|FHWA Policy Memorandums|
|U.S. Department of Transportation|
|Federal Highway Administration|
Sent via Electronic Mail
|Subject:||INFORMATION: MUTCD - Interim Approval
Optional Use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11)
|Date:||July 16, 2008|
T. Furst/s/ Anthony T. Furst
Acting Associate Administrator
Acting Chief Financial Officer
Directors of Field Services
Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers
Resource Center Director
Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to issue an Interim Approval for the optional use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) as warning beacons under certain limited conditions. Interim Approval allows interim use, pending official rulemaking, of a new traffic control device, a revision to the application or manner of use of an existing traffic control device, or a provision not specifically described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Background: The Florida Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the city of St. Petersburg, has requested that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issue an Interim Approval to allow the use of RRFBs as warning beacons to supplement standard pedestrian crossing and school crossing warning signs at crossings across uncontrolled approaches. The RRFB does not meet the current standards for flashing warning beacons as contained in the 2003 edition of the MUTCD, Chapter 4K which requires a warning beacon to be round in shape and either 8 or 12 inches in diameter, to flash at a rate of approximately once per second, and to be located no less than 12 inches outside the nearest edge of the warning sign it supplements. The RRFB uses rectangular-shaped high-intensity LED-based indications, flashes rapidly in a wig-wag "flickering" flash pattern, and is mounted immediately between the crossing sign and the sign's supplemental arrow plaque.
Research on the RRFB: The city of St. Petersburg has completed experimentation with the RRFB at 18 pedestrian crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches and has submitted their final report. In addition to "before" data, the city collected "after" data at intervals for 1 year at all sites and for 2 years at the first 2 implemented sites. For the first 2 sites, the city collected data for overhead and ground-mounted pedestrian crossing signs supplemented with standard round yellow flashing beacons, for comparison purposes, before the RRFBs were installed. The data show very high rates of motorist "yield to pedestrians" compliance, mostly in the high 80s to close to 100 percent, in comparison to far lower rates (in the 15 to 20 percent range) for standard beacons. The very high yielding rates are sustained even after 2 years in operation, and no identifiable negative effects have been found. The RRFB's very high compliance rates are previously unheard of for any device other than a full traffic signal and a "HAWK" hybrid signal, both of which stop traffic with steady red signal indications. The St. Petersburg data also shows that drivers exhibit yielding behavior much further in advance of the crosswalk with RRFB than with standard round yellow flashing beacons. These data clearly document very successful and impressive positive experience with the RRFBs at crosswalks in that city.
In addition to the St. Petersburg locations, experimentation is underway at 3 sites in Miami-Dade County, FL, 4 sites in Largo, FL, and 2 sites in Las Cruces, NM, and RRFBs are being installed at 3 sites in northern Illinois. Additionally, the District of Columbia has installed RRFBs at one crosswalk and plans to request experimentation with RRFB at several sites. Data from locations other than St. Petersburg is limited but does show results very similar to those found in St. Petersburg. A study of 2 RRFB locations in Miami-Dade County, FL, reported in a TRB paper, found that evasive conflicts between drivers and pedestrians and the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the center of an undivided road because of a non-yielding driver in the second half of the roadway were both significantly reduced to negligible levels. Data so far from the one RRFB site in DC shows driver yielding compliance rates increased from 26 percent to 74 percent after 30 days in operation and advance yielding distances also increased comparable to the St. Petersburg results.
FHWA Evaluation of Results: The Office of Transportation Operations has reviewed the available data and considers the RRFB to be highly successful for the applications tested (uncontrolled crosswalks). The RRFB offers significant potential safety and cost benefits, because it achieves very high rates of compliance at a very low relative cost in comparison to other more restrictive devices that provide comparable results, such as full midblock signalization. The components of RRFB are not proprietary and can be assembled by any jurisdiction with off-the-shelf hardware. The FHWA believes that the RRFB has a low risk of safety or operational concerns. However, because proliferation of RRFBs in the roadway environment to the point that they become ubiquitous could decrease their effectiveness, use of RRFBs should be limited to locations with the most critical safety concerns, such as pedestrian and school crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches, as tested in the experimentation.
At a recent meeting of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Signals Technical Committee voted to endorse the future inclusion of the RRFB for uncontrolled crosswalks into the MUTCD and recommended that FHWA issue an Interim Approval for RRFB. The FHWA believes this indicates a consensus in the practitioner community in support of optional use of RRFB. This Interim Approval does not create a new mandate compelling installation of RRFB but will allow agencies to install this type of flashing beacon, pending official MUTCD rulemaking, to provide a degree of enhanced pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crosswalks that has been previously unattainable without costly and delay-producing full traffic signalization.
Conditions of Interim Approval: The FHWA will grant Interim Approval for the optional use of the RRFB as a warning beacon to supplement standard pedestrian crossing or school crossing signs at crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches to any jurisdiction that submits a written request to the Office of Transportation Operations. A State may request Interim Approval for all jurisdictions in that State. Jurisdictions using RRFB under this Interim Approval must agree to comply with the technical conditions detailed below, to maintain an inventory list of all locations where the devices are placed, and to comply with Item F at the bottom of Page 1A-6 of the 2003 MUTCD, Section 1A.10 which requires:
"An agreement to restore the site(s) of the Interim Approval to a condition that complies with the provisions in this Manual within 3 months following the issuance of a Final Rule on this traffic control device. This agreement must also provide that the agency sponsoring the Interim Approval will terminate use of the device or application installed under the Interim Approval at any time that it determines significant safety concerns are directly or indirectly attributable to the device or application. The FHWA's Office of Transportation Operations has the right to terminate the interim approval at any time if there is an indication of safety concerns."
Any questions concerning this Interim Approval should be directed to Mr. Scott Wainwright at email@example.com or by telephone at 202-366-0857.
Example of RRFB with W11-2 sign and W16-7p plaque at crosswalk across uncontrolled approach. [Photo courtesy of City of St. Petersburg, Florida]
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration