Item 11 - Pedestrian Safety Pomerado Rd at Ninth St.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable, .tor and Members of City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~
I~~I) B~: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~~ ~
Nark S. Weston, Director of En9ineeri~ Services
M1~..1 H. Robinson, Traffic Engineer ~~
DA~: June 6, 1995
SUBJEcr: Pedestrian Safety - Pomerado Road at Ninth Street
ABSTRAcr
On Apri 1 17, 1995, the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) reviewed this issue in response
to concerns expressed by Ernest Piper at the Council meetin9 of March 14, 1995. The TSC
determined that no additional traffic control devices are warranted at the
intersection.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPAcr
None.
AI>DmONAL PUBLIC N011FICATION ANJ) CORRESPONDENCE
Ernest Piper
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Counci1 receive and file this report.
ACnON
1 OF 16 JUN 6 ]995 ITEU 11 . I
AGENDA REPOR""
CITY OF POW A Y
TO:
FROII:
INITIATED BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
James l. Bowersox, City Ma~
John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~~ ~
Mark S. Weston, Director of Engineering service~
Michael H. Robinson, Traffic Engineer ~~
June 6, 1995
Pedestrian Safety - Pomerado Road at Ninth Street
Backoround
At the March 14, 1995 City Council meeting, Mr. Ernest Piper expressed concern
for school pedestrian safety on Pomerado Road near Ninth Street. Mr. Piper
recommended installation of flashing beacons to improve safety. City Council
requested that the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review Mr. Piper's concerns.
Staff completed a pedestrian and traffic study of the school zone along
Pomerado Road and the findings were reviewed by the TSC on April II, 1995. Mr.
Piper was contacted regarding the TSC findings and he concurs with the
recommended actions.
Traffic/Site Conditions
Pomerado Road is a north south running major arterial which borders Pomerado
Elementary School on the east side. School zone signage and a 25 MPH school
limit has been established from Tassel Road to McFeron Road. All signs are in
proper locations and are adequately visible in each direction. Ninth Street
borders the school on the north side and intersects Pomerado Road at the
school's northeast corner. The intersection is signalized with pedestrian
indications and has yellow school crosswalks.
See site diagram, Attachment A and accident diagram, Attachment B.
Speed limit:
POIIerado Road
45 MPH (85th% 49 MPH)
38 MPH southbound
42 MPH northbound
School speed survey:
(25 MPH lillit)
ACTION:
2 OF 16
JUN 6 1995
rrm-n
))
"I
Pede.tri.n S ' . Pom.rado Road at Ninth Street
....lty Council Agenda. June e. 1995
Page 2
Traffic Volume: 9800 AWD southbound
9500 AWD northbound
A.M. Peak hour: 1120 southbound
7-8 A.M. 680 northbound
(P.M. peak hour does not coincide with school activities.)
Accidents: 1992 - 2 1993 - 7* 1994 - 3
1995 - 1
Accident history from January 1992 through February 1995. Summary of all
accidents between McFeron Road and Tassel Road.
*One accident involved a pedestrian crossing Ninth Street. The accident
did not occur during school hours, and would not have been prevented by
installation of additional traffic control devices.
FindinGS
The school speed zone signs on Pomerado Road are prominently placed and are
oversized. Speed surveys were completed to compare normal traffic conditions
with school zone traffic conditions. 85th percentile speeds for morning school
conditions average 40 MPH while normal 85th percenti1e speeds are 49 MPH.
Staff concluded that school zone speeds are high considering the 25 MPH speed
limit in effect. The Sheriff's Department advised the TSC that this is a
regular enforcement area and that many speed citations are issued during
morning hours to parents of junior high school students en route to
Meadowbrook Middle School.
A pedestrian count was completed to determine pedestrian volumes crossing
Pomerado Road before and after school. The review also helped insure that
proper safety precautions are being taken by the children as they cross
Pomerado. The pedestrian count form is included as Attachment C. Morning
pedestrian volumes crossing Pomerado (74) are lower compared with the
afternoon (132). During the count, all pedestrians crossed Pomerado at the
signal. No midblock crossings were observed. No other unusual or unsafe
activity was noted during the study.
A school patrol and adult guard are stationed at the intersection in the
mornings and afternoons when most scho01 pedestrian crossings occur. The
school patrol and adult guard are intended to he1p insure that school
pedestrians use proper caution when crossing Pomerado. They appear to do a
good job.
The accident history for Pomerado Road between McFeron Road and Tassel Road
was reviewed. No unusua1 pattern of accidents was found. Only one accident
involved a pedestrian. The accident was not school related.
Flashing yellow school signal warrants were reviewed. Warrants are not met
because of the existence of the traffic signal at Ninth. See warrant sheet,
Attachment D. Traffic signals are considered to be the highest and best form
of crossing protection available for school children. No additional warning
devices are recommended when a signal is present.
3 OF 16
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11 '"
Pedelltrie fety . Pomeredo Road lit Ninth Street
City Council Agenda. June e. 1995
PllQe3
The traffic -.nual notes that the flashing signals are intended to help
provide advlftCl-warning when school crossing problems exist. No crossing
problems were f9Ind on Pomerado adjacent to Pomerado School. Flashing signals
are best use6 ti locations where there is no higher form of traffic control.
The traffic signa1 at Ninth provides adequate control of traffic and
pedestrians. Advance school zone notification is sufficient, school
pedestrians are well controlled by the school patrol and adult guard, and
there is no record of recent accidents involving school pedestrians.
Recent studies conducted in Arizona, Kentucky, and New Jersey have concluded
that permanent use of flashing signals does not significantly reduce speeds or
improve school pedestrian safety. One study concluded that the longer a
flasher operates, the more it becomes a part of the scenery and is no longer
effective. Two artic1es about the studies are included as Attachment E.
The TSC concluded that additional traffic control devices would not improve
pedestrian safety on Pomerado Road near Pomerado School. The TSC requested
that the Sheriff's Department periodica11y post the radar display trailer
along Pomerado Road in the school zone and aggressively enforce the morning
school speed limit on Pomerado Road to reduce school zone violations.
Environmenta1 Review
This action is not subject to CEQA review.
Fisca 1 IIlDaet
None
Pub1ic Notification and CorresDOndenee
Ernest W. Pi per
Reconmendation
It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report.
