Institute of Transportation Studies
UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center
( University of California, Berkeley)
Year 2005 Paper UCB - TSC - RR - 2005 - 23
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Evaluation
for the City of Emeryville at Four
Intersections
Emily S. Johnson David R. Ragland
U. C. Berkeley U. C. Berkeley
Jill F. Cooper Terri O’Connor
U. C. Berkeley U. C. Berkeley
This paper is posted at the eScholarship Repository, University of California.
http:// repositories. cdlib. org/ its/ tsc/ UCB- TSC- RR- 2005- 23
Copyright  c 2005 by the authors.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Evaluation
for the City of Emeryville at Four
Intersections
Abstract
The City of Emeryville is small in area ( 1.2 square miles) and population
( 7,000), but it is one of the most regionally connected cities in the Bay Area
( California). Emeryville is situated at the eastern end of the San Francisco-
Oakland Bay Bridge, contains the intersection of Interstate Highway 80 ( I- 80)
with several regional and other interstate highways, and has extensive trans-portation
access by Amtrak Rail, Alameda County ( AC) Transit and heavy
cargo facilities at the nearby Port of Oakland. The city has many large employ-ers
and several large shopping areas, and the daytime population swells to over
20,000. These factors produce a very high vehicle volume.
Additionally, Emeryville is an important segment of a number of regional pedes-trian
and bicycle trails including the future Union Pacific right of way ( Emeryville
Greenway) and the Bay Trail, which will extend across the new eastern span of
the Bay Bridge. The completion of planned regional trails in the area will place
Emeryville at the nexus of recreational pedestrian and bicycling activity for the
area. These factors mean that pedestrian and bicycle travel is likely to increase
dramatically.
The combination of very high traffic volume and increasing pedestrian and bi-cycle
traffic raise concerns about safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Taking
a proactive stance, the City has decided to intensify analysis and planning for
pedestrian and bicycle safety. As part of this effort, the city contracted with the
Traffic Safety Center at U. C. Berkeley to conduct an in- depth review of pedes-trian
and bicycle safety issues at four key intersections in the heart of Emeryville:
• Powell Street and Frontage Road
• Powell Street and I- 80
• Powell Street and Christie Avenue
• Christie Avenue and Shellmound Street
These intersections were selected because they are on major arterials in the city
that connect the waterfront, shopping areas, eating areas, residential complexes
and business sites, and they are expected to experience increased pedestrian
and bicycle traffic.
The resulting report includes: ( i) methods, ( ii) major issues, ( iii) approaches
to countermeasures, and ( iv) a detailed description of issues and recommended
countermeasures.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Evaluation for the City of
Emeryville at Four Intersections:
Powell and Frontage, Powell and Route I- 80, Powell and Christie,
and Christie and Shellmound
August 2005
The mission of the UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center is to reduce traffic fatalities and
injuries through multi- disciplinary collaboration in education, research, and outreach. Our
aim is to strengthen the capability of state, county, and local governments, academic
institutions, and local community organizations to enhance traffic safety through
research, curriculum and material development, outreach, and training for professionals
and students.
Prepared for
The City of Emeryville
Prepared by
Emily S. Johnson
David R. Ragland
Jill F. Cooper
Terri O’Connor
Traffic Safety Center
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Tel: 510/ 642- 0655
Fax: 510/ 643- 9922
Emeryville Contact:
Maurice Kaufman, Senior Civil Engineer
City of Emeryville Department of Public Works
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608
( 510) 596- 4334 mkaufman@ ci. emeryville. ca. us
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 1 of 175
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS................................................................................................................ ................. 4
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ....... 5
2.1. Background ............................................................................................................................... ................ 5
2.2. Methods ............................................................................................................................... ...................... 6
2.3. Major issues and associated countermeasures........................................................................................... 7
2.4. Specific intersections and countermeasures ............................................................................................... 9
2.5. Project chronology ............................................................................................................................... ..... 9
3. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........................ 12
4. METHODS ............................................................................................................................... ....................... 14
4.1. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................................ 14
4.2. Data Collected...................................................................................................................... ................... 17
4.2.1. Collision Data ............................................................................................................................... ...... 17
4.2.2. Vehicle Volume ............................................................................................................................... ... 18
4.2.3. Field Observations ............................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.4. Field Inspection of the Intersections .................................................................................................... 19
4.2.5. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Surveys ......................................................................................................... 19
4.2.6. Community Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.7. Presentation to the City of Emeryville................................................................................................. 20
5. OVERALL ISSUES AND COUNTERMEASURES..................................................................................... 21
5.1. Major Issues ............................................................................................................................... ............. 21
5.1.1. Right turns across pedestrian crossing................................................................................................. 21
5.1.2. Double right- turn lanes ........................................................................................................................ 22
5.1.3. Vehicle speed.......................................................................................................................... ............ 23
5.1.4. Long crossings ............................................................................................................................... ..... 23
5.1.5. Poor crosswalk visibility..................................................................................................................... 24
5.1.6. Poor connectivity ............................................................................................................................... . 24
5.1.7. Lack of way- finding signage ............................................................................................................... 24
5.2. Countermeasure approach ....................................................................................................................... 25
5.2.1. Overall Goals ............................................................................................................................... ....... 25
5.2.2. Countermeasures................................................................................................................ ................. 27
6. POWELL AND FRONTAGE....................................................................................................................... . 28
6.1. Description ............................................................................................................................... ............... 28
6.2. Vehicle patterns ............................................................................................................................... ........ 29
6.3. Pedestrian patterns....................................................................................................................... ........... 30
6.4. Bicycle patterns ............................................................................................................................... ........ 30
6.5. Individual crossings...................................................................................................................... ........... 32
6.5.1. Crossing # 1— Northeast corner to pedestrian island........................................................................... 32
6.5.2. Crossing # 2— Pedestrian island to the northwest corner of the intersection........................................ 34
6.5.3. Crossing # 3— West side of Frontage across Powell ........................................................................... 36
6.5.4. Crossing # 4— South side of Powell across the southbound I- 80 on- ramp.......................................... 40
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 2 of 175
7. POWELL AND 1- 80 ............................................................................................................................... ........ 42
7.1. Description ............................................................................................................................... ............... 42
7.2. Vehicle patterns ............................................................................................................................... ........ 43
7.3. Pedestrian patterns....................................................................................................................... ........... 43
7.4. Bicycle patterns ............................................................................................................................... ........ 44
7.5. Individual Crossings...................................................................................................................... .......... 45
7.5.1. Crossing # 5— North side of Powell across the northbound I- 80 on- ramp ......................................... 45
7.5.2. Crossing # 6— South side of Powell across the northbound I- 80 exit ramp ........................................ 47
8. POWELL AND CHRISTIE....................................................................................................................... .... 50
8.1. Description ............................................................................................................................... ............... 50
8.2. Vehicle patterns ............................................................................................................................... ........ 51
8.3. Pedestrian Patterns ............................................................................................................................... .. 51
8.4. Bicycle patterns ............................................................................................................................... ........ 52
8.5. Individual Crossings...................................................................................................................... .......... 54
8.5.1. Crossing # 7— Unmarked ( blocked) crossing across north leg of Christie .......................................... 54
8.5.2. Crossing # 8— West side of Christie across Powell............................................................................. 56
8.5.3. Crossing # 9— South side of Powell across Christie............................................................................ 59
9. CHRISTIE AND SHELLMOUND................................................................................................................. 62
9.1. Description ............................................................................................................................... ............... 63
9.2. Vehicle patterns ............................................................................................................................... ........ 63
9.3. Pedestrian patterns....................................................................................................................... ........... 64
9.4. Bicycle patterns ............................................................................................................................... ........ 64
9.5. Individual crossings...................................................................................................................... ........... 66
9.5.1. Crossing # 10— North side of Christie and Shellmound...................................................................... 66
9.5.2. Crossing # 11— West side of Shellmound and Christie....................................................................... 68
9.5.3. Crossing # 12—- South side of Christie and Shellmound ..................................................................... 70
9.5.4. Crossing # 13— East side of Shellmound and Christie ........................................................................ 72
10. INDIVIDUAL CONNECTORS..................................................................................................................... 74
10.1. Connector A— North Sidewalk Along Powell Under 1- 80........................................................................ 74
10.2. Connector B— South Sidewalk Along Powell Under 1- 80........................................................................ 76
10.3. Connector C— Pedestrian/ Bicycle Path Under 1- 80 ( Parallel to South Sidewalk Along Powell)............ 77
10.4. Connector D— North Sidewalk Along Powell ( East of Denny’s).............................................................. 78
10.5. Connector E— South Sidewalk/ Bicycle Path Between 1- 80 and Christie ................................................. 79
11. APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... ............................ 80
11.1. Appendix A: Recommendations and Consultant Responses ..................................................................... 81
11.2. Appendix B: Vehicle Volumes................................................................................................................... 98
11.3. Appendix C: Pedestrian/ Bicycle/ Vehicle Observations.......................................................................... 100
11.4. Appendix D: Infrastructure Observations .............................................................................................. 127
11.5. Appendix E: Crossing Distance and Signal Time................................................................................... 137
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 3 of 175
11.6. Appendix F: Community Meeting Results .............................................................................................. 139
11.7. Appendix G: Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 157
11.8. Appendix H: Origin- Destination Diagram............................................................................................. 168
11.9. Appendix I: Intersection Aerial Photographs........................................................................................ 170
11.10. Appendix J: Presentation Slides ............................................................................................................ 175
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 4 of 175
1. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
The Traffic Safety Center ( TSC) appreciates the significant contributions of many people who
provided critical input and work on this project, including the following City of Emeryville staff:
Maurice Kaufman ( Senior Civil Engineer), John Flores ( City Manager), Hank Van Dyke
( Director of Public Works), and Peter Schultze- Allen ( Environmental Programs Coordinator).
The TSC would also like to thank Emeryville Mayor Richard L. Kassis and City Council
members Gary Caffey, Ruth Atkin, Nora Davis, and Ken Bukowski, and the Bicycle/ Pedestrian
Subcommittee of the Traffic Committee. Steve Chan with Kimley- Horn Associates reviewed
and commented on the recommendations.
The TSC especially want to thank the residents of the Pacific Park Plaza and Watergate
Condominiums and other community members who attended the forums for contributing their
perspectives on pedestrian and bicycle safety in Emeryville.
Staff and students at the Traffic Safety Center who contributed to this project include:
Raymond Chan: GIS mapping; data entry; charts and tables
Monique deBarruel: Data entry
Christina Ferracane: Observation and survey coordination and administration
Tammy Wilder: Survey design and administration; editing
Funding for this project was provided by the City of Emeryville with additional funding from the
California Office of Traffic Safety ( OTS) through the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency.
