Transportation Planning for Safer and More Efficient Intersections
Advisor: Ms. Ilona Covert
Internship Location: Contra Costa County Public Works
Onsite Mentor: Mr. Monish Sen
As the US population surges and will continue to do so far into the future, there has been an increasing strain on our predominantly car-centric transportation system, resulting in roads clogged with traffic, negatively impacting the economy and the environment. Many cities have incentivized the construction of higher-density housing, creating destinations closer to home. And with almost 55% of daily car trips already less than 3 miles, it necessitates robust active transportation systems (cycling, walking, etc), which can help decrease unhealthy car dependence. My project intends to find ways in which traffic light signaling can be improved to better deal with congestion and create intersection designs that can encourage active transportation by prioritizing safety and efficiency to shift to more human-oriented cities. The final product will entail a simulation of the Fremont & Mowry Intersection with new signaling techniques, a design report for safe active transportation use, and a cost report for construction costs.
Project Blog
Week 0: Introduction to the Project
Hello readers!
Welcome to the first blog post of my Senior Project. As you read through these posts you will learn the basics of traffic engineering and design along with gaining insight to the financial processes that ensure quality infrastructure.
I love to cycle, my free time is filled with scenic rides around the bay area. However it is interrupted by the harsh reality of the lack of protected cycling infrastructure. Many people get around by car, as our transportation system is built solely around them. The benefits of cycling and walking are almost completely negated by the methods of urban planning found in the US that makes car dependency such a large issue for individuals and communities.
Because of this, I have been interested in finding methods to make active transportation safer and more appealing. And as many cities have started to move towards denser and mixed-use housing, intersections will take an ever greater role in dealing with multi-modal traffic. The city of Fremont, CA has already taken large steps in upgrading signaling and building safe intersections for cyclists and pedestrians. Its success has prompted me to research better designs and construction methods.
Since 1980 there had been a downward trend in pedestrian and cyclist deaths from around 7,000 deaths to 4,000. However, after 2010 this trend has reversed, with deaths reaching the same, staggering amount as in 1980. Why? President Obama’s fuel efficiency standards for cars passed in 2009, rather than actually creating more efficient engines, car companies decided to circumvent the regulation by creating bigger cars, which had fewer restrictions on fuel efficiency. With drivers now having a harder time coming to a stop, it has been the leading cause for the massive spike in accidents with pedestrians and cyclists.
My project will look at designs that prioritize safety and efficient intersections for active transporters to induce a modal shift from driving. However due to the severely aging signaling technology found at intersections, there also need to be updates to traffic lights so that cities can take advantage of lesser traffic to introduce road diets and expand public transportation networks. It will take into account the Vision Zero policy, with the goal of zero pedestrian deaths, adopted in California and view blueprints by transportation authorities throughout the state. I also want to use a traffic simulator to better adopt the correct signaling technology and to track its effects. Finally, I want to track the costs of building this infrastructure and methods for local counties to get funding from state and federal grants.
Thank you so much for reading and stay tuned for my discoveries.
Week 1: Traffic Calming in SF and LA
Welcome back everyone to my blog!
This week I looked at Vision Zero projects and policies of two major US cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles. They taught me the design principles and changes to intersections that must be taken.
There are shared guiding principles of every Vision Zero initiative:
People will make mistakes on the road.
The consequences of these mistakes should not be death or severe injury.
Reducing vehicle speed is fundamental to safer streets.
Now that we have some more insight, let's dig deeper into the source of the problem.
There are a small portion of roadways that disproportionately account for collisions, in LA a 6% portion of roadway accounts for 70% of pedestrian deaths and severe injuries. While SF has 13% of its roadways account for 75% of severe and fatal injuries. These have occurred on what are called ‘stroads’.
A stroad is a phrase coined to describe a roadway that combines the characteristics of a street and a road but fails to effectively serve either function. A road is supposed to quickly move cars to and from a location. While a street functions as the heart of commerce within a city with low-speed traffic, lots of pedestrians, and many stores people can easily access. Stroads typically feature wide lanes, high speeds, and limited pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure. However they also have multiple access points between businesses and fast-flowing traffic, where pedestrians have the least protection. This has, unfortunately, facilitated deadly results, with almost 60% of all pedestrian deaths in the US during 2022 occurring on stroads.