Attachments :
A - Site diagram
B - Accident diagram
C - Pedestrian counts
D - F1ashing beacon warrants
E - Flashing beacon studies
JLB:JDF:MSW:MHR:pc
4 OF 16
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11 .,
. 11'1 I
ECCJNO LJISq1V1JE I ~ I ~, LEGEND
M /350" I . ~~SSE:'- RO
INSTALLATJDN-C ..". , ......-- RED c.uQ.21
I I
SOVNO WALL
Wll'ES5/aNA L I . oRI VEWA'f
StALE: 1"=150' DENTAL. I .L
, p,Z- '~:;f., ~ FIRe: I-IYORANT
J3-tZ.Z. i II~S-I ~
STREET LJ6HT
PROFESSIONAL (} TREE
CENTER
1:;,/00.1 z. --- PROPERTY LINE
POSTED
5PEED UMIT
45 MPH
PI M - 95TH7. 5fEEJ)
/\La - -<1Z-I1PH
:, B - 3B W'H
PM - 85lH76 SPEED
NI3 - 4'1 HPU
56 - 4'1 HPH
\D
~
<(
..1
...,
%
:x:
~ I I I I
II' '13'll'z' IlzJ 12.,113' I
I I
5Ec.TIOt.J .
A-A
Po.<<E/lIIDO
=l...eME1lT"~
5<:11001.-
BUS jTQP T
c
'"
o
0_
<l:
a: ..
w
10:
a__
a.
BilS STOP
'lJ
.
.,
BUS
STOP./f'-
LEONA
I-N_
'~
'I !I
CITY OF POW A Y
-
~
..
5 OF 16
ITEM:
(;2.-45- SPEED
LIMIT
45
Rr..5-1 - I END
I SCHOOL
ZONE
IAj5TAI..1.ATlO~ - [I SCHOOL)
speeo
I LIMIT
125
WHIH
CHI\Jl....
.... "'DINT
1<1 -
.
VOLU""E~
I He .J 58
MG. OAf LY VOLJJME: q47/....I Q1Qe...
AM P6tl: /IlIlAIl coullT
g,OO AM "81 1/2:1
Pfot PE4J('D 1fT
~:oo PM q~ 783 I
S/TE D/A(,f2IJl1
TITLE: PHI€RAO(J en
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11 ; I
ATTACHMENT: A
SCALE
I
/""" / 60
ATTACHMENT A
()
/VO/HI<
NTS
.ll
'"
N
"-
.".
9"
"
,..
"
"-
3
'" a:
o >
" -
\
I
TASSEL ~O
'"
'"
...
., ..~.~
,,~ I::
.::: c.J<
"'''I t::::
.., '0 -
'~~"'~
="'....
~ ,C
t-Q '" ~
I ca-
"'rIlTH 51 ..J I
"
In i!
~Ql: a. ~ !
-> f
... _'" d
;1~6~!jj
"" ....';"
"
,
"
01
"'.
,;..;
~ Ift"_
..... ..... """". .... OM .....
J't ,I 2-
I
~I ;I.
/9"15' 1 0 I
fF=eAUAti.'!
/3
C
0:
g
..
0:
W
l::
~
~I
~
....
,
N
v "2-3-"1 = /13<lO
I>lAlT" Vf<W/'3-II-Q3jI81.5
r.- 2/-q.<f
Z~47
CITY OF POWA Y
g SCALE
6 OF 16
ITE M: Ace/OlENT DW6I<AI-I
TITLE :
PoMERAOO (l.O
NT<:;:
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11 H
-
HI-! Si.
POME>lADO
SCHOOl..
F'EOESTRIAN sruOY . F'OMEAACO RO
DATE: 3-23-95
IAM\ !
7:15-7:30 0
7:30.7:45 I 0
7: 4s-a:CI!1' 0
~~A~:;~ 0
, :50.2:05 0
2:05-2:20 0
2:20-2:35 I 0
2:3~2:50 0
2:50.3:05 0
TOTAlS 0
OV RA~~ ,
TOTA~S! 0
2
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
SCHOO~ CROSSING PAmoL TIMES
MORNING
BEGIN ENO
7:191\10< 7:43~H
3
o
o
o
u
N
~
-0
C9--
~~
~I
21 @-
4
6
5
o
o
o
o
.
5
o
9
4
3
o
1
o
o
1
7
o
S
1
3
S
.
o
18
1
37
4
o
o
42
7
2
o
1
1
95
18
3
o
117
~
s
29
40
1
ro
1
3
3
o
o
7
s
25
.~FTERNCCN 2:08 P"I 2:20 P /01
CITY OF POW A Y
@
7 OF 16
SCALE
ITEM:
9
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
iJ':I1P.~I?IA"J Qcr/NT
TITLE: POMt:e.,WO PC'.
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11
A TT ACHMEN'I' : C
~T~
ATTACHMENT C
':::'..,.'....1
,,~).\r1"'''- ;:),,'...,~).\,_~ I-\,,~,_, ,_.l:iH IINl:i
I ra',-,IC~,anUai
1.1992
Figure 9-5
SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS
DIST
CALC
CHK
,N/ J/'lJ..
DATE
DATE
'I/llhs
---
CO ATE PM
" 0
H::1,Vr&l.I:lf,[l Ii:~ ~.t Cntical Approach Speed
""1 '1'"
Minor SI: _ C~tjcaJ Approach Speed
Cntical soeed of m.alor street traffic ::: .0 mph _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t8 }
or RURAL (R)
In buitt "0 area of Isolated community of < 10.000 pop. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
DURBAN (U)
Malor SI:
'Ie oS
mpn
mpn
-.::-
...."
FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
SATISFIED YES 0 NO ~
MInimum ReqUIrements I - f".
PART A I ( U ) R '\ vy r-)
Vehicle Volume EaCl1 ot 200 140 \'b00 .\100 }
2 hours \
School Age Pedestnans Each at 40 .0 ~ , ,'\
Crossing Street 2 hours
SATISFIED YES 1'iJ. NO 0
AND
PART B
Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph
AND
SATISFIED
YES ~ NO 0
PARTe
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away?
SATISFIED
YES 0 NO ~
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
SATISFIED
YES 0 NO 0
Minimum Requirements /
PART A U R
Vehicle Volume Each at 500 350 }
2 Ilours
School Age Pedestrians Each at lOa 70
Crossing Street _ .3 ~O<J_rs_ _ --- - - - - ---
or 500 350
per day
SATISFIED
YES 0 NO 0
AND
PART B
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feel aw~y?
SATISFIED
YES 0 NO 0
.",
8 OF 16
ATTACHMENT D
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11 "
School Zone Flashers
Do They Really Slow Traffic?
BY BENJAMIN E. BURRITT. RICHARD C. BUCHANAN, AND ERIC I. KALIVODA
School crossing controls in Arizona
are among the most restrictive tn
the nation. At official Arizona school
crossings. a temporary speed limit of 15
miles per hour (mph) is imposed on mo-
torists by poruble signs that are placed
in the roadway during approved school
hours (see Figure I). The undisputed
success of Arizona's school crossing pro-
gram over the past 30 years is largely
attributable to the restrictive controls
and their rigorous enforcement by police
agencies throughout the state.