August 2005
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 5 of 175
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1. BACKGROUND
The City of Emeryville is small in area ( 1.2 square miles) and population ( 7,000), but it is one of
the most regionally connected cities in the Bay Area. Emeryville is situated at the eastern end of
the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge, contains the intersection of Interstate Highway 80 ( I- 80)
with several regional and other interstate highways, and has extensive transportation access by
Amtrak Rail, Alameda County ( AC) Transit and heavy cargo facilities at the nearby Port of
Oakland. The city has many large employers and several large shopping areas, and the daytime
population swells to over 20,000. These factors produce a very high vehicle volume.
Additionally, Emeryville is an important segment of a number of regional pedestrian and bicycle
trails including the future Union Pacific right of way ( Emeryville Greenway) and the Bay Trail,
which will extend across the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge. The completion of planned
regional trails in the area will place Emeryville at the nexus of recreational pedestrian and
bicycling activity for the area. These factors mean that pedestrian and bicycle travel is likely to
increase dramatically.
The combination of very high traffic volume and increasing pedestrian and bicycle traffic raise
concerns about safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Taking a proactive stance, the City has
decided to intensify analysis and planning for pedestrian and bicycle safety. As part of this
effort, the city contracted with the Traffic Safety Center at U. C. Berkeley to conduct an in- depth
review of pedestrian and bicycle safety issues at four key intersections in the heart of Emeryville:
• Powell Street and Frontage Road
• Powell Street and I- 80
• Powell Street and Christie Avenue
• Christie Avenue and Shellmound Street
These intersections were selected because they are on major arterials in the city that connect the
waterfront, shopping areas, eating areas, residential complexes and business sites, and they are
expected to experience increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
The resulting report includes: ( i) methods, ( ii) major issues, ( iii) approaches to countermeasures,
and ( iv) a detailed description of issues and recommended countermeasures.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 6 of 175
2.2. METHODS
The evaluation relied on the following types of data collection:
Collision data
The Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System ( SWITRS), a computerized collision database
maintained by the California Highway Patrol ( CHP), was used to reconstruct collision data at the
study intersections. In the five years from 1998 to 2002, there were seven reported bicycle- vehicle
collisions and eight reported pedestrian- vehicle collisions at the four intersections. This number is
low compared to urban intersections in Oakland or San Francisco primarily because of the relatively
low pedestrian and bicycle volume in the Emeryville intersections. With expected increases in both,
the number of pedestrian and bicycles, collisions in Emeryville would be expected to increase
without the proactive steps that the City is taking.
Vehicle counts
Vehicle counts were provided by the City of Emeryville and include year 2002 counts from 9
a. m.- 1 p. m. and 5- 9 p. m. for all four intersections, and year 2004 a. m. and p. m. peak hour counts
at three of the four intersections ( all except Powell and I- 80). The counts indicated very high
vehicle volumes in most locations studied, with a particularly high volume of right- turning
vehicles.
Community Forums
A forum was held at each of two major residential communities in the study area: the Watergate and
the Pacific Park Plaza condominiums. The Watergate condominiums are located on Powell Street
just south of I- 80, and Pacific Park Plaza is located on Christie just north of Powell.
The Traffic Safety Center ( TSC) moderated the forums. Approximately forty individuals attended
the two meetings including residents, employees, members of Emeryville’s Pedestrian and
Bicycle Committee, and city council members and staff. A great deal of information and insight
about the study intersections was gained at the forums. Participants universally agreed that the
intersections being studied were intimidating, that they constituted strong barriers to walking and
biking within Emeryville, and that changes were needed.
Pedestrian and bicyclist survey
A sample of 155 pedestrians or bicyclists at one of the four target intersections was surveyed to
assess public perception of pedestrian and bicycle safety at the intersections. The survey
questions were specific to the physical intersection at which they were administered. Many
( 47%) said that they did not feel safe crossing, and many ( 41%) said that they had had a “ near
miss” with a vehicle at the respective intersections.
Field observations
Observed vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle behavior and interactions at each intersection were
collected. Observations included many occurrences of vehicles failing to yield the right of way,
pedestrians being unable to complete crossings during the “ Walk” phase of the signal, and
bicyclists having difficulty navigating among vehicles that were changing lanes.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 7 of 175
Field inspection
Inspections were made of the infrastructure at each intersection and each crossing location to
examine signal configuration, signage, pavement markings, adherence to ADA requirements, and
other features. Many deficiencies were noted in these areas.
2.3. MAJOR ISSUES AND ASSOCIATED COUNTERMEASURES
General Assessment
The study area was designed to accommodate a high volume of motor vehicle traffic traveling
within and through Emeryville. With close proximity to I- 80, and with four freeway ramps in the
area, there was a “ freeway mentality” that needed to be addressed.
The TSC proposed that the City of Emeryville address this situation in a direct and aggressive
fashion by: ( i) increasing driver awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists and their right of way,
( ii) alerting pedestrians and bicyclists to areas of risk, and ( iii) improving ease of travel and of
crossing intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists
Meeting these goals requires vigorous application of the many available countermeasures,
especially engineering and enforcement. Motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians traveling in this
area should have a sense that the area is special; i. e., that special attention has been taken to
assure that pedestrians and bicyclists have a right to exist and travel in the area.
Countermeasures should be incorporated in such a way that the four target intersections have a
clear identity as a special area in Emeryville. This can be accomplished through clear and
consistent signage, a distinctive crosswalk treatment, appropriate lighting and other
enhancements. This will make the area more inviting for pedestrians and bicyclists and provide
cues to drivers that these intersections are shared spaces. This strategy needs to be combined
with an equally clear and consistent pattern of enforcement of pedestrian and bicyclist right- of-way.
The selection of recommended countermeasures is based on discussions with City staff and data
sources listed above ( i. e., collision data, vehicle counts, forums, surveys, field observations, and
field inspections).
A number of conditions were noted that affect the safety of the area as a whole and are discussed
below.
• Right turns across pedestrian crossing
Violation of pedestrian right of way by vehicles turning right across crosswalks was by far the
most predominant problem at the study intersections. The risk to pedestrians occurs when
vehicles ( i) turn right on a red light, ( ii) turn right on a green light, and ( iii) turn right in a non-signalized
crossing ( one location).
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 8 of 175
For right turns on red, drivers often simply did not stop as required, or when they did stop,
drivers tended to look to their left for a gap in the traffic rather than toward where pedestrians
were crossing. Countermeasures directed at drivers include installing recessed stop bars, signs
clearly indicating “ stop on red before proceeding” and “ yield to pedestrians” ( in some cases,
existing signs are small or difficult to see), experimental pedestrian- triggered in- roadway
lighting, and electronic signs indicating “ yield to pedestrian,” and “ no right turn on red.”
For right turns on green, drivers often failed to yield to pedestrians, moved very close to them
before stopping, or followed very close behind them. Countermeasures include signs clearly
indicating pedestrian right of way. Other countermeasures include experimental pedestrian-triggered
in- roadway lighting or electronic signs instructing vehicles to “ Yield to pedestrians.”
For right turns at the one unsignalized location, drivers often failed to yield to pedestrians as they
accelerated toward a freeway on- ramp. Countermeasures include pedestrian- triggered in-roadway
lighting, electronic signs or beacons instructing vehicles to “ Yield to pedestrians,” and
possibly signalization.
• Double right turns
Double right turns increase hazards for pedestrians crossing intersections because drivers in the
outer right- turn lane often cannot see pedestrians who may be hidden by the right- turning vehicle
in the inner right- turn lane; the view for pedestrians may be blocked; and the outer lane of a
double turn has a greater turning radius, thus permitting greater speed. In addition to
countermeasures taken for right turns discussed above, signs or pavement stencils could cue
pedestrians to watch for vehicles in the second right- turn lane. These turns also increase risk for
bicyclists traveling straight through these intersections across right- turn lanes.
• Vehicle speeds
Vehicle speed was not measured, but speeds did seem excessive at several locations and were
one of the concerns voiced by participants in the community forums. Excess speed may result
from proximity to freeway ramps and the wide turning radii of almost all the corners in the study
intersections. Countermeasures for vehicle speed include reduced turning radii and radar speed
displays.
• Long crossings
The TSC conducted an analysis of crossing distances and crossing times allocated by the
pedestrian signals. The combination of long crossing distances, insufficient crossing time, and
the lack of secure refuges puts pedestrians and bicyclists at risk. Countermeasures include adding
bulbouts ( i. e., curb extensions) to reduce walking distance, increasing the pedestrian signal time,
and adding pedestrian countdown signals and pedestrian head- start timing.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 9 of 175
• Poor crosswalk visibility
The crosswalks at all of the intersections studied have only minimal striping-- two parallel lines--
and many are faded. This contributes to many drivers’ lack of awareness and compliance with
pedestrian right of way at the intersections. In addition, although several crossings are part of
bicycle routes, there is no indication that bicyclists are allowed to ride in these crossings.
Countermeasures include greatly enhanced crosswalk and other pavement markings. In cases
where both bicycles and pedestrians are allowed to cross ( i. e., trail crossings), separate pathways
for pedestrians and bicyclists should be marked.
• Poor connectivity
None of the four intersections studied has a complete set of crosswalks. While there may be
good reasons for this, the result is a limitation of pedestrian routes. In addition, several sidewalks
in the area are either extremely narrow, or they end. A systematic assessment should be
conducted to determine the adequacy of existing connections between intersections. The
connection will become more important as an increased number of pedestrians and bicyclists use
the area.
• Lack of way- finding signage
There is a general lack of signage in this area directing pedestrians and bicyclists to common
paths or destinations. For example, there are few markings identifying the Bay Trail or the
precise location of bicycle routes, creating ambiguity about where bicyclists can travel. Trails
and bicycle routes should be marked by distinctive signage throughout the area.
2.4. SPECIFIC INTERSECTIONS AND COUNTERMEASURES
A detailed analysis was conducted and a set of recommendations were prepared for each of the
13 street crossings at the four study intersections and for five connecting sidewalks or trail
segments. For each of these locations, an analysis of risk conditions for pedestrians and
bicyclists and detailed countermeasures is provided. The analyses are based on the data sources
cited above. For most of the locations, a tiered set of recommendations has been provided.
“ Basic Treatments” are those that are fairly standard and could be done relatively easily.
“ Additional Items” would involve more planning and expense to provide additional safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Finally, based on instructions from Emeryville staff, this report is
more rather than less inclusive; that is, a wide range of recommendations for consideration have
been included. These recommendations have also been reviewed by an engineering consultant to
assess feasibility of each recommendation and to assign priorities to each.
