Case Studies Chapter 6 PHOTO BY DAN BURDEN Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System | Case Studies 115 The 49 engineering, education, and enforcement coun- termeasures are described in Chapter 5. Included in this chapter are case studies that illustrate these treatments and/or programs as implemented in a state or munici- pality. Examples are included from 20 States and the countries of Canada and Switzerland. Provided on the following pages is a list of the 71 case studies by coun- termeasure group. A more detailed matrix showing the case studies by specific countermeasure is included in Appendix B on pages 302-303. Each case study includes a description of the problem that was addressed, relevant background information, a description of the implemented solution, and any quan- titative results from evaluation studies or qualitative assessments. Also included for each study is a point of contact in the event that further information is desired. Please note that in some cases, the specific individual listed may have left the position or agency.There should still be someone at the municipal or state agency that is familiar with the project and can provide any supple- mental information. Not all traffic control devices (TCDs) in the case stud- ies comply with the MUTCD.FHWA does not endorse the use of non-compliant TCDs except under experi- mentation, which must be approved by the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations. 116 Case Studies | Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System itle Case Study Number Case Study T Pedestrian Facility Design Roadway Design Intersection Design Calming Traffic Management Traffic Signals and Signs Other Measures 1 Serpentine Street Design ■■■ 2 55th Street Corridor Improvements ■■ ■ 3 Park Road Restriping ■■ ■ 4 Downtown Revitalization Partnerships ■■■■ 5 Accessibility During Construction ■■ 6 Old Town Improvements ■■■ 7 Solutions from Citizen Input ■■ ■ 8 Curb Extensions in Rural Village ■■ 9 Safe Routes to School Program ■■ 10 High-Volume Pedestrian Crossings ■■ ■ 11 Small Town Traffic Calming ■■ ■ ■ 12 Park Trail Bridges ■ 13 Fifth Street Traffic Calming ■■ ■ ■ 14 Roundabout for Downtown Revitalization ■■■ 15 Redesign for Streetcar Access ■■ 16 Street Redesign for Revitalization ■■ 17 Bridgeport Way Corridor Improvements ■■ ■ 18 ADA Curb Ramps ■ 19 Large Intersection Solutions ■■■■ 20 Granite Street Traffic Calming ■■■ 21 Pedestrian-Friendly Redesign ■■ ■ 22 Berkshire Street Traffic Calming ■■ ■ 23 Exclusive Pedestrian Phasing ■■ 24 Main Street Redesign ■■ ■ ■ 25 Illuminated Crosswalk ■ 26 Traffic Calming and Emergency Vehicles ■■ 27 School Zone Improvements ■■■ 28 Pedestrian Crossing Devices ■■ 29 Gateway Treatments ■■ ■ 30 Raised Crosswalk at School ■■■■ 31 Speed Tables at BWI Airport ■■■ 32 Trail Intersection Improvements ■■■■ 33 Safe School Route Mapping ■■■ 34 Staggered Median ■ 35 Curb Extensions for Transit Access ■■■■ 36 Double-Ladder Crosswalks ■ Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System | Case Studies 117 itle Case Study Number Case Study T Pedestrian Facility Design Roadway Design Intersection Design Calming Traffic Management Traffic Signals and Signs Other Measures 37 Zebra Crosswalk Markings ■■■ 38 School Zone Traffic Calming ■■■■ 39 Third Street Promenade ■■■ 40 Vermont Street Footbridge ■ 41 Greenway Pedestrian Bridge ■■ 42 Pfluger Pedestrian-Bicycle Bridge ■ 43 Grade-Separated Trail Crossing ■ 44 State Street Pedestrian Mall ■■ 45 Elm Street Traffic Calming ■■ 46 Leland Street Redesign ■■ 47 Seventh Avenue Traffic Calming ■■■ 48 Main Street Roundabout ■■ 49 School Zone Roundabout ■■ 50 Harold Street Traffic Calming ■ 51 Curb Bulbouts with Bicycle Parking ■ 52 Traffic Calming Program ■■ 53 Chicanes for Traffic Control ■ 54 Mid-Block Speed Table ■■■ 55 Emergency Vehicles and Traffic Calming ■■ 56 Neighborhood Traffic Circles ■ 57 Speed Humps for Cut-Through Traffic ■■ 58 Raised Intersection ■ 59 Woonerf-Style Developments ■■ 60 Wall Street Revitalization ■■ 61 Church Street Marketplace ■ 62 Pedestrian Countdown Signals (1 of 2) ■ 63 Pedestrian Countdown Signals (2 of 2) ■ 64 Antimated Eyes Signal ■ 65 Leading Pedestrian Interval (1 of 2) ■ 66 Leading Pedestrian Interval (2 of 2) ■ 67 Red Light Camera Enforcement ■■ 68 Red Light Photo Enforcement ■■■■ 69 Advance Yield Markings ■ 70 Radar Trailers in Neighborhoods ■ 71 Neighborhood Speed Watch Programs ■ 118 Case Studies | Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA CASE STUDY NO. 1 Serpentine Street Design PROBLEM ■■■■■■ SOLUTION A “slow street” plan from proposed by Urban Ecology, a Milvia Street was becoming more difficult for pedestri- local non-profit organization. The City retained trans- ans and bicyclists to travel because