Flashing beacons. or flashers as they
are commonly known. are not a pan of
the official control plan for Arizona's
school crossings. However. school juris-
dictions often request that ftashers be in-
stalled to augment the already stringenc
controls. Over the years. the Traffic En-
gineering Section of the Arizona De.
partment of Transportation (ADOT) has
aggressively fended off such requests to
use flashers on state highway system
crossings. Their position is based on the
fact that when Rashers are installed in
locations where they are DOC warranted.
they soon lose much. if nor all. of their
effectiveness. ~fore imponant. improper
usage greatly reduces the effectiveness
of other Rashers installed in areas where
there is a real. demonstrated need.
The case histOry that follows began
with a request in 1986 for the instaHation
of flashers at two existing school cross.
ings on a state highway within the cit\
limits of Tucson. Flashers have becoml.:
standard instJJlarions at s~hool crossin~~
on arterial s!n~ets within 'Tucson. Ho\~.
....
9 OF 16
figure 1. A portable sign indicaling a temporary 15.mph speed limit is placed in the
roadway 35 part of the school crossing progr:J.m in Arizona.
e\'er. Rashers had n~\'er bdore bc::~n in-
stalled at school crossmgs 0n ,r<.lte high-
ways within Arizona-reg:.lrdless IJt the
political jurisdiction.
The request leu to a "':\"'mpreh.:n~i\"t:
stul.ly by ADOT m J~lnuJ.r~. l~,"-. \\hich
resulted In a recommcnuatll)n :hat Ll.ash-
ers not he inswlkd.' De~ptt~ ,h.:- ~lud~
Hnuings. the tiashers \\"~re ln~,JlleJ ~\nd
MC::L'ame opt:r;J.t](1I1..d In A.pnl lll_" - Our-
in~ the on~ mllnth ro.:m;\ln:l1:; In thl.:
<;~h\'ol yt::~lr :.lflo.:r thl.: ti:.lsh~~~ \\'.:re JL'rl-
\';\tt:d. ADOT UllUl.:rtnllh: ~ln ~\JIU;lti(ln
tll J~tcrmtr11.: th~ tb"l1~r'" r;:~L.:.::.; \\[1 ~r~\r"-
ri.... 'flct.:l.Is.
Evaluation
rh.... ",:v;IIU;l[ll.)!l '.\;1' !'~I,....d, r~ ::1.: .:,1"]\'1'
<l! ,pc....d ',1111pk, 1."lkl..:[",~'",':"L..- .1I1d
ATTACHMENT E
after the Inst;J.{l;J.tion 0f r1ashers. Speeds
were sampled at ~Jch schc\.)! crosswalk
during the last wet:k of ~IJ~ L987. These
samples were compar~d with similar size
samples coll~ct~l.I dunn~ December
19~6. before the rtash~rs '.~e;".e installed.
Vehicular spcr;:Js wc::rc :1r5t sampled
during non-school h0urs. wh.:-n the stan-
dard Arizona school ..:rossin:; trJrfic con-
trols were nO{ In pl~I"':c. Thc:se samples
Wt:re ...:ullccteJ for ":Llmp;jn~l.)n with be-
for~ pcrioJ sampks tll Jetermine
whether t'asc conditlllns. 1.= . '.)perating
spl:eds. haJ dl~ln~cd Th...: r.:-suJes are
rrcscnt...:d In T\(-1k: 1
Till.: J;it;l III 1.11'1..... 1 ..:k~:r:: Indic:lte
th;lt or....r~\tln'; 'rl'...:d, 11;ld ~;\': ..:hanged
'q;l1lfl"'::llltl: '111(.... [')1.'1.\:mr.:~ lLJ~b, ThIS
l.l...:t ....,Lll'll,hcd :!1.\[ ::.' , ;LllrlCJnt
iT: ~OI,,;;('.,.:.1. j~~.;....:.~" '990 29
JUN 6 1995
ITEM 11 . I
Table 1. ~ge Sp_ (mph)-Na.. .chaal Haun
Be'or. Installation Alter Installation
SPeed Average Sampje Average Sample Signiftcant
School Umd SQMd SIze Speed Size Difference Changeo
Mary Lynn 45 40.10 226 40.75 228 +0.65 No
Hollinger JS 33M 2J8 33.71 220 +0.11 No
Installation a [nstaJlatlon of ~ .", Confidence Level. Student's r-Te$1
Table 2. _age Sp_ (mphl__aal Moun
Before Installation Alter InstaUat10n
Speed Average Sample Average Sample
SChOOl Limit SPeed Size Speed Size Difference
Mary Lynn 15 16.13 207 21).33 208 +4.20
Hollinger
15
14.86
299
16.71
Signiftcant
Change"
Yes
Yes
198
+1.85
[nstall.lIon .. InstaJlanon of Flashers. "95% Confidence Level. Student's Hest
Table 3. V1olatton Rates-Non..5ehool Hours
SPeed Before Atter Slgniftcont
SchOol Limit Installation (%) Installation (%) Change"
Mary Lynn 45 13.3 15.8 No
Hollinger 35 33.6 36.8 No
InsuJl.lion .. Installation of Flashers. "95% Confidence level. Student's t-laf.
Table 4. V1alaflan Rates--Sc:haal Hours
SPeed IIetore
School Umd Installation (%)
Mary Lynn 15 57.0
Hollinger
15
39.1
Atter
Installation (%)
78.4
54.0
Slgni8cont
Change"
yes
Yes
Installation a [nstall.tion of Flashers. '95% Confidence Level. Student's Hest.
changes In base conditions had occurred.
The only change in conditions was the
addition of ftashing beacons. which are
operational only during school crossing
periods. Therefore. any significant
change in traffic speeds during school
periods could be directly attributable to
the ftashers. A two-tailed r.test was used
in the evaluation. The t~test was em.
ployed because it is particularly well
suited to large sample sizes where the
data are approximately normally distrib.
uted.
Vehicular speeds were next sampled
during school hours. when the school
crossing traffic controls were in place.
These samples were collected for com.
parison with period samples taken prior
to the use of the ftashers to determine
the effects of the ftashers on traffic
speeds. The results are presented in Ta.
ble 2.
The data show that a significant in-
crease in operating speeds occurred after
the Rashing beacons were added to the
standard school crossing controls.
Violation rates (the percentage of all
vehicles traveling above 15 mph) for the
after period were computed and com-
pared with the before period violation
rates. A comparison of the violation
rates during the non-school hours is pre.
sented for both the before and after pe.
riods in Table 3.
The data in Table 3 indicate that the
violation rates in the before and after
periods Were quite similar. The rates
changed less than 4 percent. and the
changes were not statistically significant
at the 9S percent confidence level.