2.5. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Upon completion of the observations, surveys, forums, and review of appropriate improvements,
the TSC developed a draft report for review by City staff. The TSC also conducted several
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 10 of 175
presentations to City Staff and integrated their feedback into the report. The City then gave the
report to a transportation engineering firm, Kimley- Horn, for comment on engineering
recommendations. A final meeting was held with City staff, Kimley- Horn and the TSC. A
matrix with the recommended improvements, approved by all parties, is shown in Table 1.
Appendix A includes initial recommendations made by the TSC, additional suggestions made by
the City Council, and subsequent comments and recommendations made by Kimley- Horn.
While these proposed countermeasures are expected to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety at
the four intersections, the TSC recommends that the City conduct a before- and- after evaluation
of safety conditions where countermeasures are installed to determine their effectiveness.
The TSC also recommends that the City continue to monitor and analyze pedestrian and bicycle
safety issues. Finally, because the four intersections that were studied represent only a portion of
a typical bicyclist’s route, the TSC suggests that the City undertake a broader study of bicycle
safety and connectivity in Emeryville.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 11 of 175
Table 1: Emeryville Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Evaluation Recommendations
Basic Treatments for All Crossings
Add leading pedestrian interval and extend Flashing Don't Walk phase for all studied crosswalks,
provided these changes do not adversely affect intersection level of service and degrade traffic
circulation.
Enhance all studied crosswalks with high- visibility zebra style pattern markings and/ or pavement texture.
Trim roadside vegetation that hinders the line of sight of drivers and pedestrians at the studied
intersections.
Install high visibility fluorescent yellow- green signs or pavement stencils to increase pedestrian, bicyclist,
and driver awareness of potential conflicts when entering crosswalks.
Install pedestrian countdown signals and audible signals where they are absent.
Upgrade sidewalks and curbs as necessary to ensure compliance with ADA curb ramp and walkway
standards.
Crossing Enhanced Treatments
1 Install pedestrian warning sign ( W11- 2) with pedestrian- activated flashing amber beacons.
1 Add pedestrian signal for crosswalk; add a right- turn arrow vehicular indications to control
right- turn vehicular movements.
1 Enlarge pork chop island to reduce crosswalk distance.
2 Reduce northwest corner curb radius of Powell/ Frontage intersection.
2 Install pedestrian warning sign ( W11- 2) with pedestrian- activated flashing amber beacons.
3 Reduce northwest corner curb radius of Powell/ Frontage intersection.
3 Request controller software change from Caltrans to allow leading pedestrian interval.
3 Install pedestrian warning sign ( W11- 2) with pedestrian- activated flashing amber beacons.
3 Realign crosswalk from northwest corner to east side of I- 80 on- ramp, and extend median
island to meet the new crosswalk. Add bike path symbol along side of crosswalk.
3 Mark “ KEEP CLEAR” between existing stop bar and realigned crosswalk.
3 Ensure that median/ pedestrian refuge is visible to drivers.
4 Request controller software change from Caltrans to allow leading pedestrian interval.
5 Reduce northeast corner curb radius of Powell/ I- 80 intersection.
5 Request controller software change from Caltrans to allow leading pedestrian interval.
5 Evaluate no- right- turn- on- red operation based on new traffic count collection from current
RSTP project.
5 Install pedestrian warning signs with pedestrian- activated flashing beacons.
6 Re- stripe center lane from left/ through/ right movements to left/ right movements only.
6 Install pedestrian warning sign ( W11- 2) with pedestrian- activated flashing amber beacons.
7 Re- stripe existing southbound right- turn lane limit lines further south into the Powell/ Christie
intersection and install additional detector loops.
7 Install overhead signage to enhance lane usage assignment.
8 Install pedestrian warning sign ( W11- 2) with pedestrian- activated flashing amber beacons.
9 Install pedestrian warning sign ( W11- 2) with pedestrian- activated flashing amber beacons.
9 Enlarge median to create a refuge island with a pedestrian pushbutton.
9 Install " no right turn on red" sign on Christie.
9 Mark separate bicycle path in crosswalk.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 12 of 175
10
Install crosswalk with pedestrian pushbuttons and countdown signal in conjunction with the
Bay Street Site B development. Install pedestrian barricades for the interim until pedestrian
signal is in place.
11 Reduce northwest corner curb radius of Shellmound St/ Christie intersection.
11 Install pedestrian warning sign ( W11- 2) with pedestrian- activated flashing amber beacons.
11 Install bicycle lane on Christie and mark route for bicyclists to exit from Plaza and access
bike lanes on Shellmound.
* Additional details on recommendations for crosswalks are included in the text and in Appendix
A. Recommendations on the connectors that link the crosswalks are also included in the text.
3. INTRODUCTION
The City of Emeryville is one of the most regionally connected cities in the Bay Area. Situated
at the eastern end of the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge, Emeryville contains the intersection
of I- 80 with several regional and interstate highways, as well as extensive transportation access
by Amtrak rail, Alameda County Transit and heavy cargo facilities at the nearby Port of
Oakland.
Emeryville is a small city of 1.2 square miles with a population of approximately 7,000 residents.
It is bordered by Berkeley to the north, Oakland to the east and south and the San Francisco Bay
to the west ( Figure 1). The city is characterized by a unique land use pattern with many large
employers and several large shopping areas. Both employment sites and shopping areas serve as
significant trip attractors to the city, causing its daytime population to swell to over 20,000.
Additionally, Emeryville is an important segment in a number of regional trails including the
future Union Pacific right of way ( Emeryville Greenway) and the Bay Trail, which will extend
across the future new eastern span of the Bay Bridge. The completion of planned regional trails
in the area will place Emeryville at the nexus of recreational pedestrian and bicycling activity in
the area.
The combination of transportation access, large employers and trip attractors creates high vehicle
volumes within the city. With the promise of an increase in future recreational trails and new
housing developments, higher pedestrian and bicycle traffic volumes are likely for the long- term
planning horizon.
With so many potential road users, safety is critical, and there is a great deal of concern for
bicyclists and pedestrians, as these are the most vulnerable. To assess and increase pedestrian
and bicycle safety, the City of Emeryville contracted the UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center to
evaluate four key intersections ( See Figure 2 and Figure 3):
• Powell Street and Frontage Road
• Powell Street and I- 80
• Powell Street and Christie Avenue
• Christie Avenue and Shellmound Street
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 13 of 175
Figure 1: Map of Emeryville
These intersections were selected for several reasons. First, these streets are major arterials in
the city that connect the waterfront, shopping areas, eating areas, residential complexes and
business sites. Second, the City expects an increase in pedestrian and bicycle traffic at these
intersections due to future trails, hotels, housing and other development. Finally, each
intersection holds great potential for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements.
Traffic count data from the City of Emeryville shows a general pattern of very high vehicle
volume in this area. Surrounding land uses ( shopping and retail centers, large and small
employment centers, recreational trails, and residential developments), short travel distances and
observations indicate that there are also many pedestrians and bicyclists in Emeryville. These
pedestrians and bicyclists are presented with a complex environment designed mainly for
vehicles. Today, this same space must safely and efficiently accommodate increased use by
many different travel modes.
While data from police collision reports document relatively few pedestrian and bicycle
collisions and injuries in these intersections compared to the city as a whole, the existing traffic
volume, current pedestrian and bicycle movement patterns, and projected increase in pedestrian
and bicycle volumes indicate a potential for many future conflicts among different road users.
Additionally, the low pedestrian and bicycle volumes relative to the number of vehicles at these
intersections means that drivers may not expect pedestrians and bicyclists in the roadways and
may be less aware of their needs. This results in a high risk of conflict and collision for each
pedestrian and bicyclist.
The City of Emeryville has three goals for these four intersections: ( i) to increase safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists; ( ii) to increase ease of use for pedestrians and bicyclists; and ( iii) to
accommodate traffic circulation for all users.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 14 of 175
Therefore, the objectives of the current study are to:
• Evaluate the safety, perception of safety, and ease of use for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Propose countermeasures to improve safety and ease of use for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The remainder of the report is organized in three sections: Methods, Overall Issues and
Countermeasures, and Evaluation and Countermeasure Recommendations for each intersection.
Additionally, the Appendices include data for the study intersections and background information on
proposed countermeasures.
4. METHODS
4.1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This study focuses primarily on the street crossings at each of four intersections and then on the
connections between the intersections. Each crossing is considered first, with a focus on marked
crosswalks. Unmarked crosswalks that were observed to have or that are expected to have high
use are also included. Several “ connectors”— i. e., the sidewalks and paths adjacent to the
intersections are then examined. This report also focuses on the main connectors between the
four intersections.
While crosswalks and sidewalks are often considered to be for pedestrians only, it is important to
note that crosswalk and connector issues are used by bicyclists as well. Improvements in these
areas will help pedestrians as well as bicyclists who ride across crosswalks or on off- street paths.
Figure 2: Map of Study Intersections
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 15 of 175
For purposes of this study each crossing and connector have been labeled separately. These are
listed in Table 2.
Figure 3: Aerial Photo of Study Intersections
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 16 of 175
Table 2: List of Crossings and Connectors Studied
Crossings Description
Intersection 1: Powell
and Frontage
Crossing 1: Northeast corner to pedestrian island
Crossing 2: Pedestrian island to northwest corner
Crossing 3: West side of Frontage across Powell
Crossing 4: South side of Powell across the southbound I- 80 on- ramp
Intersection 2: Powell
and I- 80
Crossing 5: North side of Powell across the northbound I- 80 on- ramp
Crossing 6: South side of Powell across the northbound I- 80 exit ramp
Intersection 3: Powell
and Christie
Crossing 7 North side of Christie across Powell ( blocked)
Crossing 8: West side of Christie across Powell
Crossing 9: South side of Powell across Christie
Intersection 4: Christie
and Shellmound
Crossing 10: North side of Christie across Shellmound ( unmarked)
Crossing 11: West side of Shellmound across Christie
Crossing 12: South side of Christie across Shellmound
Crossing 13: East side of Shellmound across Christie
Connectors Description
A North sidewalk under I- 80
B South sidewalk under I- 80
C Bicycle/ Pedestrian path under I- 80
D North sidewalk on Powell east of Denny’s
E South sidewalk/ bicycle path on Powell between I- 80 and
Christie
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 17 of 175
4.2. DATA COLLECTED
The evaluation utilizes data from five main sources: collision data and traffic counts;
observations of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists; a field survey of physical infrastructure and
land use; a pedestrian and bicyclist survey; and community meetings.
The purpose of the field observations was to examine driver, pedestrian and bicyclist behavior in
the intersections. None of the data collected through the observations, surveys, or community
meetings contains personal identifying information about individuals.
