On May 11, 2015, an elderly Coronado resident was struck and killed while trying to cross Fourth Street at A Avenue. At 30 mph the risk of death is 45 percent and of injury 95 percent. As noted by the AAA risks vary greatly by age, the “average risk of severe injury or death for a 70-year old pedestrian struck by a car traveling at 25 mph is similar to the risk for a 30-year-old pedestrian struck at 35 mph.”
At a special meeting on June 23, the City Council accepted the recently completed Caltrans speed survey that will result in an increase in the speed limit on Third and Fourth Streets between the bridge and Orange Avenue to 30 mph. However, once the speed survey is certified by Caltrans it will allow the Police Department to use LIDAR, a laser device for measuring the speed of a vehicle, to enforce it more effectively. The Council also took the following actions:
- Directed the City Manager to immediately increase traffic enforcement on Third and Fourth Streets using available resources and to come back with options for how to accomplish the increase in enforcement;
- Agreed to install four vehicle speed feedback signs, two each on Third and Fourth Streets; and
- Directed staff to develop a plan to paint the posted speed limit on each travel lane of Third and Fourth Streets to remind motorists of the speed limit and to return at a future meeting with a plan to add signs on Third Street at A, B, and C Avenues recommending that pedestrians cross Third at Orange Avenue.
Actions tabled by the Council consisted of the following:
Hiring pedestrian crossing guards to increase pedestrian safety;
Implementing a pedestrian flag program in which pedestrians would be provided with small yellow flags to improve their visibility when they tried to cross Third and Fourth Streets; and
Installing marked crosswalks and erecting “Yield to Pedestrians” signs on Third and Fourth Streets at A, B, and C Avenues.
The fact that the measures adopted by the City Council are only a stop gap and will not improve safety for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians on Third and Fourth Streets in the long term is summed up in the following quote that Coronado Police Chief Jon Froomin provided to ABC 10 News after the meeting,
“We can do enforcement all day long, it’s not going to have the impact that you could have with an engineering change whether it’s narrowing roadways, traffic signals, some other type of device that will slow traffic on a regular basis.”
The Chief’s quote also reflects the sentiments expressed in the following motion adopted by the City Council when it met on June 2.
“Caltrans recent speed survey indicates actual speeds on Third and Fourth exceed reasonable levels for those neighborhoods; that these speeds are the result of the design of the highway; that Coronado wishes to accommodate use of the streets by all users; that Caltrans and the City should work to redesign Third and Fourth to maintain speeds that are compatible for the residential neighborhood and accessible to all modes of transportation; and that the City Council does not support increasing the speed limit from 25 to 30.”
Following are highlights from the staff report that was provided to the City Council for its consideration at the June 23 meeting:
The previous speed survey expired on January 24, 2015, and without a valid speed survey, law enforcement cannot use radar/LIDAR, the most effective and safest means to enforce the speed on a roadway. Accordingly, the most pragmatic strategy is to have Caltrans finalize its speed survey, which will permit the use of LIDAR while the city explores short and longer-term measures “to reduce the engineered speed of the roadway,” and then to have a new speed survey conducted once these improvements are implemented.
In a memo to the City Council the Police Chief states that enforcement is one of the three components of traffic management: engineering, education, and enforcement. Traffic enforcement is directed at reducing collisions by changing driver behavior. Traffic data indicates the need to focus enforcement on Third and Fourth Streets east of Orange Avenue, at the intersections of Fourth Street and Orange Avenue and Ninth Street and Orange Avenue, and on the Strand. The data indicates that in 2014 and in 2015 to date, 64 percent of the collisions have been the result of unsafe turning or right-of-way violations. “These have been exclusively related to traffic (auto, bike, and pedestrians) entering or crossing Third Street or Fourth Street from one of the side streets. Many of these violations are related to cross traffic incorrectly assessing the severity of the hazard of oncoming traffic before entering the intersection to cross. The factors that need to be considered are the approximate speed of the traffic in all three lanes and the distance traffic is from the point of crossing. The more lanes of traffic being traversed, the higher the degree of difficulty in accurately assessing this information and the more difficult it is for oncoming traffic to see and react to cross traffic. All of this contributes to the dangers related to this area.”
During 2014 and 2015 between 20 and 25 percent of all citations and written warnings issued have been for violations on Third and Fourth Streets, which is consistent with the fact that between 21 and 25 percent of all collisions resulted from accidents on these streets. Despite the inability to use LIDAR, Coronado police have written more citations and warnings on Third and Fourth Streets in the first five months of 2015 than in the same period in 2014.