B.njamin E. Bur-
ritt is associate
v;c..pnsid.nt and
direcror of .ng;.
n~~rin, in th~
Pho.nix offie< of
Dani~l. Mann,
Johnson and ,Wendenhall. Pr~viously,
Burritt was (he state traffic engineer for
(he Arizona Department of Transporta-
rion. Burritt /tolds a B.S. C. E. degree
from the University of California at Davis
and M.S. C E. and M. 8.A. d.grees from
Arizona Stare Universuy. He is a Fellow
oflTE.
'\
Richard C. Budl-
anan is a traffic su.
pervisor for the
Arizona Depart-
ment of Transpor-
tation District 2 of-
fice in Tucson. He
is rtsponsibl. for traffic studies and op.
erations on ail highways in the three
southeastern counties of Arizona. Buch-
anan has been associated with ADOT
traffic engineering for the last 23 years.
Eric J. Kalivoda
is an assistant traf-
fic engineer with
rhe Arizona De-
partment of Trans-
portation. He re-
ceived a 8.S.CE.
degree from Louisiana State University
and an M.S. degree in civil engineering
from the University of Arizona. Kalivoda
is an Associate Member of IrE.
30 . ITE JOURNAL. JANUARY 1990
10 OF 16
ATTACHMENT E
JUN 6
ITEM 11
1995
'.1
Violanon rates dunng school houn Iv.
the after period were also computed. A
comparison between the before and after
violation rates is presented in Table 4.
The results of this analysis clearly
show that a statisticaJly ~,.':Aeur in-
crease in the violation rare occurred
afru the ftashing beaCOlll_ iastaJ1ed.
Conclusion
From this analysis. it is concluded that
ftashing beacons at school crossings in
Tucson. Arizona. fail to reduce vehicle
speeds and the number of violations of
the l5.mph speed limit. On the contrary.
it is apparent that. when ftashing bea,
cons are used, operating speeds and the
number of violations increase signifi-
cantly. While the driver psychology be.
hind this documented phenomenon can
only be hypothesized. the study indi.
cates that there is a 9S percent probabil-
ity that the changes are not due to ran-
dom variation. Any device.that causes
such a pronounced disregard for the
standard Arizona school crossing con.
trois certainly cannot be viewed as an
enhancement co pedestrian safety at
schools.
Reference
I. Arizona Department ot Transportation.
Traffic Enginttnng SlUdy-Suue Routt 86
(Aja Wa.y). .Wary Lynn and Hollinger
Schools. Phoenix. Ariz.; AOOT. 1987. I
MEMBERSHIP ADMISSIONS AND TRANSFERS
This list r~presents membership admis.
sions and crans/us that occurred bt!wun
Oerober 1 and Ocrober 31. 1989.
Transfers to Fellow
The Institute of TransporUlliOf1 Engineers
is proud co recognize the following mem.
bus. who recently attained tM dUlin.
guished srarus of Fellow in 1M InsnlUle.
Ronald H. Dunn. P.E.; Fairfax, VA
Harvey Ftiedson. P. E.; Tempe. AZ
Peyton N. Jovner. P. E.; Raleigh. NC
lames W Lee. F,E.; Winter Park. F1.
Robert M. Lee. F.E.; Concord. NH
Manuel Matcos-de.Vicentc. P.E.;
Madrid. Spam
Transfers to Member
Ernest G. Atl1anailos: Long Island City, NY
Thomas R. Biggs. Jr.. P.E.; Winter Park. FL
Mohammad A. Hameed. P.Eng.; Gloucester.
ON Canada
Gary N. Hansen: Stockton. CA
Thomas P. Kaeser. P.E.: Chicago. It
Walter P. Kilareski. P.E.; Statc College. PA
YaE.Sin T. Kwolc.; Hong; Kong
Neal K. Liddicoat. P.E.; Pasadena, CA
Santos V Murillo. Jr.. P.Eng.; Ventura, CA
Bryan Pearl. P. E.; Creve Caeur. MO
Dennis G. ~rlc.inson: San AAIOnio. TX
Lazaro Rivera: Davtona 8acb.. FL
Andrzej B. Tomeckl. P.E.; Pretoria.
South Afnca
Norris T. Zucchet. P.Eng.: lbronto, ON
Canada
New Members
Vincent M. ChaR. P.E.. Shatin. N.T.
Hong Kong
Gordon M. Chancey. P.E.: Virginia Beach.
VA
Russell L. Clairmont. P.E.. Jacksonville. FL
James D. Crutcher. P: E.: Lexington. KY
John N, Dowden: SJ.n Francisco. CA
Gregory P Dreyer: Orland PiUk.. IL
Thomas A. Hall. Hollywood. FL
William A. Hans<. Ir.. P.E.; Greeley. CO
Tracy L. Hill. P.E.; Charlotte. NC
James 1: Jarzab: Arlington Heights. It
Raben S. Kamm; Merritt Island. FL
Ronald L. Lanan. P.E.; Bradencon. FL
Transf.rs to Associate
Charles W. Abel; Charlotte. NC
Nauman All; Halifax. NS Canada
Manin A. Amundson; Hacienda Heights.
CA
Bijan Behzadi: lacksonvdle. FL
Cheryl A. C. Benne,,; St. Michael. Barbadas
Kuang.Hsun Chen; Arcadia. CA
Gary A. Davis; Minneapolis. MN
Michael A. Feeney; Baltimore, MD
Kenneth L. Frink; Tampa. FL
Ravi Gadiraju; Washington, DC
Rob Gibbard; Edmonton. AB Canada
Eric O. Hildebrand. P.Eng.; Montville. NI
Noordian Moeloek: lakana. Indonesia
Geoffrey K. Noxon; Ottawa. ON Canada
Mashe Oved; Thornhill. ON Canada
Muhammad S. Qureshi; Alexandria. VA
C. Leon Vicars. P.E.; Tucson. AZ
Christine Wagstaffe: Waterloo. ON Canada
Joseph F. Weesner; Evanston. It
New Associate Members
Sean B. Abram; London. ON Canada
Jeanne M. Acutanza. P.E.; Wasblngton. DC
Javier F. Alonso; Alhambra. CA
Masoud Atefi: Santa Monica. CA
Greg W Boehner; Boston. MA
James R. Borrebach. P.E.; Milford. MA
~ne J. Bouger. P.E.: Baton Rouge. LA
Nancy L. Boyer; Indianapolis. [N
Michael S. Bruff: Raleigh. NC
Bill B. O. Bui. P.E.; Surrey Hills. VIC
Australia
Timothy C. Connor; Baltimore. MD
Dawn Crocker; Oak.land. CA
Clifford E. O'Angelo; Gutfport. MS
Mark. Grav. P.E.; Gorham. ME
Richard f:.:. Herrera: O~cnard. CA
Saluf K. Hussuln: Arbl!. Iraq
ZJlnul KJ.mJ.rulbal1ann: West Haven. CT
JClfc:ry T. "mgh!. P.E.: Hazlehurst. MS
Raynald S. Ledoux. [ng.: Montreal. QC
Canada
Daniel J. Lorio. P.E.; Baton Rouge. LA
Oamel W. Mills; Portland. OR
Robert A. Morgan. P.E.; Virginia Beach. VA
Mark ~iles; Minneapolis. MN
Anand Paluri: Croton-on-Hudson. NY
Bogdan T. Piorkowski. P.E.; West Palm
ae3ch. FL
David A. Roseman; Long Be:J.ch. CA
Frederick L. Roush: Tempe. AZ
ROnald L. Schikevitz. P. E.; Virginia Beach.