4.2.1. Collision Data
Historically, there have been few collisions at the four intersections ( Table 3). Over the five years
from 1998 to 2002, there were seven reported bicycle- vehicle collisions and eight reported
pedestrian- vehicle collisions at the four intersections. In part, this reflects the low volume of
pedestrians and bicyclists at these intersections. However, these numbers do not account for non-reported
collisions or near- misses, which may be common at these intersections. Thus, while the
total collision count is low, risk for pedestrians and bicyclists may still be high, especially when
considered per bicyclist and per pedestrian.
Of the four intersections, Powell and I- 80 has the highest number of both bicycle and pedestrian
collisions. Over the five year period, Powell and I- 80 had five pedestrian collisions compared to one
at each of the other three intersections, and three bicycle collisions compared to one or two at the
other intersections.
Table 3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Data
Emeryville - Collisions at selected intersections
SWITRS 1998- 2002
SELECTED INTERSECTIONS*
Frontage
Powell
Route 80
& Powell
Christie &
Powell
Christie &
Shellmound
Collisions
Bicycle 1 3 2 1
Pedestrian 1 5 1 1
Victims
Bicycle Injuries 1 3 1 1
Pedestrian Injuries 1 6 0 1
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 18 of 175
4.2.2. Vehicle Volume
Table 4: Vehicle Volumes ( 2002 counts updated with 2004 a. m./ p. m. peak hour counts)
Vehicle counts in Table 4 were provided by the City of Emeryville. These include Year 2002
counts from 9 a. m.- 1 p. m. and 5- 9 p. m. for all four intersections, and Year 2004 a. m. and p. m.
peak hour counts at all of the intersections except Powell and I- 80. These counts were used to
understand overall traffic conditions. Additional data is provided in Appendix B.
Based on this data, it is clear that Powell and I- 80 and Powell and Christie have much higher
vehicle volumes than Powell and Frontage and Christie and Shellmound. While total a. m. and
p. m. flow was similar for each intersection, volumes were slightly higher in the p. m., leading to a
higher average hourly flow in the p. m. at each intersection. The 2004 counts show p. m. peak
flow to be much higher than a. m. peak flow. The 2002 counts show much less differentiation
between a. m. and p. m. peaks.
It is important to note a few limitations of these counts. The 2002 counts were done before
Christie west of Shellmound was converted to a one- way street. Thus, the 2002 data do not
reflect current traffic patterns at Christie and Shellmound and Christie and Powell. Additionally,
the counts do not reflect patterns that are important for pedestrian and bicycle safety that occur
sporadically. For example, when traffic on I- 80 is very congested, many vehicles use Emeryville
streets or intersections to bypass the freeway. This is particularly an issue for northbound
through movements at Frontage and I- 80.
4.2.3. Field Observations
Direct observations at each intersection were used to collect vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle
interaction and behavior. Observations were made between 12p. m. and 1p. m. for pedestrians
and 12p. m. and 1p. m. or 5p. m. to 6p. m. for bicyclists.
Due to the relative rarity of pedestrian and bicyclist injury collisions and the difficulty in
identifying significant changes in injury rates within a year or so after implementing
Vehicle Flow Intersection
Frontage &
Powell
80 & Powell Christie &
Powell
Christie &
Shellmound
Total AM Flow ( 9a. m.- 1p. m.) 8,743 11,806 12,167 6,531
Average AM hourly flow 2,186 2,952 3,042 1,633
Peak hour AM flow 2,398 3,630 3,033 662
Total PM Flow ( 5- 9p. m.) 9,952 12,810 13,667 7,630
Average PM hourly flow 2,488 3,203 3,417 1,908
Peak Hour PM flow 3,880 3,550 4,310 2,122
Total Peak Period Vehicle Flow ( 8 hrs) 18,695 24,616 25,834 14,161
Overall average flow ( V/ H) 2,337 3,077 3,229 1,770
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 19 of 175
countermeasures, information was gathered on surrogate measures for vehicle- pedestrian or
vehicle- bicyclist crashes. Observation variables and a summary of observation data are included
in Appendix C.
4.2.4. Field Inspection of the Intersections
To present a more refined analysis, a field inspection of each of the intersections was conducted,
collecting specific information about the presence of physical infrastructure.
A list of field inspection elements and a summary from the inspection of each intersection are
provided in Appendix D. Crossing distance and signal timing is included in Appendix E.
4.2.5. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Surveys
The purpose of the surveys was to assess public perception of pedestrian and bicycle safety at the
four intersections. A total of 155 individuals at the four intersections were surveyed. The survey
questions were specific to the physical intersection at which they were administered. Because
surveyors were located at intersections, mainly pedestrians were interviewed, although bicyclists
who were acting as pedestrians; e. g., walking their bicycles on the sidewalk or in the crosswalk,
were also surveyed. Surveys were administered between 12- 1 and 5- 6 during the week and 12- 1
on weekends in August, 2004. No identifying information was recorded for any of the surveys.
The survey results are included in Appendix G and a diagram of the origins and destinations of
those surveyed is included in Appendix H.
Overall, 59% of the respondents were male and 68% were between 18 and 40 years of age. Over
half ( 56%) of respondents said they worked in Emeryville, 28% were shoppers, and 22% lived in
Emeryville ( the percentages exceed 100% as people have dual roles). One- third ( 34%) of those
interviewed crossed that particular intersection several times/ week and an additional 23%
crossed every day. For 21% of respondents, it was their first time crossing that intersection.
When asked how safe they felt when crossing the street at that location, 47% said they felt “ not
at all” or “ not very” safe. People between ages 18- 40 generally felt safer than people 51 and
over. Females felt a little less safe than males.
Many ( 41%) respondents reported a “ near miss” with a vehicle at their respective intersections.
Most of these were interviewed at Powell and Frontage, followed by Christie and Shellmound.
Most near misses were due to right- turning drivers on Powell turning right onto Frontage and
from Christie onto Shellmound, with drivers not honoring the pedestrians’ right- of- way.
4.2.6. Community Meetings
Public meetings were held at the two major residential communities in the study area, the Watergate
and the Pacific Park Plaza condominiums. The Watergate condominiums are located on Powell
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 20 of 175
Street just south of I- 80, and Pacific Park Plaza is located on Christie just north of Powell. Traffic
Safety Center ( TSC) staff moderated the forums.
Approximately forty individuals attended the two community meetings. They included
residents, employees, members of Emeryville’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee, city council
members and staff.
At each meeting, the TSC presented the project and showed enlarged aerial photographs of the
four intersections. Participants were given post- it notes and asked to write comments about
specific issues and to place them on the photographs. The TSC then asked for their perceptions
of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and suggestions for improvements for each intersection
and wrote down responses and ideas. The responses were transcribed after the meeting, but no
personal identifying data about participants were collected.
Of the four intersections studied, each group identified the most dangerous intersection as the one
closest to their place of residence. Overall, the residents at the Watergate Condominiums identified
Powell and Frontage as the most dangerous, while the residents at Pacific Park Plaza identified
Powell and Christie.
The main issues for people in both community meetings were similar across intersections: poor
visibility ( due to radius of curb or overgrown foliage), high speeds of vehicles entering or exiting
freeway on- or off- ramps ( i. e., a “ freeway mentality” among drivers), inaccessibility of pedestrian
buttons to influence signals, insufficient signal timing, right- turning vehicles encroaching into
crosswalks and not yielding to pedestrians, and limited visibility across double right- turn lanes.
Community meeting participants also identified common issues for bicyclists across intersections:
difficulty riding among turning or merging vehicular traffic, conflicts from vehicles exiting and
entering driveways, poorly- marked bicycle trails, and confusing transitions between off- street paths
and bicycle routes on surface streets.
Detailed results and intersection maps with comments from each meeting are in Appendix F.
4.2.7. Presentation to the City of Emeryville
The TSC presented interim results to the Emeryville City Council on May 17, 2005. The
presentation slides are in Appendix J. Comments from the City Council were incorporated into
the recommendations in Appendix A.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 21 of 175
5. OVERALL ISSUES AND COUNTERMEASURES
5.1. MAJOR ISSUES
Several issues are common to the study area as a whole and have an impact on safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists at each intersection. These include:
• Right turns across pedestrian crossing
• Double right- turn lanes
• Vehicle speed
• Long crossings with inadequate timing
• Poor crosswalk visibility
• Poor connectivity ( i. e., an incomplete network of crossings and connectors)
• Lack of pedestrian and bicycle “ way finding” signage
5.1.1. Right turns across pedestrian crossing
The predominant issue for intersections studied is the violation of pedestrian right- of- way by
right- turning vehicles. One reason for this is the large proportion of vehicles that turn right
across pedestrian crossings ( See Table 5 and Figure 4). The risk for pedestrians occurs from ( i)
right turns on red, ( ii) right turns on green, and ( iii) right- turns at a non- signalized crossing.
For right turns on red, the risk occurs to pedestrians crossing the intersection during their walk
phase immediately in front of the vehicles facing the red light. Observers noted numerous
instances where drivers simply did not stop as required or, when they did stop, they looked to
their left for a gap in the traffic rather than where pedestrians were crossing.
For right turns on green, the risk occurs because the pedestrian walk phase on the crosswalk that
parallels the initial direction of vehicles coincides with the green light for the vehicles.
Numerous instances in which drivers simply failed to yield to pedestrians, moved very close to
them before stopping, or proceeded very close behind them, were observed. In many cases,
drivers seemed to be driving with the presumption that they had the right of way because they
had a green light. Right turns on green are also difficult for bicyclists to navigate if they are
proceeding straight- through, since they have to cross the right- turning traffic to proceed.
For right turns at the one unsignalized location ( Crossing # 1), vehicles were typically
accelerating toward a freeway on- ramp. Many violations of pedestrian right- of– way were
observed.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 22 of 175
Table 5: Right- Turn Volumes at Each Intersection
` 2002 8 hour counts ( 9a. m.– 1 p. m. + 5p. m.–
9p. m.)
* 2004 AM + PM peak hour counts ( 2 hours total)
Figure 4: Right Turns at Each Intersection
5.1.2. Double right- turn lanes
Compounding the issue of right turns on red are double right- turn lanes. There are five instances
of this in the four intersections. Double right- turn lanes increase crossing difficulty and hazards
for pedestrians. First, the driver in the outer right- turn lane often cannot see pedestrians
Intersection Total Intersection
Volume ( veh/ 8hr)
Volume
Turning right
% of Total
Turning Right
Frontage & Powell` 18,695 7,995 43%
I- 80 & Powell` 24,616 9,078 37%
Christie & Powell` 25,834 9,157 41%
Christie & Shellmound* 2,784 893 32%
Right Turns
as a Percentage of Total Intersection Volume
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Powell/ Frontage Powell/ I- 80 Powell/ Christie Christie/ Shellmound
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 23 of 175
beginning to cross who may be hidden by the right- turning vehicle in the inner right- turn lane,
and pedestrians may not anticipate their lack of visibility to the vehicles in the outer lane.