That is why many cities have to decide how to treat their roadways, either as roads or streets. To make a stroad into a road it would mean reducing access points so traffic moves quicker while giving a safe space for pedestrians and cyclists. To make a stroad into a street it would require slowing traffic and prioritizing public and active transit, while also focusing on building to fill gaps and expand existing structures.
Now that we know the problem, what can we do? The need to reduce car speed at intersections as one of the main goals of vision zero projects, many traffic calming measures have been proposed to suit this goal. Shared intersection changes include: slip lane closures, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian refuge islands, and daylighting.
Getting rid of slip lanes, a separate right turn at intersections for unimpeded vehicular movement. Many cars travel at high speeds to quickly join traffic and many times there is inappropriate line of sight for drivers to see pedestrians. Instead the two cities have put in pedestrian bulb outs in place of slip lanes, having cars stay with straight bound traffic and installing large radii circles to slow down cars as they turn. I have shown an example (not in LA or SF) below where the right turn was made much sharper and required drivers to slow down, while previously they may not have even had to tap the brakes.
Before
After
Leading pedestrian intervals give pedestrians 3-7 second head start before a green light for cars, which lets them be more visible to cars and has been shown to reduce collisions by almost 60%.
Pedestrian refuge islands are a median that is intended to help protect pedestrians who are crossing a road. It reduces the length at which a pedestrian is in danger of being hit by cars and by installing these islands they can reduce pedestrian collisions by up to 56%.
Daylighting simply means getting rid of objects, such as parked cars or trees, 20-25 ft before an intersection to enhance driver visibility. As well as restricting lane width at the intersection and giving that space to the sidewalk to reduce the length pedestrians need to cross the road.
The following are some unique intersection projects related to the individual city that I wanted to highlight as they are a good first step in creating safer crossings for cyclists and pedestrians at intersections:
SF Vision Zero - Left turn calming at Montgomery St & Broadway: The left turn safety treatments consist of installing waist-high vertical delineator posts, small rubber speed bumps, and paint to create enhanced center lane lines and painted safety zones to encourage slower, wider left turns and increase drivers’ awareness of other road users. In 2019, 40% of traffic deaths in San Francisco were caused when drivers made left turns and didn’t see the person in the crosswalk, until it was too late. By adding safety treatments to intersections that encourage drivers to take left turns more slowly. Slower speeds give more time for drivers to avoid collisions and can also result in fewer fatalities in the worst instances.
LA Vision Zero - High intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) at Western Avenue: They are lights activated by a pedestrian pushing a button. HAWK signals are used to notify oncoming motorists to stop with a series of red and yellow lights at intersections at crossings that are spaced far apart from intersections to be convenient for pedestrians. These are best used at high-speed conditions or wide arterials that give faster service to pedestrians and less delay to motorists than traffic lights.
I wanted to talk about all of this to show there are a diverse set of plans that can be created to enhance pedestrian safety. These actions, however, have happened at a small scale, due to budget constrictions for both cities’ department of transportation. They could only do ‘quick build projects’, intervention for one intersection at a time. That is why when we take a look at the bigger picture, it seems more grim. Los Angeles has actually seen a slight increase in pedestrian deaths and San Francisco has seen no change in pedestrian deaths. But this doesn’t mean Vision Zero is a failure, a more optimistic view is that the projects that were completed by the city helped to stave off even greater pedestrian deaths. As post-pandemic conditions have affected cities across the country, pedestrian deaths rose by 13% even as overall travel declined. Next week I want to show some more lasting, and wide scaling projects that can be seen in Fremont through its Vision Zero policy. As well as learn what an actual traffic engineer has to say on the effectiveness of certain vision zero features and the design principles which successful projects are based upon.
Tune in next week to learn more!
Week 2: High Injury Network, Designs, and Roundabouts
This week I decided to look at the high injury network in Fremont and create some designs that promote pedestrian safety.
On Fremont’s Vision Zero Report we get to see the High Injury Network (HIN), which is basically a map that shows where fatal and severe injuries occur. Ever since Fremont adopted Vision Zero back in 2015, it has seen a remarkable reduction in pedestrian collisions.