VA
Jeffrey T. Schoenberger; Bel Air, MD
Scpideh Sedadi: Torrance. CA
Richard A. Siemering; Tampa. Fl
Frank A. Silcock. P.E.; Houston. TX
Gregory R. Swift. P.E.; WestwOod. NI
Joan D. Temus: Austin. TX
Quang B. Thieu; Santa Ana. CA
Davie C. Tinlc.ev. f.E.; Evanston. It
Alfred A. TituS-Glover; Baltimore, MD
Andrea M. Troutman; Boca Raton. F1..
Clifford O. Wngglesworth; Buffalo. NY
New Institute AffIliate
Jeremy S. Graham: Tampa. Fl
I
Are You Ready to Move Up?
If you have been an lnstitute Affiliate or
Associate Member of the Institute for
three years or more, or if you have been
a Member of the Institute for live years
or more, you may be eligible for a
higher grade of membenhip. All you
need to apply for transfer are a current
resume. live references (preferably ITE
membersl. and the appropriate appli.
cation form.
For an application form and further
information. contact Christine S. Trox.
ell. MembershIp Coordinator. at ITE.
525 School St.. S.W.. Suite 410, Wash-
ington. DC 20024-2729 USA (telephone;
I 2021554.8050: FAX; 2021863-54861.
11 OF 15
ATTACHMENT E
IrE JOURNAL. JANUARY 1990 . 31
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11 i.1
Ped-';an Warning Flashers
in an Urban Environment: Do
They Help?
,
J
\
BY JAMES W SPARKS AND MICHAEL J. CYNECKI
Flashing beacons (commonly called
ftashers or ftashing lighrs) are fre.
quently requested by citizens in the be-
lief that their use will reduce vehicle
speeds and improve safety. Studies have
concluded that ftashing lighrs may serve
a useful purpose when used to alen driv.
ers unfamiliar with the area to condi.
cions that are not readily apparent or
that are unexpected. These situations
generally occur on high,speed rural
roads where there is a constant condition
(such as a sharp curve). There is cur.
rently little evidence that ftashing warn.
ing beacons are effective when used to
warn of intermittent concerns. such as
the presence of pedestrians in an urban
environment.
A 1975 study conducted by Reiss on
regulatory speed limit signs with ftashers
in school areas where a reduced speed
limit was in effect when the Rashers were
activated found that Rashers did not
modify driver behavior or reduce speeds
to the level posted on the signs.' The
most significant impact on driver speeds
was the presence of school children.
Another study of reculatory speed
limit signs with ftashinl beacons was
conducted by Zegeer in 48 school zones
in Kentucky.: Average speed reductions
were only 3.6 miles per hour (mph).
Speed data gathered indicated that driv-
ers selected a speed very close to the
pos[ed speed limit when Rashers were
not opera[ing. but paid little attention to
the legal speed limit when Rashers were
operating. [n some cases when the fJash.
ers were operatlng. measured speeds
32 . ITE JOURNAL' JANUARY 1990
12 OF 16
were double the posted speed limic Sub.
stantial speed reductions (by as much as
9 mph) were observed only when cross.
ing guards or police were present.
Three case studies were conducted by
Knoblauch and coworkers to evaluate
the effectiveness of ftashing warning bea.
cons on motorist and pedestrian behav-
ior. J All three locations were near
schools. Two of the locations were in
Fairfax. Virginia. and involved unique
three.head pedestrian ftashers that op.
erated for three hours during school
davs. One 1985 study found that ape.
destrian fJasher near one school cross-
walk had no significant effect on vehicle
speeds. Another 1985 evaluation of a pe-
destrian ftasher at a second schoolloca-
tion revealed a slight speed reduction
(by less than 3 mph) when the ftasher
was operating. However. there were also
slightly higher speeds (more than 2 mph
higher) at a school crosswalk without
ftashers about 1.500 feet downstream
from the pedestrian ftasher. The authors
suggested that those few mo[orists who
slowed down may have then sped up in
an attempt to cOmpensate for (ost time.
The third case study was conducted in
Hamilton Township. New Jersey, and in.
valved a pedestrian crosswalk sign
(Wll-2A) mounted with pedestrian-ac.
tuated (push button) ftashers at a mid.
block school crosswalk.' Two studies
were conducted at this location. The first
found no significant difference in speeds
wh~n Rashing. A second study found
sp~~ds were slightly higher when RashlOg
and no pedestrians were present. The
ATTACHMENT E
authors concluded the flasher was of
negligible value and did not do what it
was intended to do.
The Arizona Department of Trans-
ponation (ADOT) has nOt found ftash.
ers useful for intermittent conditions
such as pedestrian crossing locations. rn.
formation published by ADOT strongly
cautions against the unjustified use of
ftashers. stating that in such cases, "they
simply cease to command respect of the
drivers:'" The report says that the use of
Rashers is ail too often an emotional re-
sponse to symptoms of a jack of pedes.
trian safety education. nOt a traffic en-
gineering problem.
A study conducted by Burritt and oth.
ers evaluated ftashers installed at two 15.
mph school crossings in Tucson. Ari.
zona. a They found that speeds and vi.
alation rates significantly increased after
Rashing beacons were installed. The
study confirmed that it is futile and
counterproductive to expect artificial
stimulants (such as Rashers) to override
driver judgments as to safe and unsafe
behaviors .
The use of ftashing warning beacons
at crosswalks is not recommended or en-
couraged in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices-~; the Model Pe-
destrian Safety Program!>. published as a
guide by the Federal Highway Admlnis.
tration (FHWA); the NCHRP Synthesis
Report. .. Pedestrians and Traffic Con-
trol Measures"1; or the Arizona School
Safety Program Guidelines. ~
'So.:o.: ;.Im..:!t. pilge::'9
"
.
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11 'I
Phoenix Flasher
Experiments
The City of Phoenix has tried several
different types of ftuhilll bea.:ons under
various conditions. In tile 19SOs. most of
the traffic signals in PboIaiz ftabed at
night as warning devic:a cIurina low.vol,
ume traffic hours. This practice was dis.
continued because it confused motorists
and resulted in higher accident rates.
Later. warning Rashers were installed in
median island noses in an effon to pro-
vide improved motorist guidance of ob.
stacles within the roadway. Most of these
fiashers have been removed from ser-
vice. and the remainder will eventually
be removed because of a demonstrated
lack of effectiveness and high mainte-
nance requirements. On the ocher hand.