Second, the outer right- turn lane has a greater turning radius, thus permitting greater speed.
Finally, the two lanes present a “ multiple threat” to pedestrians— twice as many potential
conflicts.
Double right- turn lanes are also difficult for bicyclists to maneuver. There are several locations
in the study area where bicyclists traveling straight in the right- hand lane face increased risk
from traffic merging into the right- turn lanes while bicyclists merge left into a through lane.
5.1.3. Vehicle speed
Excessive vehicle speed was a common concern for residents. While vehicle speed was not
measured in the observational work, speeds seemed excessive at several locations, particularly at
the freeway on- and off- ramps in the study area. Drivers exiting the freeway often did not slow
down sufficiently before the crosswalk, and drivers heading onto the freeway tended to
accelerate before the crosswalk.
At non- freeway ramp right turns, drivers commonly slowed but did not stop, and then they often
accelerated across the crosswalk to fit in the gap in traffic. In several instances, the distance
across the intersections allowed vehicles to accelerate substantially by the time they had crossed
the far crosswalk. In general, high speeds are facilitated by the wide lanes, large intersections,
and wide curb radii that characterize the area.
5.1.4. Long crossings
Many pedestrians had a difficult time crossing these intersections within the time provided. This
is both a function of long crossing distances and interference from turning vehicles. Crossing
distance is a problem at all intersections except Powell and I- 80 ( see Appendix E). An analysis
of pedestrian signal timing shows that of the ten signalized crossings, only four ( Crossings # 5,
# 6, # 8, and # 13) provide sufficient “ Flashing Red Hand” time for someone to cross at 4
feet/ second— a relatively fast walking speed. Only crossing # 6 provides enough “ Flashing Red
Hand” time for someone to cross at a more moderate 3.5 feet/ second. This means that many
pedestrians who begin to cross just as the “ Walk” signal changes to “ Flashing Red Hand” will
not be able to finish before the signal changes to a “ Solid Red Hand. Combining time for
“ Walk” and “ Flashing Red Hand” phases, one crossing (# 3) still did not provide enough time for
someone to cross at 3.5 feet/ second, and only two crossings (# 4 and # 6) provided enough time
for someone to cross at 2.5 feet/ second— a common standard for slower- speed pedestrians ( such
as seniors, parents with strollers, or disabled persons). Thus, even if they start crossing at the
beginning of the “ Walk” phase, many slower- speed pedestrians will not finish crossing the
intersection before the signal changes to a solid red hand. This combination of long crossing
distances and insufficient crossing time, coupled with the lack of secure refuges, puts pedestrians
and bicyclists at risk.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 24 of 175
5.1.5. Poor crosswalk visibility
The crosswalks at all of the intersections studied have only minimal striping-- two parallel lines--
and many of these are faded. This contributes to drivers’ lack of awareness and compliance with
pedestrian right- of- way. In addition, although several crossings are part of bicycle routes, there
is no indication that bicycles are allowed in these crossings.
5.1.6. Poor connectivity
None of the four intersections studied has a complete set of crosswalks. Both Powell and
Frontage and Christie and Shellmound have marked crosswalks across three legs, while Powell
and I- 80 and Powell and Christie have marked crosswalks across only two legs. While there
may be good reasons for this in some cases, the lack of crosswalks limits pedestrian and bicyclist
travel and makes the area less inviting and accessible for walking and bicycling. In addition,
several sidewalks in the area either stop or are extremely narrow, further limiting pedestrian
circulation. There are at least two locations where people were crossing at either a blocked
crossing or at an unmarked crossing.
5.1.7. Lack of way- finding signage
There is a general lack of signage in this area directing pedestrians and bicyclists to common
paths or destinations. For example, although these intersections include portions of the Bay
Trail, there are no signs marking the route. Similarly, there is a designated bicycle path along the
south side of Powell, but the transitions between sidewalks, crosswalks and the path are not
clear, making the route confusing for bicyclists. . Finally, there are several major attractions near
the area, such as the Emeryville Marina, Bay Street Shopping Center, and the Powell Plaza, but
there are no signs to help pedestrians or bicyclists find them.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 25 of 175
5.2. COUNTERMEASURE APPROACH
The selection of recommended countermeasures is based on discussions with City of Emeryville
staff, community meetings, analysis of observations of pedestrian, bicyclists, and vehicles, and
analysis of existing infrastructure, in conjunction with a review of potential countermeasures.
Based on feedback from City of Emeryville staff, this report includes a wide range of potential
countermeasures to illustrate a variety of options. Recommended countermeasures are organized
into two categories: a set of lower- cost and simpler “ basic treatments” and a set of “ additional
items” that are often more costly or involved.
In this section, the relationship between issues and countermeasures is summarized.
5.2.1. Overall Goals
The study area was designed to accommodate a high volume of motor vehicle traffic traveling
within and through Emeryville. With close proximity to the I- 80, and with four freeway ramps
in the intersections, there is a “ freeway mentality” in the area that needs to be addressed. The
TSC suggests that Emeryville address this situation in a direct and aggressive fashion by: ( i)
increasing drivers’ awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists and respect for their legal right- of-way,
( ii) alerting pedestrians and bicyclists to areas of risk, and ( iii) improving ease of travel and
crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Meeting these goals requires a vigorous application of available countermeasures, especially
engineering and enforcement. Motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians traveling in this area should
have a sense that the area is special; i. e., that special attention has been taken to increase safety
for pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. Countermeasures should be incorporated so that the
intersections have a clear identity as a special area in Emeryville. This can be accomplished
through a clear, consistent pattern of signage, a distinctive crosswalk treatment, consistent
lighting and other enhancements. This will make the area safer and more inviting for pedestrians
and bicyclists, and provide cues to drivers that these intersections are shared spaces.
Issue Countermeasures to Achieve Goals
Right turn on red at signalized crossing Countermeasures include recessed stop bars and
signs clearly indicating “ Stop on red before
proceeding” and “ Yield to pedestrians.” ( In some
cases, existing signs are small or difficult to see.)
Other countermeasures include experimental
pedestrian- triggered in- roadway lighting or
electronic signs indicating “ Yield to pedestrians”
or “ No right turn on red.”
Right turn on green at signalized crossing Countermeasures include signs clearly indicating
that pedestrians have the right of way and signal
timing that provides a leading pedestrian interval
( i. e., the pedestrian- crossing phase begins prior to
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 26 of 175
Issue Countermeasures to Achieve Goals
the vehicles’ green phase in order to give
pedestrians a head start). Other countermeasures
include experimental pedestrian- triggered in-roadway
lighting or electronic signs indicating
“ Yield to pedestrians.”
Right turn at unsignalized crossing Countermeasures include pedestrian triggered in-roadway
lighting, electronic signs or beacons
indicating “ Yield to pedestrians,” and
signalization.
Excessive speed while turning across a
pedestrian crossing
Countermeasures include reduced turning radii.
Radar speed displays in some locations might
also be effective. For right turns on red,
enforcing stopping before proceeding on red
would reduce speed. For right turns on red,
green, or at unsignalized crossings, a general
countermeasure is signage clearly indicating that
speed limits will be enforced.
Long crossings Countermeasures include adding bulbouts ( i. e.,
curb extensions) to reduce walking distance,
increasing the pedestrian walk phase, and adding
pedestrian countdown signals, pedestrian head-start
timing, and enhanced medians.
Poor crosswalk visibility Countermeasures include adding enhanced
crosswalk and other pavement markings. In cases
where both bicycles and pedestrians are allowed
to cross ( e. g., trail crossings), pathways for both
pedestrians and bicyclists should be marked.
Poor connectivity
Countermeasures include a systematic assessment
of the connectivity in the area to determine
adequacy of existing connections. This will
become more important as an increased number
of pedestrians and bicyclists use the area.
Lack of way finding signage Countermeasures include marking all of the
bicycle routes in the area with a consistent
treatment. This could include in- roadway
markings, coloring on bicycle routes, and
distinctive signage that both marks the route and
directs bicyclists to it. Adding way- finding
signage would encourage more pedestrian and
bicycle activity and highlight the attractions of
the area.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 27 of 175
5.2.2. Countermeasures
Countermeasures include changes to signage and lighting, physical infrastructure, and signal
timing, as well as enforcement and upgrades to meet ADA requirements. While each of these
measures can play a role in making the intersections safer, it is also important to understand their
limitations.
Signage and lighting:
Signage can alert drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists to potential hazards, but signs are passive
and are often disregarded if the hazard is uncommon. Additionally, signs can clutter the
roadway, causing confusion. Lighting can be effective, particularly at night and if triggered by
pedestrian or bicyclist presence. However, during daylight hours, lighting may not be noticeable
enough to change behavior.
Physical infrastructure changes:
Perhaps the most effective way to change driver, pedestrian and bicyclist behavior is by
changing the physical environment of the roadway, for example, by adding medians, extending
curbs, and tightening turns. Such changes also affect behavior in the daytime and at night. One
important improvement is to create a distinctive crosswalk treatment that would improve driver
awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists and mark the area as a shared space. The crosswalk
pattern should be highly visible in daytime and at night. Potential treatments could include wide
bold ladder stripes, texture, color, lighting, and bicycle route symbols where applicable.
Signal timing:
Changes to signal timing are generally effective, assuming people comply with the signal. For
example, restricting right turns by vehicles during red lights can be effective if clearly signed and
enforced. Even a limited restriction ( e. g., during weekends or at mid- day) is effective because
drivers have to consider whether the restriction applies, forcing them to slow down or even stop
before turning. However, changing signal timing or restricting right turns can delay vehicles,
particularly in areas with very high traffic volume. Additionally, restrictions may be violated
during periods of low pedestrian and bicycle volume. A dynamic restriction ( e. g., triggered by a
pedestrian push- button) may be more effective.
Enforcement:
Enforcement, particularly for drivers, is critical to making these intersections safer. One
approach is to install a series of signs at the main entrances to the area ( e. g., at freeway off-ramps)
that announce “ Pedestrian and Bicyclist Right of Way Enforced” or something similar.
Such signs could alert drivers to the issue of pedestrian and bicycle right of way and make them
consider the consequences of violating it. Combined with regular “ stings” and a clear, consistent
policy for officers to enforce, such signs might help change driver behavior in this area.
Emeryville will need to discuss this issue and develop a consistent policy for enforcement.