From this I saw there are many hotspots, especially on arterial roads and intersections which tracks with what I said in the last blog. It is surprising that there are not many collisions on the interchanges for the two interstates (I-880 and I-680) that wrap around Fremont. There are injuries on intersections right next to the highways where cars are entering and exiting at extremely high speeds. The main link in almost all the crashes were high speeds that resulted in drivers reacting slower to their situation.
So what happened between 2018-2022, after Vision Zero was adopted?
Both severe and fatal crashes were almost halved! There are some of the same intersections that have collisions but instead of them being fatal they are severe. It can also be seen that there are still collisions on intersections near the two highways. A new hotspot emerged on Mission Blvd (state highway 262), where it turns from 4 lane road to an 8 lane behemoth that serves both 680 and 880, and even more traffic flowed through as the exit and entrance ramps were expanded.
After understanding the new hotspot, I created some designs for the Warm Springs Blvd & Mission Blvd that looked towards increasing transit reliability and aimed at slowing down cars at the intersection that are coming from I-880. This blueprint can also be emulated at other intersections beside highways.
Of course these are major intersections but there are still accidents at minor intersections and roads, what can be done there? The answer: Roundabouts! They have consistently shown reductions in accidents, greater traffic flows, and fewer polluting emissions. So why not put them on major intersections? Pedestrian safety does not notably increase when there are more lanes on a roundabout, these large roundabouts are more focused on letting cars through, exacerbating the issue of car dependency as it would induce car travel. On top of this, state DOT’s will have a lot of trouble building roundabouts, as they need to completely redesign the intersection or at least purchasing the right-of-ways as roundabouts do take up a lot of space. Which means money and time, these are worsened with larger and busier intersections.
Roundabouts create constant traffic flow, which has a cascading effect on arterial intersections. As traffic will start to build up on the major intersections. This can be beneficial as a few intersections deal with more cars, it lets investment on signaling and design improvements that have already gone into them and future investment have greater yield. So it would be worth it to add, say, a bus priority signal and better pedestrian or bike signaling as many modes converge on these major intersections.
Next week I will look into signaling, so this would mean understanding topics such as traffic signal optimization and finding emerging new technologies that are used abroad and in the US.
This is what I learned this week, hope you learned something new!
Week 3: Smart Signals
As technology has relentlessly progressed to newer heights, many technologies need improvement, and they risk becoming obsolete. One of these technologies is traffic signals; however, changing ALL of America’s aging traffic signals is a monumental task. Local and state DOTs should reconsider certain intersections and turn them into roundabouts or focus on other forms of transport, as I talked about in my last blog. However, many major intersections are constantly inundated with car traffic with no end in sight; the upgrades that I will discuss should be applied to them, along with making room for public and active transport.
Smart traffic signaling aims to optimize traffic flow at signalized intersections. The method of achieving this objective is to decentralize the process of signal timing and phases, using detectors at intersections. The detectors can be cameras, radars, or radio frequency devices to collect traffic volume, speed, and congestion level data. With these devices, it means that the traffic signals can make split-second decisions to respond to changes in traffic flows.
The decentralized nature of the signals makes them independently optimized. However, it is also possible to allow for signals to communicate with each other at different intersections. This lets the intersections create a ‘green wave,’ a corridor where motorists hit all green lights. The corridor with the most traffic is given green lights to aleve congestion.
So how do these newer, ‘smart’ algorithms work?
One example of smart signaling technology is Scalable Urban Traffic Control (SURTRAC), created by two Carnegie Mellon professors, which uses proprietary software integrated with existing traffic control devices for optimization. The professors did share a technical overview of the ideas that govern the operation of the SURTRAC system. Initially, “the traffic at each intersection is analyzed as a mathematical problem known as a ‘machine scheduling problem’ where traffic flows are represented as aggregates or sequences of queues of vehicles for signal allocation” ¹. These schedules are then used to determine whether there should be any phase changes. Such as continuing to give a green light or turning red so that traffic on other lanes can be let go. This control is called the ‘Schedule Driven Intersection Control’, which shares its information with the ‘Schedule Driven Coordinator’. The coordinator shares its schedule with neighboring intersections, who then input it into their own calculations for systematic optimization.