Rashing beacons arc used extensively
and with great success on construction
barricades where there are lane reduc-
tions. detours. or other unexpected
changes in traffic conditions because of
construction.
The City of Phoenix has also experi.
mented with advance Bashing warning
beacons in conjunction with four pedes.
trian crossing iocatians (all on major
streets) near schools; two are in con.
junction with traffic signals. Each appli.
cation used a different design to search
Ear some manner to make effective use
of ftashers (see Figure 1).
Arcadia High School Flasher
The first use of pedestrians flashers in
Phoenix was part of an effort to reduce
speeds and increase driver awareness of
pedestrians near Arcadia High School.
The ftashers were installed at 4700 East
Indian School Road. a six.lane. high.
yolume major street. This experiment
involved flasher operation during school
hours (6:00 A.M. to 3:45 P.M.) Overhead
ftashers were installed with supplemen.
,al "SCHOOL" warning signs. Simulta.
neous with Rasher installation. the speed
limit was reduced from 40 mph to 35
mph. Bdare.and.after radar speed stud.
ies collected in 1975 indicated that the
flashers and lower speed limit did not
result in lower vehicle speeds (Table 1).
In fact. both ,he average speed and the
85th percentile speeds increased slightly
after flasher installation.
In early 1989. another study was con-
ducted to me:lsure any possible long-
term impact of the Rashers, Radar speeu
13 OF 16
Figure 1. Phoenix ftasher experimenU (clockwistfrom rap I<fr): overhead ftasher al
Arcadia High Sehoul: advance signal flasher at Cortez High School: advance flasher
at Cartwright Elementary School: and push.button Rasner un Central Avenue at
Townley. near Sunny slope High School.
Tabl. 1. 4700 East Indian School l200d Speed Study-197!S
Speed 85th Percentile Average
limit Speed Impn) Speed (mph}
Condition Impn) Eastbound \oVestbound Ecsr~cund Westbound
8efore Flashers 40 38 39 3-' 34
Atter Flashers 35 42 41 37 37
Difference -5 +4 +2 -3 +3
~LILl w-.:r-.: :;~ltlh.:r-.:d IH.::ll ..1.":'111 Pl.l";;'; ~Inll
InJI~ln Sl..:huol RI);ld, \~ l1h..:h I" \'ut~lJC th~
n.l~lh:r lntlUl.:lll.:1.: :If\.';1. ,IlH.l \~-.:r\.' .;om-
;,.~;-,:d \\'llh 'rl.:\"'d,, ;1\ -1.-1111 E;l~t [llJi~1l1
)\;i1\l\lj RI);\ll, dif\,,'dh ,H Ill\.' rb~b:f (Ta-
:'i,: ~) F1<I"I1\,.'f rn\,,"\.'!lI,:;,; dId IH.t :I.:ducl..'
~i',-'..:d~, d\,,'~plll.' :h\,,' tb~lk'C r'l<1~:',\;LY ~..;~.:-
:','1\ h;l\ 11l~;1 l"'~t\.'d ~i'\.'~'ci .;: 1l11'il l\.l\\-.:r
than rIll.: rl,."i\\,~~ ~..:.-~t\'rl without rtash-
~rs,
[t W~l:- 11l'!'\,,'.1 :h.:: :hl.:"\,,' ttlshers (in-
,t~llkd ,111 _\~,~:~..:. >;-5 I \~(lulll not only
~Lff<":\.:l "r\,,"':.:~ "U: ';1<..", \\(luIJ illso in-
(';f,,;a~l.: drr\,-~ ,~\~.lr.."i\."~ (11 peuestnans.
..)" rl..'\'I\,,'\\ ,,: ,~..~~,:~.~> ,It ~h\,,' :1fft:cted
111..':lf\'~ tr:Lt'.. ..;:',: . _.'>Ii, 'itrl..';,;t :lnll In-
"
ATTACHMENT E
!T: ,':~::',":'_ ~AMjA;(V 111'11'0, JJ
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11 r I
dian School Road. showed no increa.:ic
in overall safety and no benefit to pedes.
trians or bicyclists. as shown in Table 3.
Cortez High School
The second experiment will )edeslrian
Rashers was conducted at C6nez High
School. 3300 West Dunlap. in 1976. The
school is on the south side of a six.lane
major street and had a split campus with
Cortez Park on the north side of the
street. which generated considerable pe-
destrian crossings. A traffic signal was
recommended for the school driveway.
However. the school staff was concerned
that because no local street existed,
drivers may not perceive the signa! as a
logical stopping point. This concern was
due to previous experience with a similar
midblock school traffic signal.
Flashers were therefore added to ad-
vance warning signs (about 250 feet up-
stream) in conjunction with the new traf-
fic signal. The Rashers are actuated by
pedestrians at the signal. A study was
performed to determine if the Hashers
were successful in reducing run-red vio-
lations. Table ~ summarizes the number
of illegal (run.red) maneuvers at the
Cortez School signal and a similar mid.
block school signal. W1lhout Rashers. at
Creighton School at 2800 East Mc-
Dowell. Specific findings were as fol.
lows:
. The numbers of illegal vehicle move-
ments (running the red light) were
nearly identical at the two locations.
0.26 percent at Cortez High School
compared with 0.27 percent at Creigh.
ton School.
. 1.6 percent of the vehicles penetrated
the crosswalk during the amber clear-
ance at Cortez High School. compared
with 1.3 percent at the Creighton
crosswalk. This increase was not sta-
tistically significant at the 90 percent
confidence level. Ho_. it appeared
that drivers were usiRl the advance
Rashers (which start Rashing rour sec-
onds prior to the amber light) to more
accurately gauge the beginning of the
red interval. Thus. this additional in-
formation may have induced motorists
to speed up [0 clear the signal prior to
the red interval.
In summary. Rashers were ineffective in
reducing run.red violations when vehicle
movements at J mictplock pedestrian sig-
nal with Rashers were compared with ve-
"
34 . ITE JOURNAL. JANUARY 1990
14 OF 16
Tab'. 2~ IndiGn scnool Road Sp....:t Study ('.,191_____700 East VI. "th "ace
Speed 8511'1 Percen"le Average
Umi! SP88cl (mpn) Speed (mpnl
Condttlon (mpn) EC3lbound westbound EC3lbound \oYestbound
44lIl Place 40 41 41 36 37
(No Flasnersl
4700 East 35 44 4J 38 37
(F1asners)
Oltference -5 +4 +2 +2 0
Table 3. Ace_Is at "III st. and Indian _QQI lid SIgnal
Betore Flasners
(1.t.n IhnJ 12.31-74)
TOIOI No. 01 AcCIdents 38
No. of accidents invoMng
peaestrlans/Blkes
rratfte Volumes
ACT :I A,vetClge Daily Tratftc.
