9 10.2 31.6 11.0 Carmel, IN Clay Terrace Entry (n=52) 3.8 16.4 26.7 60.0 Carmel, IN Clay Terrace Exit (n=50) 4.0 13.3 19.1 61.0 Griffith East Entry (n=23) 4.3 9.1 13.9 96 Griffith East Exit (n=23) 0.0 10.1 16.8 80 Griffith West Entry (n=23) 0.0 14.2 23.0 100 Davidson, NC Davidson, NC Davidson, NC Davidson, NC Griffith West Exit (n=24) 8.3 10.7 20.4 96 Olympia, WA 14th Entry (n=42) 7.1 2.3 3.4 95.0 Olympia, WA 14th Exit (n= 42) 2.4 2.9 4.6 100.0 Olympia, WA 4th Entry (n=45) 2.2 4.3 6.5 89.5 Olympia, WA 4th Exit (n= 35)* 3.0 2.8 4.8 97.0 Olympia, WA Olympic Entry (n=45) 6.7 4.5 6.9 94.0 Olympia, WA Olympic Exit (n= 45) 0.0 2.9 4.8 94.0 Oshkosh, WI Jackson Entry (n=48) 2.1 12.4 20.7 83.0 Oshkosh, WI Jackson Exit (n=50) 16.0 17.3 27.5 20.0 Oshkosh, WI Murdock Entry (n=40) 0.0 13.1 19.5 90.0 Oshkosh, WI Murdock Exit (n=40) 15.0 17.0 26.7 20.0 Springfield, OR Hayden Entry (n=45) 2.2 8.9 12.6 100.0 Springfield, OR Hayden Exit (n= 41) 12.2 9.3 11.4 100.0 Springfield, OR Pioneer Entry (n=48) 4.2 5.7 8.3 90.0 Springfield, OR Pioneer Exit (n= 44) 11.4 10.4 15.1 64.0 * This exit is only a single lane ** This entry is a channelized turn lane + Percent yielding rate estimated from 30 trials in naturalistic yielding study for sighted pedestrian with RRFB activated Table B-5. Summary of RRFB effectiveness from FHWA study (Schroeder et al., 2015).

110 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook The Oakland County results show improvements in interventions and delay with installa- tion of the RRFB only, but show that the addition of the raised crosswalk made a more drastic difference in the accessibility performance. Consistent with findings from the FHWA study, the speed-reduction effect of the raised crosswalk greatly reduced interventions and delays for this location. Although the number of studies is too limited to make generalized implications at this time, the evidence found in the FHWA and Oakland County studies show promise in improving accessibility by treating roundabout entries with RRFBs. The results for exit lanes of multi lane roundabouts are mixed, with high intervention rates remaining at some sites even after installation of the RRFB treatment, especially for those with large curve radii or high vehicle speeds. Limitations • Care should be taken so as to only activate beacons when manually actuated or automatically triggered; false calls may result in reduced yielding behavior. • RRFBs are generally sufficient on standalone solar panel units, but may require additional power under low light conditions. The use of an audible device with a pushbutton locator tone, a requirement to make RRFBs accessible, is an important consideration in the estima- tion of required power. Cost Summary Location No. of Lanes Entry/ Exit No Treatment RRFB Only RRFB and Raised Crosswalk Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Two Entry 20.8 17.1 9.3 Two Exit 22.2 18.8 8.2 Three Entry 35.2 19.8 9.3 Three Exit 30.5 24.8 10.9 Table B-7. Summary of RRFB effectiveness—pedestrian delay (s). Location No. of Lanes Entry/ Exit No Treatment RRFB Only RRFB and Raised Crosswalk Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Oakland County, MI Two Entry 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% Two Exit 23.8% 16.4% 7.1% Three Entry 12.5% 7.6% 0.0% Three Exit 23.2% 18.9% 0.0% Table B-6. Summary of RRFB effectiveness—orientation and mobility iterventions (%). Infrastructure Cost Range (2014$) Cost Unit Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon—direct power (initial leg) $26,000—$36,000 Per leg Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon—direct power (subsequent legs) $31,000–$42,000 Per leg Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon—solar power (any leg) $36,000–$49,000 Per leg Table B-8. Summary of cost estimate for a RRFB installation.