This is a system similar to other forms of systems that were created to solve the waning signal problem, such as the Adaptive Control Software (ACS), Real Time Traffic Adaptive Signal Control System (RTTRACS), and Automatic Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) ². These were developed, in part, by governmental bodies such as the Federal Highway Administration. These systems have a more centralized structure connecting them to a traffic operations center. However, it results in latency which will affect the ability to respond to real-time conditions. There have also been many new applications with AI that can even more effectively make schedules and decisions based on even rudimentary data, having the ability to improve phase scheduling.
Detecting pedestrians is equally important in adjusting signal operations, and the British created their own pedestrian detection system. The pedestrian user-friendly intelligent (PUFFIN) crossing uses active and passive detection; a pedestrian walks up to the crossing and presses the push button to cross. The "controller checks the curbside presence detector. If a pedestrian is present, the pedestrian phase is called, and a light is illuminated, informing the pedestrian of the call" ². Then, the pedestrian phase is called, and pedestrians are allowed to cross; the advantage of the system is then shown, with the phase continuing until the pedestrian is detected on the other side of the crossing. There is also the added benefit that if the pedestrian crosses when it's not their phase or leaves the detection area, the pedestrian phase is canceled, reducing delays for cars.
Now that I have learnt about many different types of smart signals that are applicable for both motorists and pedestrians, next week I will take a dive into the costs associated with these signals and how cities in the US can purchase them. This signaling technology should be paired with pedestrian friendly-designs to ensure walkability and safety.
Here are my sources for the blog:
¹Smith, Stephen, et al. Non-Market Strategy Analysis Project Report, 2014. https://www.cmu.edu/epp/people/faculty/course-reports/SURTRAC%20Final%20Report.pdf
²Fong, Gene, et al. Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe, December 2003. https://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl03020/pl03020.pdf
That’s all for today!
Week 4: Smart Signaling Costs and Contractors
To understand the costs that are associated with signals, knowing the different types of smart signals and adaptive controls, we now need to see which will work best within Fremont to serve the city's needs. The intersection that I will be basing this off of will be the intersection of two major arterial roads, Mowry & Fremont Blvd, that is the most congested intersection in the city based on data collected by the company INRIX.
Classification: The intersection is a classical suburban arterial which means that there is fluctuating pedestrian volumes throughout the day. And it usually experiences high volumes of vehicular traffic, especially during peak commuting hours. The traffic flow can vary significantly depending on the time of day, with morning and evening rush hours being the busiest. It has three lanes of straight-bound traffic with two lanes of left turning traffic then including the three lanes of straight traffic going the opposite direction it brings each side of the intersection to eight lanes. The intersection is surrounded by many commercial developments such as hospitals, shopping centers, and grocery stores. Only a few hundred feet further is suburban style housing, it also is right next to a Fremont highschool and the Fremont downtown center.
Potential Companies:
Western Systems (for Signal Cabinets)
CT West (for Traffic Signal Controllers
Iteris, Inc. (for Vehicle Video Detection System)
CT West (for Intersection Safety Analytics System)
Western Systems (for Smart Street Lighting Control System)
CT West (for Advanced Traffic Management System and Adaptive Traffic Signal Control systems)
Econolite (for Traffic Signal Performance Measure System)
Econolite (for Connected Vehicle Communication System)
ORIUX (for Traffic Counters and Classifiers)
ORIUX (for Traffic Monitors)
Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. is also an experienced contractor that has previously completed a number of traffic signal modernization and fiber optic installation projects in Fremont
Installing a smart signal on just one intersection can cost anywhere from $150,000 to $250,000 in California, this estimate is based on projects done in Fremont and San Diego as well as a report by the FHWA. And everything in our capacity should be done to reduce this figure.
Above was a list of some of the possible companies that Fremont can contract, as well as subcontractors from which they can obtain equipment. One of the major issues that delays construction projects is having a large supply chain with too many subcontractors, that each have their own profit margins to meet and different manufacturing processes. By adding another player in the supply chain you add more complexity and scopes of work, leading to more effort taken in communicating between various contractors to build the final product.