Aner Flashers
(1-1.76 thnJ 12-31.78)
40
o
3
29.000 ADT
27.100 ADT
Table .. Comparison at Run.Red VIolations at Cart.. and Cre4ghtan _QQl SIgnals
Vehicles Entering ClOSSWOlk.
7:30 .o.M.--3:3O ,... ('1'0)
Locotton
Cortez School
(FlasnerJ
Creighton SCIlaol
(No nasnerJ
SP88cl
Umit
(mpn)
40
720
Total No. Total No.
Peaestrlans Vehicles
35
940
14.553 14.327 (98.41) 185 (1.32) 41 (0.27)
hide movementS at similar midbiock pe.
destrian signal without flashers.
Cartwright Elementary School
The third experiment was conducted at
59th Avenue and Thomas Road. a sig-
nalized intersection of two 6-lane major
streets. Cartwright Elementary School is
located on the southeast corner. Because
of citizen concern abom the high traffic
volumes at this intersection, the school
district assigned two crossing guards to
the signal. Experimental Rashers were
installed for the southbound and west-
bound approaches prior to the 1979-
1980 school year. Flashers were not in.
stalled on the northbound and east-
bound approaches so as to enable an
evaluation of tlasher effectiveness. The
flashers were timed to operate during the
school year and only during school cross-
ing times (7:30-8:45 A.M.. 10: [5 A.M.-
1:15 P.M.. and 1:45-3:15 P.M.). Addi-
ATTACHMENT E
11.754
On Gteen
11.534 (98.12)
On Rea
30 (0.26)
On Amber
190 (1.62)
tionally, speed limits were reduced from
45 mph to 40 mph and the Rashers were
co-mounted with oversized. advance
'.SCHOOL" signs (SI-I) and 35 mph ad.
visory speed signs.
A before-and-after evaluation con-
ducted in 1979 found no significant dif-
ference in speeds. with speeds of drivers
on the southbound approach. which had
a Rasher. being slightly higher after the
installation of Hashers. and speeds of
drivers on two other approaches showing
a slight decrease. The largest decrease
in 85th percentile speeds occurred on an
approach without flashers. as shown in
Table 5.
In an attempt to test any possible long-
term impacts of flashers, comparative
speed studies were conducted in Febru.
ary 1989. Results similar to the 1979
study were found. (See Table 6.)
There was no appreciable difference
in speeds on the four intersection ap.
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11 'I
Tabl. 5. 59th .,.. and Thomas s.,..a studl.. lefON and Alt... FIQl:h..-s Install.. on
Southbound and ""'-Ibouncl ..t.J:JlfAadl.. (19791
~ Petcentlle Speed (mph) Average Speed (mph)
- All. Before Aller
ApproOCll Rosner - Rasner DIfference Flasher Flasher Omerence
Northl>ouna No 4ll 36 -4 33 32 -I
Eastbouna No 3f 38 0 34 34 0
Southbound Ves" 36 38 +2 32 32 0
Westbouna Ves" 43 42 -1 36 34 -2
"35 men odViIorV SQMd sign on the ~ QpQlOOCMl.
Tabl. 6. 59t1t _. and Thomas CamparaIM Speed _1_ (1919)
85th
Percentlle
Speed Imph)
Approach
Flasher
POSIed
Speed (mph)
40
40
40"
40"
Northbound
Eastbound
Southbound
Westbound
No
No
Ves
Ves
44
38
40
41
Average
Speed Impn)
40
33
32
38
OJ5.mQh 0CVtS0rV SQHd sign on the nosnet' OQQfOOChes.
Table 7. Cen,",! and Tawn!., Flash. Speed Data: ..'" 'ercennl. Speed.
Aller Flasher Installed"
Flasher Flasher Flasher Not
ActtvaIed Ac1lvated Acttvated
(4 Months) (14 Months) (14 Months)
36/32 39133 40135
Southbound 35" 39134
"miles get' hour {men)
D3O-mQn ad'YiIOtV speed ~ed on app,ooch to croawatk.
C:sgHd {mClh)l5Qth percetittle speed of drtYerS (tnC)I'IJ
SPeed
Approach Umit"
Betore
Flasn."
Northbound 35"
39/35
37/32
39/34
40135
proaches even though two had Bashing
warning beacons and 35-mph advisory
speed signs. The approach with the low-
esr 85th percentile speed did not have a
Basher or the lower advisory speed sign.
There were no pedestrian accidents at
that signal during the most recent study
period (1986 through 1988). There was
one pedestrian accident iJrIolving a stue
dent crossing mid.block be_en the sig'
nal and the Basher on !be east leg during
ftasher operation in September 1988.
Sunnyslope High School
This fourth experiment with flashers oc.
curred on Central Avenue. a median-di~
vided major street with two (anes in each
direction. C~ntral Avenue has a posted
speed limit of 3S mph. Townley is a local
street that T-intersects with Central.
The crosswalk on Central at Townley is
118 mile south of a signalized major
street intersection (Dunlap). which
served as one of two access points to the
Sunnyslope High School parking lot. Pe-
destrian.actuated (push button) Bashers
were installed on October 9. 1987. The
pedestrian-actuated tlashers were
mounted with oversized. advance pedese
trian warning signs and a 30.mph advi.
sory speed sign. When activated. the ad.
vance beacons tlash for 2S seconds
allowing sufficient time to cross Central.
There are also supplemental advance
warning signs with advisory speed signs
installed in the median island without
Bashers .
Specialty warning signs advising pe-
destrians to "Use Caution When Enter-
ing the Street" were installed to com-
pensate for a possible "false sense of
security" the tlashers may give to pedes-
trians. Also. the school gate at Townley
was closed. Radar speed studies taken a
short time after Rasher installation reo
vealed a slight speed reduction (2 to 3
mph) dunng flasher actuation. Howe....er.
dri....er speeds were still slightly above the
35-mph posted speed limit and well
above the 30-mph advISOry speed posted
at the Rasher (Table 7). National studies
have repeatedly found chat drivers have
a natural tendency to reduce speeds
when pedestrians are present. Since pe.
destrian-actuated Bashers only operate
when pedestrians are present. even the
minimal 2.3 mph speed reduction may
not be attnbutable to the Basher. The
mere presence of pedestrians may have
caused the lower speeds.
Long-term speed studies were con-
ducted in February 1989. Findings mdi-
cated no flasher effectiveness. with vir.
tually identical vehicle speeds when the
flasher is operating compared with the
non-Rashing condi<ton (less than a 1-
mph difference). Funhennore. the m,.
nor impact found after the first four
months had virtually eroded. with
speeds during tlashing operation increas-
ing to become identical to the before
condition. Observations of pedestrians
at the crosswalk indicated that only one-
third of the pedestrians crossing Central
bothered to push the Basher bUllon.. The
high number of pedestrians unwilling to
push the button reBects poorly on the
Hashers' value. Closure of the school
gate to Townley was. however. highly ef.
fective in diverting large numbers of pe-
destrians to cross at the Dunlap signal.
