NACTO Urban Street Design Guide Webinar, presented by APBP

I found it difficult to find the webinar on the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, so I am reposting it here. My portion of the presentation is at 53:22 and it is focused on Design Controls.

What does the Signal Timing described in the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide look like?

Giving a little more thought to the signal timing in the Urban Street Design Guide brings me back to a post I created three years ago. The post on Quarter Cycle Offsets is currently the most popular on my blog. It is a little surprising to me because that is a very wonky thing to read about and difficult to understand. Quarter cycle offsets works in Portland because of the short block spacing and the resulting short cycle length. Given those two constraints, what does it look like. Well of course, there's a video for that here:
Portland SW 6th Green Wave Signal Timing from Peter Koonce on Vimeo.

It's not just 6th, but 4th as well.

 

Flashing Yellow Arrows for Protected Permitted Left Turns

There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about Flashing Yellow Arrows. It's actually died down quite a bit, but I found this National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study that summed up one of the thoughts that colleagues of mine have had for awhile: "It was clear from the results that converting from protected phasing to FYA operation (third scenario) leads to a dramatic increase in left-turn crashes" - NCHRP 705 - Summary Page 4.

Now, I think there's a place for Flashing Yellow Arrows in signal timing, it just appears that there needs to be some pretty careful thought on when and where they are applied. I think it is a bit telling when the report summarizes the results and puts that sort of language in the Summary of the paper.

Given this, there has been some good work on applying Flashing Yellow Arrows creatively based on a gap seeking criteria in traffic signal controllers. What this means is that the FYA only is shown when it is likely that a driver would find an acceptable gap and the pedestrian intervals are complete at an intersection. One last piece of the puzzle is the occasional person on a bicycle that is using the facility that perhaps isn't visible due to an adjacent automobile blocking the view of the person trying to complete the left turn at the intersection.

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide Write up on Left Turn Phasing

ADDED: FEBRUARY 10, 2014: Atlantic Cities did a post titled "Which Traffic Signals are Best?" The same language problems I tried to correct with Signal Phasing in these edits were from the original research on the topic.

I edited the Split Phasing page with some general guidance on "Left Turn Phasing Options". I am uncertain if it will make the second edition, but I think this provides more balanced language on left turn options. Most traffic engineers will not endorse split phasing because it is often inefficient and it may require two separate pedestrian timing intervals and generally higher cycle lengths.

Here's some thoughts.

Phase 1 (5-15 Seconds) Protected Left Turns

Left turns protected at the intersection are separated in time from pedestrians and related conflicting through traffic (including bicycle traffic).

Phase 2 (20-40 Seconds)

People walking require sufficient WALK and pedestrian clearance (Flashing DON’T WALK) time to cross the street. WALK time should be maximized where possible to reduce the potential for delay. Right-turning traffic is given the green light concurrent with pedestrians. Turning traffic yields to pedestrians in the crosswalk. A leading pedestrian interval can be used to help people establish their position in the intersection prior to the start of vehicle green.

Restricting Left Turns Phase 3

Restricting left turns eliminates the conflict between left turns and pedestrians. This treatment may shift the conflict to a more desirable location. Left turns have been successfully implemented by time of day in many cities (Reference: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08024/chapter4.htm#4.3).  

Application

Protected left turn signal design has multiple warrants throughout the literature, primarily focused on automobile volumes. The need to address safety has recently been evaluated, but still primarily focused on reducing crashes on highways (Reference: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_705.pdf). For the urban setting, subtle, variations in these principles are necessary to prioritize multimodal safety and efficient movement of people and goods. In general, separation of either all movements on opposite approaches, or of specific movements, such as left turns improve safety. The separation comes with the tradeoff of longer cycle lengths.

Restricting left turns by time of day or entirely can serve to address the safety of all users on the street and reducing conflicts that can result in traffic congesting a corridor.

Protected phasing is most often applied in the following situations

• Intersections with history of collisions between left-turning and through vehicles, potentially resulting from geometric constraints or heavy conflicting volumes.
• At locations where pedestrians or cyclists may experience risk associated with left turning traffic relying on the acceptance of gaps
• Where a large skew at an intersections poses a serious risk to oncoming vehicles or pedestrians and may be functionally enhanced through separation.

Benefits and Considerations

Protected left-turn phasing can help reduce the overall risk of pedestrian injury and decreases the potential for crashes.

Use of split-phasing may increase the overall signal cycle length, reducing the overall time available for pedestrian crossings and increasing wait times for all movements.

While split-phasing operations bear consideration in certain locations, a city may elect to restrict left turns entirely or for specific portions of the day when risk of collision is most acute, as an alternative.