Caltrans manual on traffic control devices allows the installation of Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs. These signs typically identify the speed of passing vehicles through the use of radar embedded in the sign and inform passing drivers of their speed on a digital display. The city currently operates two of these signs, which can be rotated to 10 different locations in the city where monitoring posts have already been installed. (One of these signs is located on Second Street near the hospital.) The effectiveness of these signs in reducing the speed of traffic is dependent on a number of factors. The city staff was unable to locate data on the effectiveness of these signs where they had been installed along a multi-lane roadway, outside of a school zone, similar to Third and Fourth Streets. In general research indicates a reduction of one to five miles per hour can be expected immediately after a speed feedback sign is installed, but a sign’s effectiveness declines over time. The staff suggested two locations for signs: one between A and B Avenues on Fourth Street and the other on Pomona at A Avenue. Caltrans has “implied” that it would be willing to install feedback signs and would need to approve their locations. The installed cost of each sign would be between $10,000 and $15,000.
“No Pedestrian Crossing” signs may be used to prohibit pedestrians from crossing a roadway at an undesirable location or in front of a school or other public building where a crossing is not designated. These signs are typically used at signalized intersections that have three crossings that can be used and one leg that cannot be crossed. Although no studies or statistics were found by the staff on the effectiveness of these signs, anecdotal evidence and observations suggest that these signs are often ignored, if a pedestrian is required to go a considerable distance out of their way. If a “No Pedestrian Crossing” sign was installed on B Avenue at Fourth Street, a pedestrian would have to travel 1,400 to 1,500 feet to utilize the protected signalized crossing at Orange Avenue. In the opinion of the City Staff, “pedestrians who are unfamiliar with Coronado may follow the signs. In this regard, the signs could be effective. The restriction may be ignored by other pedestrians. The restriction may also have the unintended effect of leading pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations.”
Crossing guards are trained to assist pedestrians in safely crossing the street. Most crossing guards work in the areas of schools to assist children to and from school. Although there is no specific guidance in the manual on traffic control devices regarding their use, the City Engineer does not recommend the use of crossing guards without installing a marked crosswalk. Further, warrants for crosswalks on multi-lane roadways require additional engineering enhancements to improve pedestrian safety.
The City has used paid school crossing guards for several years. Currently, paid crossing guards are used at four intersections in Coronado. (Editorial note: One of these intersections is Seventh Street and Orange Avenue. Providing a crossing guard at this location is tacit acknowledgement by the city that pedestrians, in this case school children, will not go out of their way to cross the street since there is a traffic signal at Sixth Street, a “safe route to schools,” which is approximately 600 feet from the intersection at Seventh and Orange.) The annual budget for this service is $62,000 and the crossing guard contract charges $42 per hour for guards on a split schedule. If crossing guards were implemented at two intersections, on a split shift for seven hours per day, only on weekdays, the annual cost could be $154,000.
When crossing guards are late or do not show up, police personnel are used in their place. The Staff report notes that, “parents have come to expect that this assistance will be provided at the assigned crossing guard locations. Guards placed in other locations could result in a similar expectation. Reassigning Police Department personnel to these types of duties impacts the work which they would normally be performingÂ… once introduced at one intersection, residents may begin wanting/expecting them at other intersections.”
The concept of a pedestrian flag program is to place a container of handheld, brightly colored flags at each end of a crosswalk and to instruct pedestrians to carry one with them while crossing the intersection. Although there is no specific guidance in the manual on traffic control devices regarding their use, the City Engineer does not recommend instituting the use of pedestrian flags without installing a marked crosswalk. Further, warrants for crosswalks on multi-lane roadways require additional engineering enhancements to improve pedestrian safety.
Pedestrian flag programs started as early as 1995. In Seattle, the program was discontinued. The department of transportation observed that, “having a flag available does seem to make pedestrians more visible to motorists; however, there was not a consistent pattern of improved compliance by motorists.” In Berkeley, a three-year pilot program was found to be extremely costly ($10,000) due to continuously having to replace flags due to theft. Surveys by city staff indicated that the flags were used as intended by only two percent of pedestrians, and the use of the flags did not have a noticeable effect upon driver behavior. The program was discontinued. Salt Lake City currently has 47 crossing flag locations in its downtown. The program is judged to have made neighborhoods safer and raised community-pedestrian safety awareness. Field studies conducted as part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) project found pedestrian crossing flags in Salt Lake City and Kirkland, Washington to be moderately effective.
On the plus side, the flags are highly visible and a program increases public awareness. On the negative side it requires constant upkeep and maintenance: replacing flags and ensuring flags are distributed on both side of the intersection. It is costly to maintain flags due to theft and wear and tear, and the need to carry a flag can create an impediment if a pedestrian is carrying something and their hands are full. In addition, carrying a flag creates a false sense of security. Finally, over long periods of time, the program trains drivers to look for bright colored flags making them less aware of actual pedestrians. It could have adverse impacts at intersections without flags.
For additional background on this topic see the following eCoronado articles, “Transportation Commission Recommends Major Traffic Calming and Safety Improvements, Including Stoplights, to Third and Fourth Streets,” dated June 13, 2015; “Caltrans Proposed Speed Increase Adds Insult to the Fatality and Injuries Suffered on Third and Fourth Streets,” dated May 31, 2015; and “Third and Fourth Streets Speed Limits Under Review,” dated March 24, 2015.
John Tato
Staff Writer