Strategies to mitigate these challenges:
Tiered Subcontracting: Consider using a tiered subcontracting approach where a smaller number of primary subcontractors manage their own teams of specialized subcontractors. This can help streamline communication and quality control.
Collaborative Planning: Implement collaborative planning techniques where all stakeholders are involved in planning the project schedule and identifying potential bottlenecks early on.
Contract Agreements: Creating stronger and more defined contract agreements in case of bad quality or mishandling.
Based on the Request for Information data the improvements for signaling on the Fremont Boulevard corridor cost more than 6 million dollars! Now that's a lot, but just procuring all the equipment from multiple subcontractors took up half of that budget ($3,524,158). That is why it is necessary for Fremont to work towards procuring for future projects and to store it on-hand, getting hopefully a better deal with a large supply call.
Next week I will start working on a traffic simulation software to implement all that I have learnt in terms of signaling up to this point. This means the blog will change from a more informational based to one of showing progress and talking about the difficulties or successes I will deal with.
Thanks!
Week 5: Traffic Simulation
Hey guys, welcome back to the blog!
This week I have begun working with the PTV Vissim traffic simulator. I worked at first understanding how the simulation works and the ins and outs of example intersections that they also created. After understanding the necessary links between roads, turns, and signal heads I was able to create a model of the Fremont & Mowry intersection. But before I could do anything else I needed to understand the real traffic flows which the intersection has to deal with. I turned to Caltrans which posts traffic volume data, more specifically the annual average daily traffic (AADT), “the mean traffic volume across all days for a year for a given location along a roadway” ¹. There was also other data which included the Monthly ADT, the average traffic over a month which can be useful for roadways that have seasonal fluctuations in traffic flows. As well as the peak hour traffic data which is pretty self-explanatory but it is the highest traffic volume found during an hour of the day, usually the evening rush hour which is anywhere between 4pm to 7pm. The simulation was only supposed to work for a small time increment so I used the peak hour values, and on mowry avenue it came out to a staggering 15,700 cars. Fremont was just a bit less with 14,000 cars over both directions. That meant my intersection had to deal with almost thirty thousand cars over the span of an hour.
Now that the volume of cars is understood I started playing with the cycle lengths of the signals and decided how much green time is given to each portion of the intersection. It seemed that by having shorter cycle lengths, and giving appropriate timing based on the amount of traffic from each direction. This may sound counter intuitive as it seems the best strategy is to give a long green light so that one direction is completely free of traffic. However, a shorter cycle with shorter greens may mean some wait in each cycle, but overall, fewer cycles are needed to get everyone through, reducing the total wait time. With this information I was able to make an intersection that could deal with this astounding amount of traffic, ONLY for the peak hour. Next week I will work towards creating detector loops to deal with traffic on non-peak hours and create safe pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian crossings will be a real challenge because with shorter green cycles I will need to figure out how pedestrians can still safely cross on time while also dealing with traffic.
Here's an image of the road network including the intersection with the red lines indicating signals, the blue lines indicating destination and the purple lines indicating area to decide which destination (blue line) to head to:
That's all for today, hope you have an amazing day!
¹Traffic Data Computation Method Pocket Guide. 2018.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl18027_traffic_data_pocket_guide.pdf
Week 6: Improving the Simulation
Welcome back to the blog folks!
As you may remember from last week, one of the goals was to create detectors that can change signal timing for non-peak hours. However, I soon realized that I wasn’t able to change the type of signal controller, I had optimized it as a fixed time signal and there was no method for me to switch the controller type. So this simulation will be the most effective for peak hours, which still taught me a lot - and hopefully you - about signaling principles.
The other goal for this week, which I was able to accomplish, was to create safe pedestrian crossings. Since I had created the signal phases to be so short it didn’t give enough green time for a pedestrian to cross the roadway in time. So I increased the signal cycle by 15 seconds based on pedestrian interaction, where I was then able to let pedestrians through along with a 2 second buffer between a green light. Which worked! There was one issue I ran into, the right turn, since it crossed two pedestrian crossings that meant there was no time in the signal cycle for cars to take a right turn. Currently, the Fremont & Mowry intersection has 3 lanes for straight bound traffic with the rightmost lane allowing both straight and right-turn traffic. The way that my signal was set up didn’t allow for that and so I had to change the rightmost lane into a right turn only lane. This meant that I was now able to freely let cars take right turns during the left turn phase of the signal cycle. And since there are two left turn lanes the right lane was free to join into the third lane.