of motorists using it portation consultant Kenneth M. Bankston Associates to to avoid traffic congestion on the parallel arterial routes evaluate the Urban Ecology plan and alternatives. The between north Berkeley and downtown Berkeley and the report was used by City Public Works and Parks and University of California. Waterfront Department staff in coordination with local residents and street users to develop a recommended plan for a “slow street.” With the mitigation funds from the BACKGROUND developers and some additional city funds, the plan was implemented in 1989 to create the “Milvia Slow Street.” Milvia Street is primarily a residential street with a large number of pedestrian traffic generators in close proxim- The design covers roughly six blocks of residential street ity to each other, including three daycare centers, a pre- in which 30 curb bulb-outs were placed to narrow the school, two elementary schools, a junior high school, street at intersections and mid-block locations. These and a city park. Milvia Street is located between two bulb-outs and planted islands create a serpentine design, parallel arterials that provide an effective connection which requires vehicles to slow and negotiate a wind- between north Berkeley and the downtown and Uni- ing path along the street. versity areas. As such, it was being used by motorists to avoid the stoplights on those arterials. When combined Traffic calming improvements within the serpentine with a difficult offset intersection at the corner of design were also intended to increase the aesthetic quali- Delaware, this had created a difficult place where pedes- ty of the street. The bulbouts and islands were landscaped trians, cyclists, parked cars and fast moving cars were and maintained by the local neighborhood residents. mixing in a confined street. Further, a six-story office Some stamped concrete paving was installed near the building was to be built nearby, which would increase new building to create a rumble strip for the entrance traffic and make traveling along and across the street way, a decorative sign was erected notifying drivers that more difficult for pedestrians. After a considerable com- they are entering a calmed, residential neighborhood. munity effort to influence the office building project, Finally, the entire street was re-paved, speed humps were the City received roughly $100,000 from the develop- also installed on several blocks, the cracked sidewalks ers to prevent adverse impacts from the new traffic it were redone, and ADA-compliant ramps were installed to would generate on Milvia. make the sidewalk accessible to all pedestrians. Prepared by Laurie Actman, Patrick McMahon, and Henry RESULTS Renski, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. As the first street in Berkeley to have speed humps Information provided by Chuck DeLeuw, City of Berkeley, installed, Milvia attracted considerable attention. There CA and Mourad Bouaouina, University of Californaia at has been opposition from the fire department because Berkeley. speed humps may increase the difficulty of emergency response teams. Some bicyclists were concerned about Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System | Case Studies 119 The study also found that daily motor vehicle volumes were lowered by the project from 540 to 441 (18 percent) on the first block and 500 to 399 (20 percent) on the sec- ond block. Post-project mean vehicle speeds along the street ranged from 14.6 mi/h to 16.1 mi/h (23.5 km/h–26 km/h) at the speed humps and from 17.0 mi/h to 20.0 mi/h (27 km/h–32 km/h) between the humps. Though no official speed data have been collected recently along the Milvia “slow street”, periodic obser- vation shows that speeds continue to be slower than before the improvement, and motor vehicle traffic vol- umes are also lower. In addition, the street landscaping Mid-block alignment shifting parallel parking increased the attractiveness of the neighborhood. from one side to the other. Since the installation, Milvia Street resident and origi- the design because it did not provide a straight path for nal supporter of the “slow street” concept, Kate Obe- riding, it included speed humps, and removed previous- nour, feels that the street has become much safer and ly-existing designated bicycle lanes. Drivers who used that the number and severity of accidents has decreased the street to cut-through between arterials also were dramatically. The success of Milvia Street has led to the unhappy with the project because they did not like installation of speed humps on over twenty other streets driving over speed humps. Other residents were con- in Berkeley. However, it should be noted that, after installation of over 150 speed humps, the Fire Depart-