Summary of Crossing Treatments 111 Assumptions • Installation at existing multilane roundabout • Pole-mounted installation • One RRFB cabinet/controller per approach direction (two per leg) • Accessible (audible) pedestrian signals • Estimate provided for both direct power connection (one service cabinet per intersection) and solar power connection (one solar unit per controller) • Wired communication between RRFB controller and RRFB heads (no wireless communication) • Signing costs included • Illumination, striping, traffic control, and other miscellaneous costs not included • Engineering cost varies from 10% to 50% of construction cost. This can vary greatly depending on the contracting mechanisms used. Additional Information and Links • FHWA’s Intersection Safety Technologies. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/ techsum/fhwasa09009/. • FHWA Report: FHWA-SA-15-069—Accelerating Roundabouts in the U.S.: Volume I of VII— Evaluation of Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons at Multilane Roundabouts Final Report. • Oakland County HAWK and RRFB Study. http://www.rcocweb.org/Lists/Publications/ Attachments/126/HAWK%20Final%20Report%202011.pdf. Raised Pedestrian Crossing Crossing improvement category: Traffic calming treatment Purpose(s): Physical cue to encourage the reduction of vehicular speeds Cost: $8,000–$39,000 (Drainage improvements not included) Item Unit Assumed Unit Cost Quantity Need Service cabinet + foundation Each $3,000 1 per intx Required for direct power connection. Solar power unit Each $250 4 per leg Required for solar power connection. RRFB controller + cabinet Each $2,500 2 per leg Required Pedestrian signal pole (no mast arm) + foundation Each $1,250 4 per leg Required RRFB display head Each $800 4 per leg Required Audible push button assembly Each $950 4 per leg Required Aluminum sign assembly Each $300 6 per leg Number may vary based on agency standards Conduit trench + conduit + wiring Linear foot $30 100 feet per leg Required for wired power/communication, specific length will vary based on project Junction box Each $450 4 per leg Required for wired power/communication, specific number will vary based on project Contingency -- 20% -- Unforeseen items Engineering -- 10 to 50% -- Varies based on project Table B-9. Cost estimate details for a RRFB installation.

112 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook Raised pedestrian crossings (RPC) or raised crosswalks are essentially speed tables installed at crossings on approaches of an intersection or mid-block locations. Construction involves the installation of an elevated crossing platform, along with transition slopes connecting the raised platform to the pavement. Pavement markings and signage are generally used to make the raised crossing visible to drivers. RPCs can be constructed from asphalt or concrete, and even some temporary plastic treatment exists. The treatment alternatives further differ in the RPC’s verti- cal elevation (relative to the pavement), and the transition slope between pavement and RPC (a flatter slope corresponds to a longer transition, given the same vertical elevation of the RPC). Functionality and Purpose Raised crosswalks are installed to reduce vehicle speeds as a function of the height relative to pavement surface and the degree of the transitional slope. A low and a gently sloping raised crosswalk would likely have higher speeds as vehicles easily maneuver over the crosswalk. Likewise, a steep incline to a high raised crosswalk could result in significant speed reductions; however, the reduced lane capacity may outweigh the benefit of the reduction in speed. Raised crosswalks also introduce vertical obstructions for emergency vehicles and snow plows that need to be considered; however, these treatments have been installed in some extreme snow fall locations. Studies show that drivers are more likely to yield to pedestrians when traveling at slower speeds. Effectiveness At a two-lane roundabout in Golden, RPCs were installed on the entry and exit lanes of one approach. Before installation, the orientation and mobility intervention rate was about 2.4%, and pedestrians experienced an average delay of 16.0 seconds. After treating the site with raised crosswalks, the intervention rate was reduced to 0.0%, and the average delay to 5.8 seconds. The 85th percentile delay was reduced from 31.0 to 13.4 seconds. Additional raised crosswalk results in combination with RRFBs were summarized in Tables B-6 and B-7. Figure B-4. Raised crosswalk at two-lane roundabout. Figure B-4 shows an installation of a raised pedestrian crosswalk at the entry leg of a two-lane roundabout in Golden, Colorado. This location was studied as part of NCHRP Report 674.