One final idea I played with was a pedestrian refuge island. I tried to create an area in between the roadway to create a safe space for pedestrians and to reduce conflict. The way that I had created the signal phases actually protected pedestrians crossing parallel to Mowry through two green phases when heading north. So I only needed to add a pedestrian signal for pedestrians going south, letting Fremont traffic flow through. And then giving the green light again to pedestrians. I also added a refuge island for pedestrians walking parallel to Fremont but this was more to allow right turn traffic through and not build up. All that I have left is to work through some small tweaks with the right turns, whether to input a signal or a stop sign as the right turn seems to be the main cause of congestion for this intersection. Otherwise this simulation is a success!
This week has taught me a lot about the challenges that many city traffic engineers may need to face when trying to upgrade our intersections. Next week, I will work towards figuring out the cost of these upgrades and ways in which our local governments can help finance them.
Tune in next week!
Week 7: Construction Costs of Intersection Design
Welcome back to the blog folks!
This week I will be looking into some of the costs of creating pedestrian friendly infrastructure that I looked into at the beginning of this senior project. One of the main things needed for the Mowry & Fremont intersection is a refuge island to increase safety and efficiency. A report from the Federal Highway Administration in 2013 says that the median cost is $10,460¹. However, inflation and cost rises must be accounted for, increasing the cost to about $15,500. Based on the Requests for Proposal (RFP) information on the Washington Boulevard pedestrian improvement project, which created a curb bulb-out at the northeastern corner of the intersection, a four-foot wide pedestrian refuge median island within the crosswalk, a rectangular rapid flashing beacons, radar speed feedback signs, and included a buffered bike lane, it cost $482,758². The refuge island cost about $20,000 but also included general cleaning and buffering.
Unlike in my simulation the only use space for refuge islands would be on two legs of the intersection, otherwise the median is too narrow to accommodate this feature.
The Mowry & Fremont intersection already went through a remodeling that already made significant improvements. So I will record the costs of making those changes, there are many other associated costs that come into the equation such as erosion control, impromptu signals that can still direct traffic during construction, removing existing pavement and traffic markings, relocating signs and posts, and making the manholes, valve box, water meter box and gutters at grade (raising or changing the location of them).
The City of Fremont lays out the requirements of not only what to build but also the recommended quantities that contractors should have to build it. I went through the winning bid for an intersection and put together all the material and labor costs to see that it came out to $1,595,236².
Then we have to add the costs from building refuge islands which we will say was around $20,000 each, where there are two. I am assuming that there will be no need to make any more changes to water or sewer lines or any other utility.
So that means -
Total Cost: ~ $1,635,236 (since there be changes for the paint, length of the zebra crossing, and traffic stripes)
The contractor also has four subcontractors that they use for landscaping, electrical, surrey seal (resealing the pavement from any cracks), and stripe/signs. With the contractor estimating that about 44% of the work will be done by these subcontractors.
So that means that this can be the estimated cost for other such intersections within Fremont.
Now there are some ways to reduce these costs which I have discussed in previous blogs, so let's look at ways for local governments to get funding. Many grants, unfortunately, are given to cities that have a high amount of pedestrian collisions. Action is only prompted when the problem goes out of control, such as what happened to Fremont & Mowry which had 8 fatal collisions for pedestrians and cyclists over four years. The big four grants are Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)⁵, Transportation Development Act (TDA), State Transit Assistance (STA)³, and Safe Streets 4 all (SS4A)⁴ that focus on alleviating the problems with dangerous roads. Let’s take a deep dive into one specifically.
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all roads⁵. The Fremont Blvd. Complete Streets program (which created the first protected intersections in Fremont) “was funded by a HSIP grant that the City secured through a statewide competitive application process in 2016. The HSIP grant specifically funds projects that address documented safety issues and have a high ratio of safety benefits relative to the project cost” ².
That’s all for today! Hope you learned something new!
