U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
| REPORT |
| This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
 |
| Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-16-040 Date: July 2016 |
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-16-040 Date: July 2016 |
PDF Version (4.98 MB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
The overall goal of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program is to improve safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. The program strives to make it safer and easier for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers to share roadways through the development of safer crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian technologies as well as through the expansion of educational and safety programs.
This report documents an FHWA project that includes four studies that investigated how characteristics of rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs) and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) affected the likelihood of drivers yielding to a pedestrian. The results of this project supported the development of two Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices official interpretations for the RRFB: Official Interpretation #4(09)-41 (I)—Additional Flash Pattern for RRFBs and Official Interpretation #4(09)-58 (I)—Placement of RRFB Units Above Sign.(1–3) The overall 96 percent high yielding for PHBs identified in this research, along with findings from previous studies, support the use of this device at a variety of locations, such as on high-speed roads, wide roads, and at residential intersections.
This report should be of interest to engineers, planners, and other community authorities who share an interest in safeguarding the lives of roadway users, especially pedestrians.
Monique R. Evans
Director, Office of Safety
Research and Development
Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page
| 1. Report No.
FHWA-HRT-16-040 |
2. Government Accession No. | 3 Recipient's Catalog No. | ||
| 4. Title and Subtitle
Evaluation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and Rapid Flashing Beacons |
5. Report Date July 2016 |
|||
| 6. Performing Organization Code | ||||
| 7. Author(s)
Kay Fitzpatrick, Raul Avelar, Michael Pratt, Marcus Brewer, James Robertson, Tomas Lindheimer, and Jeff Miles |
8. Performing Organization Report No.
|
|||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Texas Transportation Institute |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) |
|||
| 11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-08-D-00032, Task Order #8 |
||||
| 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Safety Research and Development |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Technical Report: |
|||
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
|
||||
| 15. Supplementary Notes
The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative was Ann Do, HRDS-30. |
||||
| 16. Abstract
Two pedestrian treatments receiving national attention are the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) and the pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB). These devices have unique characteristics that produce improved vehicle stopping and yielding to crossing pedestrians. This Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project includes multiple studies to help refine these devices. A closed-course RRFB study measured the time to determine the position and direction of a cutout representation of a pedestrian on a crosswalk to identify conditions that produced faster and more accurate recognition. Placing the beacons above rather than below the warning sign produced better recognition. A following open-road study investigated driver yielding when the beacons were located above and below the warning sign at 13 sites. Results indicated that any differences between the above and below positions were minor and statistically insignificant. With the apparent benefits identified from the closed-course study (i.e., lower discomfort and improved ability to detect the pedestrian) and the lack of difference in driver yielding, locating the beacons above the sign could improve the overall effectiveness of this treatment. FHWA issued an official interpretation in early 2016 to permit the placement of the beacons above the sign.(3) An open-road study was also conducted to determine driver yielding for different RRFB flash patterns at eight sites, seven of which were four-lane crossings with 40- or 45-mi/h speed limits. The patterns selected for evaluation were the 2-5 flash pattern (two flashes on one side followed by five flashes on other side) that was currently in use, a pattern using a combination of wig-wag and simultaneous (WW+S) flashes, and a pattern using a combination of long and short flashes called “blocks.” The statistical analysis showed no statistical significant difference between patterns; in other words, the newer patterns were as effective as the 2-5 flash pattern. As a result, FHWA issued an official interpretation indicating the preference for the WW+S pattern.(2) In the final study, behaviors at PHBs were investigated. The PHB has shown great potential in improving safety and driver yielding; however, questions have been asked regarding actual driver and pedestrian behavior. For the 20PHB sites in the open-road study, driver yielding to pedestrians averaged 96percent. Overall, 91 percent of the pedestrians pushed the pushbutton to activate the PHB in the crosswalk. A greater percentage number of pedestrians activated the device when on 45-mi/h posted speed limit roads as compared to roads with posted speed limits of 40 mi/h or less. |
||||
| 17. Key Words
Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon, Pedestrian hybrid beacon, RRFB, PHB, Pedestrian crossing, Driver yielding to pedestrians, Pedestrian crosswalk |
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. |
|||
19. Security Classification Unclassified |
20. Security Classification Unclassified |
21. No. of Pages 165 |
22. Price | |
| Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) | Reproduction of completed page authorized |
SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
| ADT | average daily traffic | |
| ANOVA | analysis of variance | |
| BEC | beyond end of cycle | |
| CRFB | circular rapid-flashing beacon | |
| DF | degrees of freedom | |
| FHWA | Federal Highway Administration | |
| GLMM | generalized linear mixed effects model | |
| HAWK | high-intensity activated crosswalk | |
| IA | interim approval | |
| IQR | interquartile range | |
| LED | light-emitting diode | |
| LMM | linear mixed effects model | |
| LT | left-turn movement originating from the major street | |
| LT1 | left-turn movement originating from the minor street | |
| MOE | measure of effectiveness | |
| MUTCD | Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices | |
| NCHRP | National Cooperative Highway Research Program | |
| NPA | Notice of Proposed Amendment | |
| NCUTCD | National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices |
|
| PHB | pedestrian hybrid beacon | |
| RRFB | Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon | |
| RT2 | right-turn movement originating from the minor street | |
| SAE | Society of Automotive Engineers | |
| SSD | stopping sight distance | |
| STC | Signals Technical Committee | |
| TAMU | Texas A&M University | |
| TCS | traffic control signal | |
| TH1/TH2 | through movements on the minor-street approaches | |
| TTI | Texas A&M Transportation Institute | |
| TWLTL | Two-way left-turn lane | |
| WW+S | wig-wag and simultaneous |