Summary of Crossing Treatments 113 In this research, raised crosswalks were tested at five CTLs, with three of those resulting in 0% to 2% interventions. For two sites, the intervention rates were 8%, which was attributed to added effects of poor pedestrian visibility and high ambient noise. RPCs are also accessible for mobility impaired pedestrians and help pedestrians who are blind to stay within the crosswalk as they cross. RPCs require detectable warning surfaces on the pedestrian way where it transitions to the vehicular way, both on the corner and on the splitter island. Limitations • Raised crosswalks should not be used when sight distance is limited or vertical grade is steep. • RPCs may hinder the maneuverability of heavy trucks, buses, and emergency vehicles depend- ing on the slope and height of the RPC. • Multiple raised devices at each approach can be disruptive to traffic and may reduce the over- all capacity of the intersection or street. • Drainage, runoff, and general maintenance will need to be considered in designing RPCs. Cost Summary *Cost range does not include drainage improvements, which may be necessary. Infrastructure Cost Range (2014$)* Cost Unit Raised pedestrian crossing (asphalt) $8,000–$15,000 Per leg Raised pedestrian crossing (brick pavers) $16,000–$39,000 Per leg Table B-10. Summary of cost estimate for a RPC. Assumptions • Installation at existing multilane roundabout • 3.5 in. maximum height for RPC • RPC dimensions in direction of travel: 6 ft long slope from existing grade to 3.5 in. height, 10 ft long full height, 6 ft long slope from 3.5 in. height to existing grade • Roundabout approach width = 30 ft • Concrete pedestrian area within splitter island raised 3.5 in. to match RPC elevation • Splitter island width at pedestrian area = 10 ft • No grinding/milling of existing pavement surface • Curb ramp modifications may be needed. The cost estimate assumes ramps are present on the outside and modifications are needed, but ramps are not present at the splitter island (but through design) • Drainage improvements may be required due to RPC installation, but are not included in the cost estimate • Engineering cost varies from 10 to 50% of construction cost. This can vary greatly depending on the contracting mechanisms used Additional Information and Links • PEDSAFE’s Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/ pedsafe_curb1.cfm?CM_NUM=27 . • NCHRP Report 674. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_674.pdf. • NCHRP 03-78B Final Report.

114 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook Sound Strips Crossing improvement category: Pedestrian information treatment Purpose(s): Provide pedestrians with audible information to make informed crossing decisions Installation cost: Less than $5000 per leg Sound strips are installed at roundabouts and CTLs primarily to provide auditory cues to blind pedestrians. As a vehicle traverses a sound strip, the tires rolling over the surface produce sound patterns that provide information about the approach speed of the vehicle. Functionality and Purpose A number of strips are installed across the roadway on the approach to the crosswalk at pre- scribed distances to generate auditory cues of approaching and/or yielding vehicles. At one installation in Charlotte, North Carolina, a spacing of 30 ft was used to generate an audible tone in one-second intervals for a vehicle traveling 30 ft per second (approximately 20 miles per hour). As the vehicle slows down (to yield) the time between sounds increases, thereby giving the pedestrian additional information about vehicle dynamics. The treatment can also provide Item Unit Assumed Unit Cost Quantity Need Raised Pedestrian Crossing (asphalt) Asphalt pavement Ton $70–$100 ~20 tons per leg Required Concrete pavement Square yard $30–$50 ~25 square yards per leg Required Asphalt tack coat Gallon $5–$10 ~200 gallons per leg Required Ramp modification Each $1500 2 (assumes splitter island is cut-through) Varies by site Contingency -- 20% -- Unforeseen items Engineering -- 10% to 50% -- Varies based on project Raised Pedestrian Crossing (brick pavers) Brick pavers Square foot $10–$20 ~600 square feet per leg Required Excavation (12 in. below grade) Cubic yard $10–$15 ~50 cubic yards per leg Required, but depth may vary Aggregate base (3/4 in. minus @ 12 in. thickness) Ton $10–$20 ~100 tons per leg Required Ramp modification Each $1500 2 (assumes splitter island is cut-through) Varies by site Concrete pavement Square yard $30–$50 ~65 square yards per leg Required Contingency -- 20% -- Unforeseen items Engineering -- 10 to 50% -- Varies based on project Table B-11. Cost estimate details for a RPC installation.

Summary of Crossing Treatments 115 information about the availability of crossable gaps. As an added benefit, the driver may be more cautious when approaching the crosswalk due to the additional sound cue provided by the treatment. Effectiveness Newly installed sound strips were studied at intersections with CTLs in Charlotte and Boulder, Colorado. Charlotte was a before-and-after study at the same locations, one with sound strips only, and one with sound strips and a flashing beacon. The Boulder study evaluated two CTLs at the same intersection, with one having sound strips installed. The Charlotte results found a decrease in orientation and mobility interventions as well as average pedestrian delay as shown in Tables B-12 and B-13. However, the resulting accessibil- ity performance showed some challenges remaining even with the treatment. The Boulder site showed no interventions in either condition but a slightly lower delay with the sound strips. The sample size for the assessment of sound strips at CTLs was limited with only two locations, and thus, the results are not conclusive. Figure B-5. Sound strips at a CTL. Figure B-5 shows an installation of sound strips in a channelized right turn-lane in Charlotte, North Carolina. This location was studied as part of NCHRP Report 674. Location Treatment Type No Treatment With Treatment Charlotte, NC Sound strip only 9.4% 2.9% Charlotte, NC Sound strip and beacon 5.6% 1.4% Boulder, CO Sound strip only 0.0% 0.0% Table B-12. Summary of sound strip effectiveness at CTLs— orientation and monitoring interventions (%).

116 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook Limitations Sound strips have not been fully developed as a functional crossing treatment and should be further investigated. The treatment studied at the Charlotte intersection was a temporary raised marking strip approximately ¼ in. thick (height above pavement) and 4 in. wide. Perma- nent treatment materials are available to study and are under consideration. In addition, several milled rumble strip configurations exist that may provide audible cues with minimal disruption to vehicular traffic. Cost Summary Cost is dependent on the material used and installation method. For milled rumble strip configurations the costs may increase due to the specialized equipment needed to mill, the avail- ability of this equipment, whether the work is contracted or done by in-house resources, and the type of configuration used. Additional Information and Links • FHWA Sound Strip Evaluation Study. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/ pedbike/05080/03.cfm. • NCHRP Report 674. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_674.pdf. • NCHRP 03-78B Final Report. Flashing Beacon Crossing improvement category: Driver information treatment Purpose(s): Improvement to static warning signage Cost (per leg): $25,000–$46,000 Flashing beacons are installed on overhead signs, in advance of the crosswalk, or on signs at the entrance of a crosswalk to make it more visible to drivers. The flashing beacon should be installed in an “active-when-present” mode, where the device rests in dark, and begins flashing after a push button (or passive) activation by a pedestrian. They can utilize a single beacon, or multiple beacons in a “wig-wag” configuration. Functionality and Purpose Flashing beacons are typically installed at uncontrolled intersections when used for pedestrian crossings. Location Treatment Type No Treatment With Treatment Charlotte, NC Sound strip only 26.2 18.5 Charlotte, NC Sound strip and beacon 23.4 12.2 Boulder, CO Sound strip only 13.0 9.8 Table B-13. Summary of sound strip effectiveness—pedestrian delay (sec).

Summary of Crossing Treatments 117 Effectiveness A flashing yellow beacon was studied at an intersection with CTLs in Charlotte, North Caro- lina, as a supplement to sound strips. The results found a decrease in orientation and mobility interventions, as well as average pedestrian delay over the pre-treatment condition, as well as some added benefit over the sound strip only location. The sample size for the assessment of sound strips at CTLs was very limited; thus, the results are not conclusive. Results of the Charlotte flashing beacon were summarized in the section on sound strips. Pedestrian-actuated beacons with audible information devices are likely to be more effective for improving the accessibility to pedestrians who are blind because they provide a clear indication of when vehicles are most likely to yield. Limitations A standard yellow flashing beacon is believed to be less visible to drivers than an RRFB. Cost Summary Figure B-6. Flashing beacon at CTL. Figure B-6 shows an installation of a yellow flashing beacon in a channelized right-turn lane in Charlotte, North Carolina. This location was studied as part of NCHRP Report 674. Infrastructure Cost Range (2014$) Cost Unit Flashing beacon—direct power (initial leg) $34,000– $46,000 Per leg Flashing beacon—direct power (subsequent legs) $30,000–$40,000 Per leg Flashing beacon—solar power (all legs) $25,000–$33,000 Per leg Table B-14. Summary of cost estimate for a flashing beacon installation.