ADA requirements:
While most of the intersections comply with basic ADA requirements, many of the crossings and
connectors are not easy to use for those with disabilities. Several of the paths are quite narrow,
especially near crosswalks, where maneuverability is particularly important. Pushbuttons are not
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 28 of 175
always located close to the curb ramp, few of the ramps have texture, and only some of the
crossings have audible signals. These improvements should be made as the intersections are
upgraded.
6. POWELL AND FRONTAGE
6.1. DESCRIPTION
The intersection of Powell and Frontage is the furthest west of the four intersections. Frontage
Road runs north- south along the waterfront and ends at Powell. Powell runs west to the Marina
and east to San Pablo Avenue. This intersection includes two I- 80 southbound on- ramps, one on
the south side and one on the north. The northwest corner has a gas station and a hotel. Siebel’s
office building is to the north. The Bay Trail runs along Frontage from the north, heads west to
the Marina, and returns east along the south side of Powell Street to Shellmound, all on off- street
paths. An on- street bicycle lane also runs west along Powell, ending at Frontage ( Figure 5).
During heavy freeway congestion, this intersection becomes an I- 80 bypass. Drivers perform U-turns
west of the intersection to access the less congested southbound I- 80 on- ramp. This
increases the overall vehicle volume at the intersection and also increases pedestrian exposure to
vehicles, as each such commuting vehicle crosses an intersection crosswalk three times (# 3
twice, and # 4 once).
This intersection is very critical for Emeryville. It includes several segments of the Bay Trail
and bicycle routes, and anyone traveling by foot or bike between Emeryville and the Marina
must pass through this intersection.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 29 of 175
Figure 5: Aerial Photo of Powell and Frontage
Table 7: Vehicle Volume at each Crossing: Powell and Frontage
CROSSING VEHICLE VOLUME
ACROSS CROSSING
PERCENT OF INTERSECTION
TOTAL
# 1 5,736 31
# 2 7,763 42
# 3 8,059 43
# 4 1,220 7
Note: sum of percentages exceeds 100 because many vehicles cross more than one crosswalk.
6.2. VEHICLE PATTERNS
Based on traffic counts provided by the City, Powell and Frontage carries over 18,000 vehicles
per day during the a. m. and p. m. peaks ( 9a. m.- 1p. m. and 5p. m.- 9p. m.) combined. AM and PM
peak hour flows are 2,398 and 3,880 vehicles, respectively ( Figure 5 and Table 7).
84% of the vehicles in this intersection are split between four main movements:
• Westbound vehicles on Powell make right turns toward I- 80 on- ramp ( free right turn)
( 31%)
• Southbound vehicles on Frontage make left turns onto eastbound Powell ( 26%)
• Westbound vehicles on Powell travel trough toward the Marina ( 16%)
• Eastbound vehicles on Powell travel towards the Powell Plaza ( 10%)
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 30 of 175
6.3. PEDESTRIAN PATTERNS
There are four crosswalks in this intersection. Crossing # 1 connects the northeast corner to the
pedestrian island. Crossing # 2 connects the island to the northwest corner. Crossing # 3 connects
the northwest and southwest corners, and Crossing # 4 crosses the southbound I- 80 on- ramp from
the southwest corner to the southern sidewalk. There is no north- south crosswalk on the east
side.
During field observations, 60% of pedestrians used the northern crossings (# 1 and # 2), 22% used
the western crossing (# 3), and 13% used the southern crossing (# 4). 6% crossed illegally on the
eastern side. Most pedestrians were traveling east ( 44%) or west ( 29%). 70% of the pedestrians
were male, and most ( 60%) traveled in groups of two or more.
The major issue at this intersection is violation of pedestrian right of way by right- turning
vehicles that accelerate when approaching (# 4) or entering (# 1) freeway on- ramps. The vast
majority ( 82%) of encroachment on pedestrian right of way occurred with right- turning vehicles.
Visibility is a problem both for pedestrians and drivers. Drivers often are not looking for
pedestrians when making these turns, and pedestrians have a difficult time seeing vehicles
approaching from behind them ( e. g., crossing west on # 1 and crossing east on # 4).
Pedestrian compliance with crossing signals is also an issue. Fully half of the observed
pedestrians finished crossing with a “ solid red hand” signal, the highest percentage of the four
intersections. In part, this is because 36% of pedestrians began crossing either on the “ flashing
red hand” or the “ Solid red hand” signals. Also, the long crossings (# 2 and # 3) are difficult to
complete in time, and the lack of safe refuges increases pedestrian exposure to risk. The existing
signal timing is inadequate, particularly at Crossing # 3.
6.4. BICYCLE PATTERNS
Bicycle facilities at this intersection include the Bay Trail along the south sidewalk and the
designated bicycle route running south along Frontage to Powell, crossing the I- 80 southbound
on- ramp and continuing along the south side of Powell Street. A bicycle lane also runs along
Powell in both directions between Frontage and the Marina.
During field observations at this intersection, bicyclists were traveling south along Frontage and
turning east onto Powell ( 33%), east along Powell from the west ( 22%) and west on combined
routes ( 34%).
Most bicyclists were male ( 87%), and 22% of bicyclists were riding in groups - the highest of all
the intersections. More bicyclists rode on the sidewalk here than at any of the other
intersections: 21% entered the intersection on a sidewalk, and 37% exited on a sidewalk. The
major issues for bicyclists at this intersection include potential conflicts with right- turning
vehicles at the I- 80 on- ramps and navigating between designated routes on sidewalks, paths, and
the street. More bicyclists were observed using the # 2 lane ( second from the curb) at this
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 31 of 175
intersection than at the others ( 32%). This is likely to avoid right- turning vehicles. Bicyclists
might favor entering and ending their crossings on sidewalks due either to the alignment of the
Bay Trail or their difficulty in navigating the multiple lanes in the intersection. Bicyclists ( and
pedestrians) coming south along the Frontage Street sidewalk also face conflicts from vehicles
cutting across the sidewalk to enter the gas station.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 32 of 175
6.5. INDIVIDUAL CROSSINGS
6.5.1. Crossing # 1— Northeast corner to pedestrian island
Description and primary issues
This segment is the first of two adjoining segments on the north side of Powell that cross
Frontage Road. This segment crosses two lanes of traffic making right turns onto Frontage Road
( north) from Powell after passing under the freeway. While most of these vehicles enter a
freeway on- ramp about 50 yards past the crossing to the north, other traffic either proceeds on
Frontage Road north to Berkeley or enters driveways along the west side of Frontage road. The
segment is not signalized and is marked only by a crosswalk and a “ Yield to Pedestrian” sign just
before the crossing.
There are two primary issues at this crossing:
• Very heavy and fast vehicle traffic in both lanes during much of the day— vehicles traveling
toward the freeway are beginning to accelerate, anticipating entering the freeway on- ramp,
and they are not expecting to encounter pedestrians or bicyclists.
• Limited line of sight— a freeway column partially blocks the view between the lane next to
the curb and the northwest corner.
Implications for pedestrian risk
Drivers often do not slow down or yield the right of way when a pedestrian begins to enter the
crosswalk. Additionally, the general volume and speed of vehicles makes pedestrians reluctant
to assert the right of way. Instead, they simply wait for an appropriate gap. However, the line of
sight limitation impedes this strategy. At the community meeting at the Watergate condominium
complex, residents noted that this was the most problematic crossing of all those included in the
assessment. It should be noted that crossing from east to west on this segment is more difficult
than crossing west to east because of the line of sight limitations, and because vehicles are
approaching from behind pedestrians. Crossing from west to east is somewhat easier because the
pedestrian is facing oncoming vehicles and drivers can more easily see pedestrians standing on
the pedestrian island.
One possibility raised at meetings with City officials was to remove this crosswalk, on the
grounds that it is not safe. The TSC recommends against removing this crosswalk on two
grounds.
First, this crossing provides the only connection to the north side of Powell between Frontage
and Christie. Removing it would increase walking distances and add crossings, exposing
pedestrians to additional risk. For example, pedestrians walking to Denny’s from the Watergate
condominiums would have to cross to the south side of Powell, cross the on- ramp at Frontage
and the off- ramp at I- 80, cross back to the north side at Christie, and then walk most of a block
back to get to the restaurant. Many people would choose the more direct route, even given the
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 33 of 175
risk at this crossing. For these reasons, it is important to improve the crosswalk rather than
eliminate it.
Second, there are several ways to improve this crosswalk. In particular, signalizing the segment
is a viable option that would greatly improve pedestrian safety at the crossing. There is a gap in
traffic of 16- 18 seconds during each cycle when almost all traffic crossing this segment is
blocked by vehicles turning on a protected left turn from Powell onto the freeway about 50 yards
upstream ( the exact length of this interval depends on number of vehicles waiting in the queue
for the protected left turn). This gap could allow signalization of this segment with little if any
delay in traffic flow.
Implications for bicycle risk
Bicyclists wishing to continue west on Powell past this crossing must cross two lanes of right-turning
vehicles and negotiate with vehicles merging to the right. The speed and volume of these
vehicles puts bicyclists at significant risk, which is exacerbated by poor lighting under the
freeway.
Suggested improvements for Crossing # 1
Basic Treatment
Physical infrastructure
• Enhanced crosswalk marking
• Reflectors mounted on corners of island on poles or barrier structure
Signage
• Signs or pavement stencils at east corner for pedestrians to watch for vehicles
• Fluorescent yellow- green “ Yield to Pedestrians” sign to replace existing yellow sign
• Enlarge “ Yield to Pedestrians” sign
Enforcement
• Vehicle compliance with pedestrian right of way
ADA
• Upgrade curb ramps ( add texture) and signals ( add audible signals) as needed
Additional Items
• In- roadway lighting along crosswalk or pedestrian- activated flashing beacon above
crosswalk
• Pedestrian- activated flashing “ Yield to Pedestrian” sign
• Signalization of the segment with pedestrian countdown signal, coordinated with an already
occurring gap in traffic ( see text)
• Experimental in- roadway lighting and audible signal activated by pedestrian push- button
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 34 of 175
6.5.2. Crossing # 2— Pedestrian island to the northwest corner of the intersection
Description and primary issues
This segment is the second of two crossings joined by a pedestrian island that cross Frontage
Road on the north side of Powell. While there are four vehicle lanes, the crossing is five lanes
wide. Three lanes approach from the north: the right most lane is for right turns only onto
Powell ( west), and the other two are for left turns only onto Powell ( east). The fourth lane is for
traffic turning left off of eastbound Powell to travel north on Frontage. An area on Frontage
( roughly equivalent to a traffic lane) is a striped median. The crossing segment is signalized and
includes a pedestrian signal in which the “ Walk” signal begins with the onset of the green light
for eastbound and westbound traffic on Powell Street.
