A report on determining which pedestrian crosswalks are in need of additional on street signage

This memo is in response to Order 6 from the October 31, 2016 City Council Meeting (Awaiting Report 16-84) to review standard practices for installing in-street pedestrian warning signs. To provide a clear response to this question, it is important to provide the overall context for the types of crosswalk warning signs we install, and how we make decisions about which type of signs we install at specific locations. 1. When the Department receives requests for improved signage, we typically first review whether side-mounted pedestrian warning signs (see Figure 1) are in place. These types of post-mounted pedestrian warning signs provide the most durable, visible, and cost effective installation, as compared to in-street warning signs. Our goal is to install these types of signs at all crosswalks located at crossings that are not signal or STOP controlled. 2. Installations of the type of in-street pedestrian warning signs (see Figure 2) discussed in the original Policy Order are reviewed on a case-by-case basis dependent on several factors related to driver behavior and existing street conditions. There are several conditions that are taken into consideration when determining whether to install this type of signage at a specific location:  Roadway width: Placement of an in-street sign at locations with narrow lanes typically result in frequent damage and movement of the sign.

Where narrow lanes are adjacent to bicycle lanes, the in-street signs cause drivers to shy away from the sign and encroach into the bicycle lanes, which can decrease cyclist comfort and/or safety.  Truck turning movements: At locations adjacent to a side street, the swept path of a turning truck may not allow for placing any objects on the centerline of the roadway.  Maintenance: We typically only places signs at locations where adjacent residents and/or business owners are willing to agree to assist in maintaining the placement of the sign Figure 2 Figure 1 Page 2 of 2 within the roadway and helping relocate the sign if it moves from the intended location.

The in-street signs frequently require relocation after they are struck by trucks and other vehicles, and it is not feasible for us to monitor the placement on a daily basis.

Given the number of unsignalized crosswalks in Cambridge, it is not realistic for staff to proactively analyze every crosswalk to determine if there is a need for in-street pedestrian signs.

As a result, evaluation of whether to install in-street signs is generally done based on requests from the local community, particularly if there appears to be a particular problem with driver yielding behavior. 3. At locations where unsignalized crosswalks exist on higher volume roads such as Massachusetts Avenue and Prospect Street, we would also review whether it is appropriate to install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs; see Figure 3) in order to enhance driver yielding and improve pedestrian safety and comfort. We expect to install these at several locations as part of the Safer Crosswalks for Busy Roads project that was funded in the FY18 Participatory Budgeting cycle. RRFB’s provide a flashing yellow strobe that is push button activated. Research has shown that these devices dramatically increase driver yielding behavior, but they also cost significantly more than standard crosswalk signs.

Figure 3