Conclusion
In summary. national literature and local
experience in Phoenix. Arizona. show
that ftashers offer no benefit for inter.
mitten[ pedestrian crossings in an urban
environment. In addition. the longer the
flasher opera[es. the more it becomes
part of the scenery and eventually loses
any effectiveness. Flashing beacons may
be ineffective in an urban environment
because intersections are encountered
frequently by motorists and pedestrians:
ftashers therefore provide no additional
information to mmorists. AdditionaUy.
most major streets in Phoenix are flat.
straight. and allow no parking. thus of.
fering consistent and predictable driving
conditions. It is recognized that actuated
Rashers may possibly be benefiCIal in a
high~speed. rural environment WIth un.
usual geometries. high pedestrian cross.
iogs. and unfamiliar drivers. These con.
ditions. however. were not tested In thIS
study.
I ,-
: C', ,_
15 OF 16
ATTACHMENT E
lIE JOURNAL. JANUARy 1990 35
JUN 6 1995 ITEM 11
/~
The use of actuated rtashers ra,_
concern about pedestriilns expecting
drivers to slow down when the Ilashers
are aClIvated. As a result. pedestrians
could relax their guard whiIc crossing,
resulting in a less safe condia.. This is
why the Ci ty of Phoenix insiAld that the
main access to Townley at Sunnyside
High School be closed prior 10 conduct-
ing the flasher experiment and that spe.
cialty signs directing pedestrians to use
caution when entering the street be in-
stalled.
Another major concern with the use
of Rashing beacons for any jurisdiction is
umforn1llY. The YlUTCD' highlights the
need for uniformity and cautions about
the overuse of traffic control devices.
Overuse and inconsistent use of traffic
control devices lead to noncompliance
and a general lack of effectiveness. Even
morc important. overuse of traffic con-
trol devices diminishes their effective-
ness at locations where they are truly
warranted. Finally. a lack of uniformity
can expose a jurisdiction to liability, al.
lowing attorneys to "point their fingers"
at non-standard Rasher locations or at
locations that are similar but not
equipped with Rashers.
All of the pedestrian Rasher experi.
ments in Phoenix were conducted in re.
sponse to an honest. emOtional plea to
"do something:' Each of the pedestrian
flasher applications resulted in oppor-
tunities to conduct evaluations. which
have had disappointing results. One case
in point was the use of flashers at 59th
Avenue and Thomas. which were in-
stalled in response to an emotional plea
from a group of parents. Ironically. after
the Rashers were installed and during
flashing operation. the primary spokes-
person for the group wanting ftashers
was involved in a rear-end collision.
struck by a motorist who did not heed
the flasher. This can lead to the conclu.
sion that "more" is not always "better"
and that instaUing a traffic control device
36 . ITE JOURNAL' JANUARY 1990
16 OF 16
Just to "do something" may be inappro-
priate and inconsistent with good engi.
neering.
Evaluations in Phoenix have clearly
suggested that the use of flashers in an
urban environment for intermittent con-
ditions does not add to traffic safety and
should not be a recommended or en-
couraged practice.
References
1. Reiss. M.L.. and H.D. Robertson. Drivtr
~ruption of Schooi Traffic Comroi De-
vices fAbridgemelllJ. TRR Report No.
600. Washington. D.C.: Transportation
Research Board. 1976.
2. Zegeer. C. v.. and R.C. Deen. "The Ef-
fectiveness of Regulatory School Rashers
in Reducing Vehicle Speeds." Proceedings
of the InteTfUZliofIQi S,vrnposium 011 Traffic
Contro'SYSlems. Frankfort. Ky.: Kentucky
Department of Transportation. Bureau of
Highways. 1979.
3. Knoblauch. R.L.. B.H. Tustin, S.A.
Smith. and M.T. Pietcucha. lnwsllgatlon
of Exposu.re-Based Pedestriall Accidefll
Areas: Crosswaiks, Sidewaiks, Locai
Struu. and Major Arreriais. FHWA Re-
port No. RD-87-038. Washington. D.C.;
Federal Highway Administration. Center
for Applied Research. rnc.. September
1988.
4. Burrin. B.E.. R.C. Buchanan. and E.T.
Kalivoda. '.School Zone Flashers-Do
They Really Slow Traffic?" ITE: lOUT"'" 60
(January 199O); 29-31.
5. Federal Highway Administration. Manual
on UIIlform Traffic COlltrol Dcvices for
Streeu and Highways. Washington. D.C.:
U.S. Department of Transportation.
FHWA. 1978.
6. Knoblauch. R.L.. and K.L. Crigler. Model
Ptdestri4n Sa~ry Program. Uur's Guide.
Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway
Administration, Center for Applied Re-
search. Inc.. Aprill987.
7. Zegeer. C. V. Ptdtstrians and Traffic Con-
tro' Measures. National Cooperative High-
way Research Program Repon No. 139.
Washington. D.C.: Transportation Re-
search Board. November 1988.
ATTACHMENT E
J. Anzona Department of Transponation.
Schooi Sa~ry, Program GUJdeiil1a. Phoe-
nix. Ariz.: AOOT. January 1983.
9. Arizona Department ot Transportation.
Flashing Lights: Do They Reaily Slow
Traffic? Phoenix, Ariz.: ADOT. Traffic
Operations Division. 1978. I
Jame. W. Sparks is
deputy sITeer trans-
parratIon direccor
In charge of Ihe
Traffic Operations
Division of th~
CilY of PhoenIX
Slrf!f!t Transportation Department.
Sparks has been with [he Phoenix Stree[
Transpor[Qtion Department since 1971
and was intimately invol~d in the four
flasher experiments described in this pa-
p" He hcu mOrt than 25 years of prof...
sional experience in [raffic engIneering
and is one of the 32 delegat.. nationWIde
who develop. "affic control Slandard.r for
the United Stat... He hcu a bachelor's de.
gree and a master's degree in CIvil engi.
neering from Oklahoma University and
is a graduate of ihe Yale Traffic lrutitute.
Sparks is a Fellow of Ihe lrutitute.
Michael J. Cy.
necki i. a iraffic
engineering super-
visor in [he Phoe-
nix Traffic Opera.
tions Division of
Ihe City of Phoe-
nix Strut Transportation Deparrment.
He has a bachelor's and a master's degree
in civil engineering from Wayne State
University. He has been with the City of
Phoenix since 1985 and has more [han
nine years of professional traffic engi-
nuring experience. Cynecki is a Member
of the Institute.
\
JUN 6 1995
ITEM 11 t:I