There are several issues at this crossing:
• Southbound vehicles turning right on red during pedestrian ” Walk” phase
• Proximity of the crossing to a gas station driveway
• Substantial number of vehicles using this intersection as a freeway bypass to avoid freeway
congestion. These drivers proceed west on Powell to do a U- turn and head back to the
freeway ramp on the opposite side of the intersection.
• Insufficient pedestrian signal timing
Implications for pedestrian risk
Pedestrians are primarily at risk on the west side of the crossing from vehicles turning right on
red lights during the pedestrian walk phase, although traffic is not as heavy or rapid as at other
locations. Nevertheless, drivers who failed to yield the right of way and who encroached on the
crosswalk were observed. Additionally, pedestrians on the west side of the crossing face risk
from distracted drivers on the northwest corner exiting the gas station, particularly from those
drivers looking to their left ( east) to pull out to the right ( west) and not watching for pedestrians
on the sidewalk. While closing this driveway would reduce risk to pedestrians in the crosswalk,
it would force drivers wishing to stop at the gas station to cross both Crossing # 2 and Crossing
# 3 to reach the other gas station driveway on Powell. This might actually increase risk to
pedestrians and bicyclists. Closing this driveway is therefore not recommended. However, the
TSC recommends that signs be posted at the gas station driveway indicating that drivers should
watch for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Implications for bicycle risk
Bicyclists riding along the Frontage sidewalk ( which is part of the Bay Trail) face conflicts from
drivers exiting the gas station at the northwest corner. As stated above, signs should be posted at
the gas station driving indicating the drivers should watch for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 35 of 175
Suggested improvements for Crossing # 2
Basic Treatment
Physical Infrastructure
• Enhanced crosswalk marking
• Recessed stop bar for southbound lanes
• Reflectors mounted on corners of island on poles or barrier structure
Signage
• “ Yield to Pedestrian” sign at west corner for right- turning vehicles
• Sign at gas station exit driveway on Frontage for vehicles to watch for pedestrians and
bicyclists
Enforcement
• Vehicle compliance with pedestrian right of way
ADA
• Upgrade curb ramps ( add texture) and signals ( add audible signals) as needed
Additional items
Physical infrastructure
• Reduce curb radius to reduce vehicle speeds and reduce crossing distance for pedestrians
Electronic signage
• Pedestrian countdown signal
• Pedestrian triggered flashing “ Yield to pedestrian” sign at west corner coordinated with
pedestrian signal phase
• Experimental in- roadway lighting triggered by pedestrians
Signal timing
• Extend pedestrian signal timing ( Flashing Red Hand phase)
• Coordinate signal timing with signal timing for Crossing # 1, if possible
• Prohibit right turn on red, at least during off- peak periods ( i. e., lunch hours and weekends)
• “ No right- turn” arrow or electronic sign for southbound vehicles triggered by pedestrian push
button
Other
• Prohibit commuting through EV by statute and/ or by eliminating the U- turn west of the
intersection on Powell ( this would reduce the number of right turning vehicles onto Powell).
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 36 of 175
6.5.3. Crossing # 3— West side of Frontage across Powell
Description and primary issues
This crossing is at the west side of the intersection. It is the second longest crossing in the study
area, at almost 100 feet. There are five vehicle lanes along this crosswalk leg: two heading
westbound on Powell towards the Marina and three heading eastbound. There is a very narrow
median extending just to the crosswalk. The median is not of a suitable or comfortable size to be
used as a refuge, the minimum size for which would be 4 to 6 feet, with a portion extending
beyond the crosswalk. No pedestrians using this island were observed.
Of the two westbound lanes, the northernmost lane ( next to the curb) receives traffic turning
right from Frontage onto Powell, and the other ( next to the median), receives traffic from west
bound through traffic on Powell. Of the three eastbound lanes, the northernmost lane ( next to the
median) must turn left onto Frontage northbound. The center lane eastbound must proceed
straight through on Powell, and the southernmost lane ( next to the curb) may proceed straight or
make a right turn onto I- 80. There is a bicycle lane along the curb on both sides of Powell that
ends ( for eastbound bicyclists) and begins ( for westbound bicyclists) at this crosswalk. The Bay
Trail runs along this crossing, connecting segments to the north along Frontage to segments to
the east and west. For the trail system to work well, bicycle crossings should be clear, both to
bicyclists and drivers.
There are several issues at this intersection.
• High- speed traffic turning right from Frontage onto Powell during the pedestrian “ Walk”
phase.
• Distraction by drivers exiting or entering gas station driveways.
• Relatively low volume but high speed eastbound traffic turning right onto the freeway on-ramp.
• Encroachment of eastbound vehicles on the crosswalk.
• Insufficient pedestrian crossing time.
• Lack of a usable refuge in the median.
• No indication of a bicycle route in the crosswalk.
Implications for pedestrian risk
Pedestrian risk varies by portion of the crosswalk. For pedestrians in the north part of the
crossing, the risk is from the two lanes of vehicles turning right off Frontage onto Powell.
Because of the large turning radius and the distance traveled by drivers before they reach the
crosswalk, these vehicles are proceeding fairly rapidly.
For pedestrians in the south part of the crossing, the risk is from vehicles turning right off of
Powell onto the I- 80 on- ramp. These vehicles may turn on red, and, during the red phase,
observers noted many vehicles not stopping, or only partially stopping, before turning.
Restricting right turns on red would result in some delay for vehicles. However, given the
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 37 of 175
relatively low right- turn volumes, it would not impede overall capacity very much. Additional
risk is from vehicles traveling eastbound on Powell encroaching on the crosswalk during the red
phase.
For pedestrians proceeding either way on the crosswalk, there is potential risk for those who do
not complete the crossing and are forced to wait on the narrow raised median. The pedestrian
signal timing at this crossing does not allow sufficient “ Flashing red hand” or “ Walk” time for a
pedestrian to cross, even at a relatively fast speed.
Implications for Bicycle Risk
Bicyclists riding on the bicycle lane face risk when the lane ends. It is also unclear whether the
crosswalk is part of the Bay Trail or bicycle route. Because this segment connects two bicycle
routes, it is likely that many bicyclists will be crossing here.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 38 of 175
Suggested improvements for Crossing # 3
Basic Treatment
Physical Infrastructure
• Enhanced crosswalk marking
• Recessed stop bar for vehicles in the east- bound lanes
• Marked bicycle path in crosswalk
Signage
• Signs or pavement stencils at north corner for pedestrians to watch for vehicles turning right
off of Frontage onto Powell
• Bay Trail and/ or bicycle route signage
• “ Yield to pedestrians” signs at north and south corners
Signal timing
• Extend pedestrian signal timing (“ Walk” and “ Flashing red hand”)
Enforcement
• Vehicle compliance with pedestrian and bicyclist right of way
ADA
• Upgrade curb ramps ( add texture) and signals ( add audible signals) as needed
Additional items
Physical infrastructure
• Widen median and extend across crosswalk, adding refuge space
• Reduce curb radius at north end of the crossing to slow turning vehicles and reduce crossing
distance
• Pull the crosswalk diagonally from northwest to southeast corner ( on other side of
southbound on- ramp) or expand the crosswalk to include the I- 80 freeway on- ramp. The
latter should be combined with “ No right turn on red” for eastbound right turns
Electronic signage
• Pedestrian triggered flashing “ Yield to pedestrian” sign at both right turns, coordinated with
“ Walk” signal phase
• Experimental in- roadway lighting triggered by pedestrians
• Pedestrian countdown signal
Signal timing
• Create leading pedestrian interval, possibly triggered by pedestrian push- button
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 39 of 175
Other
• Prohibit commuting through Emeryville by statute and/ or by eliminating the U- turn west of
the intersection on Powell ( which would reduce the number of vehicles at both right turns).
• Prohibit right turn on red, at least during off- peak periods ( i. e. lunch hours and weekends).
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 40 of 175
6.5.4. Crossing # 4— South side of Powell across the southbound I- 80 on- ramp
Description and Issues
This leg consists of a single lane heading southbound onto I- 80. Only vehicles heading
eastbound on Powell may use this lane. The crosswalk is fairly short— less than 30 feet— and is
considered part of the Bay Trail.
There are several issues at this crossing:
• Relatively low volume but high- speed right turns. Vehicles turn to enter an on- ramp to I- 80,
and begin to accelerate accordingly. Right turns on red are permitted after stopping, but
vehicles rarely come to a full stop.
• Since the crossing is narrow, pedestrians and bicyclists often cross without either pushing the
pedestrian button or waiting for the light. Almost no one observed waited for the pedestrian
signal.
• The line of sight was substantially blocked by bushes on the southwest corner of the
intersection. While these bushes have been trimmed, they are growing back and will be an
ongoing maintenance issue unless they are removed.
• Confusing cluster of signs on sign post at east end of crossing.
Implications for Pedestrian Risk
The primary risk here is relatively high- speed vehicles turning right and not noticing pedestrians,
concentrating instead on entering the freeway on- ramp. A mitigating factor is that these
vehicles do not have to watch for other vehicle traffic. Pedestrians crossing to the east likely
have the greater risk because they must look over their shoulder to observe approaching vehicles.
Pedestrians crossing to the west face vehicles and therefore can more easily observe them. The
pedestrian “ Flashing red hand” phase does not allow enough time to cross at a moderate to fast
walking rate, although the combined “ Walk” plus “ Flashing red hand” time is sufficient.
The relatively short length of the crosswalk, in conjunction with relatively low traffic volume,
has created a situation in which the crosswalk signal is almost irrelevant for pedestrian crossings.
The predominant pattern is that pedestrians simply wait for an adequate gap in vehicle traffic,
irrespective of the pedestrian signal.
Implications for Bicyclist Risk
The primary risk for bicyclists at this crossing is crossing the entrance to the freeway on- ramp
while monitoring any approaching traffic behind them. Furthermore, there is inadequate signage
and street markings at this point and ambiguity about whether bikes are supposed to enter the
sidewalk or the trail and how bikes are to enter the stream of traffic if they proceed on the street.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 41 of 175
Suggested improvements for Crossing # 4
Basic treatment
Physical Infrastructure
• Enhanced crosswalk marking
• Recessed stop bar for vehicles
• Remove bushes on southwest corner ( these have been cut but appear to be growing back)
• Mark bicycle path in crosswalk
Signage
• Signs or pavement stencils for pedestrians to watch for vehicles
• “ Yield to Pedestrians” sign at southwest corner
• Reduce and clarify the cluster of signs at the east side of this crossing
Enforcement
• Vehicle compliance with pedestrian and bicyclist right of way
ADA
• Upgrade curb ramps ( add texture) and signals ( add audible signals) as needed
Additional items
Physical infrastructure
• Reduce curb radius to force turning vehicles to slow and reduce crossing distance.