¹“Pedestrian & Bicycle Information Center.” Www.pedbikeinfo.org, www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf.
²“Completed Public Works Projects.” City of Fremont, fremont.gov, www.fremont.gov/government/departments/public-works/public-works-projects/completed-public-works-projects. Accessed 16 Apr. 2024.
³“Transportation Development Act (TDA) & State Transit Assistance (STA) | Metropolitan Transportation Commission.” Mtc.ca.gov, 17 Mar. 2021, mtc.ca.gov/funding/regional-funding/transportation-development-act-tda-state-transit-assistance-sta\. Accessed 17 Apr. 2024.
⁴“Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program | US Department of Transportation.” Www.transportation.gov, www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A.
⁵“Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) | FHWA.” Highways.dot.gov, highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip.
Week 8: Finalizing the Cost Report and New Grants
Hey everyone!
This week was not that hectic as it usually would be, and that's because I am nearly done with my Senior Project!
What I mostly did was finalize my cost report and start working on the final presentation. However I did learn some new information that I did want to share with you.
Last week, I talked about some major grants that cities in the East Bay can use to fund their transportation projects that advance pedestrian and cyclist safety. I actually discovered a new grant that was just recently established; the Safe Routes to BART (SR2B) Grant that was established in 2020 to build up active transportation routes to BART stations ¹. With about $77 million allocated for funding, with that money being split up for yearly cycles of grants awarded to transit agencies ¹. The grants, however, only cover up to 35% of the total cost of the project unless a transit agency can demonstrate the need for full funding. I found out about this grant when looking at the funding for the Walnut Avenue/Liberty Street Intersection Improvement Project ².
Along with this, my project focuses on making a sweeping change to the design of intersections to improve multi-model mobility. However, cities can still make protected intersections for a lot cheaper than what Fremont has been doing in terms of Quick Build Projects with the disadvantage being that it is not as safe as the Fremont protected intersections but it does mean that a lot more projects can be done to create a strong system of bike lanes and intersections. An example of this can be seen in Berkeley which made its first protected intersection in 2016 at Hopkins St & The Alameda, which adds concrete islands for cyclists. And this project was done for only $180,000 ³! Oakland was able to make a similar type of intersection for even cheaper, opting to use bollards instead of concrete which made construction cost only $100,000 ³. A far shot from the millions of dollars spent by Fremont, this was only to show that there are still different routes cities can take based on their priorities and existing infrastructure.
Hopkins St & The Alameda intersection at Berkeley
That's all for this week, I hope you learned something new!
¹Safe Routes to BART (SR2B). https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/SR2B%20C2%20Guidelines.pdf
²“Completed Public Works Projects.” City of Fremont, fremont.gov, www.fremont.gov/government/departments/public-works/public-works-projects/completed-public-works-projects. Accessed 25 Apr. 2024.
³“Protected Intersection Update: What’s Next? - Streetsblog San Francisco.” Sf.streetsblog.org, 31 Oct. 2019, sf.streetsblog.org/2019/10/31/protected-intersection-update-whats-next. Accessed 25 Apr. 2024.
Week 9: Finishing Touches
Hi, welcome back!
As my senior project wraps up, I started to put the finishing touches to my final products. I made sure the citations were correct, grammar checked out, and that everything was kept to a professional level.
There were some challenges in trying to create the conclusions for my papers, both signaling and design are so intertwined it was hard not to reference my other paper. However, in the end I did talk about a similar final goal at the end of both papers.
I also had to work on creating a description for my traffic simulation, which was a good way to recall everything I had learned so far and try to communicate in the most clear and concise manner.
Next week I will be wrapping up my final presentation and be presenting my findings soon!
Hopefully I can see some of you there.
Until next time!
Week 10: The Finale!
Welcome to my final blog post!
This week I worked on finalizing my final presentation and doing practice sessions to see what can be improved. The hardest task was to try and synthesize everything I learned to make sure it is below the presentation time allotted to me. Along with this it was a challenge to design the slides in a concise and simple manner, not having too many pictures or text. All in all, the presentation was mostly effortless to create and I tried my best to convey the passion and significance of my project.
Thank you to everyone who stuck with me for this educational journey, it does mean a lot.
Happy learning!