118 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook Assumptions • Installation at existing multilane roundabout • Pole-mounted installation • One flashing beacon cabinet/controller per approach direction (two per leg) • Accessible (audible) pedestrian signals • Estimate provided for both direct power connection (one service cabinet per intersection) and solar power connection (one solar unit per controller) • Wired communication between flashing beacon controller and flashing beacon heads (no wireless communication) • Signing costs included • Illumination, striping, traffic control, and other miscellaneous costs not included • Engineering cost varies from 10 to 50% of construction cost. This can vary greatly depending on the contracting mechanisms used. Additional Information and Links • NCHRP Report 674. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_674.pdf. Cost Database Information The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center maintains a database of costs for pedestrian and bicycle improvements (Bushell et al., 2013). This database was searched for the treatments described in Appendix B, and aggregate results are shown below in Table B-16. The treat- ments were not installed at roundabouts, and the costs are provided here as a secondary source of information for gauging the relative cost differences between the various treatments. Most costs in the database appear to be based on studies and cost estimates, rather than bids for construction projects. Table B-15. Cost estimate details for a flashing beacon installation. Item Unit Assumed Unit Cost Quantity Need Service cabinet + foundation Each $3,000 1 per intx Required for direct power connection Solar power unit Each $250 4 per leg Required for solar power connection Flashing beacon controller + cabinet Each $2,500 2 per leg Required Pedestrian signal pole (no mast arm) + foundation Each $1,250 4 per leg Required Flashing beacon display head Each $500 4 per leg Required Audible push button assembly Each $950 4 per leg Required Aluminum sign assembly Each $300 6 per leg Number may vary based on agency standards Conduit trench + conduit + wiring Linear foot $30 100 feet per leg Required for wired power/communication, specific length will vary based on project Junction box Each $450 4 per leg Required for wired power/communication, specific number will vary based on project Contingency -- 20% -- Unforeseen items Engineering -- 10 to 50% -- Varies based on project

Summary of Crossing Treatments 119 References Bushell, M. A., B. W. Poole, C. V. Zeeger, D. A. Rodriguez. 2013. “Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements.” University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Schroeder, B., K. Salamati, N. Rouphail, D. Findley, E. Hunter, B. Phillips, J. Barlow, and L. Rodergerdts. 2015. Accelerating Roundabout Implementation in the United States—Volume I of VII: Evaluation of Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at Multilane Roundabouts. FHWA-SA-15-069. Federal Highway Admin- istration, Washington, D.C. Summary Table of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Table B-16. Summary of cost estimates from UNC pedestrian and bicycle database (Bushell, 2013). Infrastructure Median Average Minimum Maximum Cost Unit Number of Sources (Observations) Pedestrian hybrid beacon $51,460 $57,680 $21,440 $128,660 Each 9 (9) Rectangular rapid- flashing beacon $14,160 $22,250 $4,520 $52,310 Each 3 (4) Raised crosswalk $7,110 $8,170 $1,290 $30,880 Each 14 (14) Flashing beacon $5,170 $10,010 $360 $59,100 Each 16 (25) Treatment Category Purpose and Funconality Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Cost Effecveness Driver informaon treatments Improvements to standard pedestrian signage. May include APS-equipped signals or beacons that can be effecve at stopping traffic and at providing the pedestrian with visual and auditory cues of when the crossing phase is acve Connuous flasher $$ * In-roadway warning sign $ ** Acve-when-present flasher $$ ** RRFB $$ ** Pedestrian-actuated tradional signal $$$ *** Pedestrian hybrid beacon $$$ *** Traffic calming treatments Traffic calming is a method of designing streets using visual or physical cues to encourage drivers to reduce speeds. May include modificaon of crosswalk locaon or an alternave crossing locaon at roundabouts Posng lower speed $ ** Raised crosswalks $$ *** Traffic calming at crosswalk $$ *** Offset exit crossing $$ *** Adding deceleraon lane $$$ ** Acceleraon lane removal $$ *** Pedestrian informaon treatments Treatments that provide pedestrians with audible informaon that can be used to make more informed decisions Surface alteraons/rumble strips $ ** Acve-when-present flasher with APS $$ ** Pedestrian hybrid signal with APS $$$ *** Grade separated crossing Grade separaon allows pedestrians to cross the road without affecng the movement of vehicles Pedestrian overpass $$$ ** Pedestrian underpass $$$ **

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

ISBN 978-0-309-44610-5 9 780309 446105 9 0 0 0 0 TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians w ith Vision D isabilities N CH RP Research Report 834 TRB