Exclusive (Restricting Left Turns) Phasing

Eliminating left turns at an intersection is most often applied in the following situations

• Intersections in a grid network of streets with adjacent intersections that may be better able to handle additional phases in the signalized intersection (depending on block length).
• At locations where pedestrians or cyclists may experience risk associated with left turning traffic.
• Intersections where crossing traffic is significantly high and person carrying capacity may be a higher priority than local automobile accessibility.

Benefits

Eliminating the left turn movement at a particular location reduces the total lost time for the intersection, thus increasing the person carrying capacity of the intersection and reduces the overall cycle length.

Elimination of the left turn also reduces the conflict between through moving traffic and left turns, resulting in an improvement in safety.

Traffic Signal Systems Committee Meeting Agenda

Traffic Signal Systems Committee

Marriott Wardman Park - Wilson B&C
Monday, January 13th, 2014
Peter Koonce, Chair        Susan Langdon, Secretary       Tom Urbanik, New Emeritus Member

1:30 PM Welcome, Introductions, Approval of Minutes

1:45 PM TRB Report, Rich Cunard

1:55 PM FHWA Reports, Eddie Curtis, Paul Olson, Rick Denney

2:15 PM Task Force/Subcommittee Reports

• TRB Paper Review – Eleni Christofa
• Best Paper – Paul Olson
• Infrastructure Performance Measurement/Asset Management – Paul Olson
• Multimodal- Kevin Lee
• Simulation – Brian Park
• Signal Timing – Jim Powell
• Technology & Standards - Doug Gettman
• Research – Alex Stevanovic
• Subcommittee Liaisons - To be determined

3:15 PM Break

3:45 PM NCHRP Project Updates – Ray Derr

4:10 PM Committee Rotation – Peter Koonce

4:15 PM Triennial Strategic Plan – Peter Koonce & Ali Hajbabaie

• Review draft of plan, provide comments

4:45 PM  2014 Summer Meeting Workshop – Peter Koonce

• Refinement of topics to be discussed, solicitation of field trip ideas

5:00 PM Other Business – Peter Koonce

• E-mail peter.koonce@portlandoregon.gov in advance if you have an item to share

5:30 PM Adjourn

Accomplishments Related to Bicycles in Portland

A recent member of the Portland Transportation Twitterati queried about what the agency's best bike project was in 2013. It made me think about what accomplishments we have made with Traffic Signals in the past year (specifically related to bicycle traffic).

1. Implemented a new bike signal at SW 5th & Jackson associated with Portland to Milwaukie Light Rail construction. That project has taken up a lot of our staff time. 
2. Implemented Bicycle/Bus Signal at 5th & Broadway 
3. Edited Bicycle Signals language for the consideration of the Federal Highway Administration's inclusion in the next edition of the MUTCD.
4. Incorporated bicycle detection confirmation (blue lights) at several traffic signals focused on bicycle traffic. 
5. Retimed traffic signals for NE Multnomah in support of cycletrack on the corridor.
6. Implemented pedestrian push buttons on N Vancouver & Williams to improve north-south capacity for multimodal traffic.
7. Initiated evaluation of bicycle warning sign (NE Grand and Couch)
8. Tested bicycle specific detection at SE Cesar Chavez & Lincoln (multiple technologies)
9. Implemented SE 14th contraflow bicycle lane between SE Bybee and Llewellyn School 
10. Implementing 4" nearside signal head at Rosa Parks (still awaiting repaired signal) 
11. Supported roadway reorganizations with technical analysis for PBOT projects on NE Glisan and SE Division to support improved safety (bicycle lanes were added on SE Division)

This sort of reflection is helpful, it's time to set some goals for 2014. I should go through this process for every mode.

There's a lot of work that happens that is just day to day making traffic signals better for people on bicycles. Today, I fielded a complaint that I have visited before on my bicycle, but figured that not many people use that street, so it wasn't worth fixing if I was the only one using the street via bicycle. Well, the customer is always right and in this case, there is a really minor change that can be made to make the signal "accessible" for someone on a bicycle (the signal head wasn't visible from someone in the bicycle lane AND there wasn't detection in the bicycle lane). 

Design Details for People on Bicycles

This beacon was installed to help people on the I-205 cross SE Division Street. The original design was recently enhanced to provide an additional push button on the "right hand side" of the street. The added  pole to the intersection and resulting costs were something that could be debated as whether it was necessary, but the additional pole eliminates the need for people  to cross the oncoming multimodal traffic. The added pole frames the crossing and for an oncoming bicycle eliminates the need to cross to reach the push button on the left hand side of the "street".

 It's not a major issue, but it is somethign that has come up on several occasions. As we have been building infrastructure that is designed for more than just for people walking, these sorts of design details seem worth sharing, so cycling is more intuitive and that users expect a push button or a signal indication on the right hand side of the street.