• Pull crossing # 3 diagonally from northwest to southeast corner ( on other side of southbound
on- ramp), or expand crossing # 3 to include the I- 80 freeway on- ramp.
Electronic Signals
• Pedestrian triggered flashing “ Yield to pedestrian” sign
• Experimental in- roadway lighting triggered by pedestrian
Signal timing
• Create leading pedestrian interval, possibly triggered by pedestrian push- button
Other
• Prohibit commuting through Emeryville by statute and/ or by eliminating the U- turn west of
the intersection on Powell.
• Prohibit right turn on red, at least during off- peak periods ( i. e. lunch hours and weekends).
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 42 of 175
7. POWELL AND 1- 80
7.1. DESCRIPTION
The intersection of Powell and I- 80 is immediately east of Powell and Frontage. Powell
proceeds east and west through this intersection, with an on- ramp to I- 80 on the north side, and
an off- ramp from I- 80 on the south side. There are pedestrian crosswalks at both ramps. The
pedestrian crossings are connected to Powell and Frontage by sidewalks underneath the I- 80
overpass. Land uses include a Denny’s Restaurant on the northeast corner and the Powell Street
Plaza shopping center to the southeast. A designated bicycle route ( part of the Bay Trail) runs
along the south leg of the intersection ( Figure 6).
Figure 6: Aerial photo of Powell and I- 80 on- ramps
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 43 of 175
Table 8: Vehicle Volume at each Crossing: Powell at I- 80
CROSSING VEHICLE VOLUME
ACROSS CROSSING
PERCENT OF
INTERSECTION TOTAL
# 5 4,897 20
# 6 7,332 30
7.2. VEHICLE PATTERNS
Based on traffic counts provided by the City of Emeryville, the intersection at Powell and
Frontage carries close to 25,000 total vehicles during the a. m. and p. m. peaks ( 9a. m.- 1p. m. and
5p. m.- 9p. m.) ( Figure 6 and Table 8). Peak hour flows at this intersection are 3,630 and 3,550
vehicles at 12- 1p. m. and 5- 6p. m., respectively.
The primary threats for pedestrians at this intersection are from the two right turns, which
account for about 37% of the total traffic:
• Right turns off of westbound Powell onto the on- ramp ( 3,899 vehicles, or 16% of the total)
• Right turns from the off- ramp onto eastbound Powell ( 5,179 vehicles, or 21% of the total)
During periods of high congestion, many drivers use this intersection to bypass traffic on I- 80.
This is facilitated by the “ through” option in the center lane from the off- ramp which allows
vehicles to simply exit, cross through the intersection, and then re- enter the freeway. The vehicle
data provided by the City indicates a low number of northbound through vehicles ( 54) during the
two observation periods combined. However, during periods of heavy freeway congestion,
many vehicles per cycle using this intersection to bypass the freeway were observed.
7.3. PEDESTRIAN PATTERNS
There are two crosswalks in this intersection. Crossing # 5 is at the entrance to the northbound
on- ramp at the north leg and connects the sidewalk under the freeway to the northeast corner
occupied by a Denny’s Restaurant. Crossing # 6 is at the exit of the I- 80 off- ramp at the south leg
of the intersection and connects the sidewalk under the freeway to the southeast corner occupied
by a shopping center. There is no north- south crosswalk at either the east or west legs of the
intersection.
During the period of the observations, 80% of the pedestrians used the southern crossing, while
the remaining 20% used the northern crossing. All pedestrians were traveling east ( 48%) or west
( 52%). Observers did not see any pedestrians crossing illegally in north or south directions.
This is probably due to the fast speeds and heavy volume of east- west vehicle traffic and the
absence of a travel- time advantage for pedestrians. Most ( 61%) pedestrians were male and over
60% traveled in groups of two or more.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 44 of 175
Compared to the other intersections, pedestrians at Powell and I- 80 were more likely to change
stride to avoid a vehicle. The intersection also had the second highest number of vehicle
violations of pedestrian right of way. All encroaching vehicles were turning right.
Over 20% of pedestrians began crossing on the “ Flashing Red Hand” signal, and over 30%
finished crossing on the “ Solid Red Hand.” Because the crosswalks are short, pedestrians may
be more inclined to disregard the signal. This may also help explain their many conflicts with
vehicles.
7.4. BICYCLE PATTERNS
Bicyclists in this intersection can either travel east or west along Powell. On the northern portion
of the road, bicyclists are expected to use the traffic lanes ( though some use the sidewalk). There
is no designated bicycle lane on the street. On the southern portion, bicyclists can either use the
bicycle path on the south side of the street ( Bay Trail) or the traffic lanes. During the period of
the observations, over 70% were traveling west to east.
During observation, bicyclists at this intersection were fairly evenly split between commuters
and recreational bicyclists. Most were riding alone ( 85%), and over 90% were male. Compared
to other intersections, Powell and I- 80 had the highest number of young bicyclists between ages
10 and 17 ( 14%). Also, bicyclists at Powell and I- 80 were the most compliant with signals, with
95% starting to crossing on green, and less than 5% starting to cross on red. There were no
observed conflicts, violations, or vehicle encroachments on bicyclist right of way.
A major issue for bicyclists traveling in the northern portion of the road is the right- turning
vehicles entering the I- 80 on ramp. Bicyclists traveling straight ( west) on Powell must ride in
between the through lanes and the right- turn lane, and then move left again as they approach
Frontage to avoid a second lane of right- turning vehicles. Another issue is drivers cutting across
bicyclists’ paths as they enter or exit the gas station or Denny’s driveways on the northern
sidewalk.
Another major issue for bicycles traveling on Powell is that drivers turning right may not see or
yield to the bicyclists. The bicycle route on the south side of the intersection is also poorly
marked, and it may be unclear to bicyclists where to go. The crosswalk on the south side of the
intersection is part of the Bay trail and therefore may be used by bicycles. However, drivers may
not expect bicyclists there, and drivers, especially those turning right, may encroach on the
crosswalk and not look to their right to see oncoming westbound bicyclists.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 45 of 175
7.5. INDIVIDUAL CROSSINGS
7.5.1. Crossing # 5— North side of Powell across the northbound I- 80 on- ramp
Description and primary issues
This crosswalk crosses a two lane on- ramp to northbound I- 80. Cars enter the on- ramp, from
Powell; eastbound vehicles turn left onto the on- ramp, and westbound vehicles turn right. In
addition, some vehicles on northbound I- 80 use the intersection as a shortcut to bypass
congestion on the adjacent segment of I- 80 by exiting into the south side of the intersection and
traveling straight through to the I- 80 on- ramp on the north side. The crosswalk has standard
striping and is offset from the sidewalk under the freeway. Caltrans maintains jurisdiction for
the on- ramp, while Emeryville has jurisdiction of the crosswalk and intersection.
There are a number of issues at this crossing:
• Line of sight— a tall railing and newsstand on the east corner ( on the driveway to Denny’s)
partially obstructs the line- of- sight between drivers and pedestrians, particularly when
pedestrians are crossing from east to west. Due to the geometry of the northeast corner,
pedestrians crossing west have to look back over their shoulder to observe traffic.
• Sign clutter approaching the intersection— there is a series of signs along westbound Powell
as one approaches the freeway on- ramp including a pedestrian sign, a ” Right- turn only” sign,
a height limit sign, a “ Yield to pedestrians” sign, and an “ After stop, right turn permitted on
red” sign. The signs clutter the roadway and make it difficult to see each sign. Additionally,
the “ Yield” sign is somewhat small and hard to read.
• Narrow sidewalk— the sidewalk leading to and adjacent to the crosswalk is narrow, barely
meeting ADA standards.
• Faded pavement markings— both the crosswalk and the stop bar are faded.
• Accelerating vehicles— Right- turning vehicles are beginning to accelerate to freeway speed
and do not always stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. This is facilitated by a large turning
radius.
Implications for pedestrian risk
The first risk for pedestrians at this crossing is from vehicles turning right during the pedestrian
walk phase. Vehicles have a green light, are often traveling at high speed, are not expecting to
encounter a pedestrian, and often do not stop or yield. Several pedestrians not using the push-button
were observed.
The second risk for pedestrians at this crossing comes during the pedestrian “ Don’t Walk” phase.
Because the crossing is relatively short, pedestrians may be tempted to cross against the signal.
Observers noted several of these violations. While vehicles can legally turn right on red after
stopping, they rarely come to a complete stop.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 46 of 175
Both of these risks are compounded by the line- of- site limitation and the narrow sidewalk on the
northeast corner.
Suggested improvements for Crossing # 5
Basic Treatment
Physical Infrastructure
• Widen sidewalk on west corner
• Enhance crosswalk marking
• Re- paint stop bar for westbound traffic
Signage
• Remove or relocate signs along westbound Powell to reduce visual clutter
• Replace “ Yield to pedestrians” sign with larger, brighter ( fluorescent yellow- green) sign
Enforcement
• Enforce vehicle compliance with pedestrian right of way and stop before right turn on red
ADA
• Upgrade curb ramps ( add texture) and signals ( add audible signals) as needed
Additional items
Physical Infrastructure
• Square off and extend east corner to reduce vehicle speed of right- turning vehicles, increase
visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross, and provide room for ADA- compliant sidewalk and
ramp
Signal timing
• Provide leading pedestrian interval, possibly triggered by pedestrian push- button
Signage
• Install pedestrian- activated experimental in- roadway lighting
• Install pedestrian- activated “ Yield to pedestrians” sign
Other
• Prohibit right turn on red, at least during off- peak periods ( i. e. lunch hours and weekends).
• Remove or relocate newsstand on Denny’s driveway to improve visibility at corner
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 47 of 175
7.5.2. Crossing # 6— South side of Powell across the northbound I- 80 exit ramp
Description and primary issues:
This is a three lane exit ramp off of I- 80 northbound. Vehicles in the right lane must turn right
onto Powell eastbound. Vehicles in the middle lane may make a right or left turn, or proceed
straight onto the I- 80 northbound entrance ramp. During periods of heavy freeway congestion,
many drivers use this middle lane to bypass a portion of the freeway and re- enter on the opposite
ramp. Prohibiting this movement would reduce vehicle volumes across the crossing. Vehicles in
the left lane must make a left turn onto Powell westbound. The crosswalk has standard striping
and is part of the Bay Trail. There is a pedestrian signal with a pushbutton at both ends of the
crosswalk.
There are several major issues at this crossing.
• Vehicles approaching at high speed— Drivers coming off the off- ramp are decelerating
quickly from high speeds and often encroach on this crosswalk.
• Driver attention on traffic coming from the left— There is a “ Ped Xing” sign at the west
corner, but drivers turning right are focused on traffic coming from their left and do not look
to their right where pedestrians or bicyclists may be crossing. Many also do not stop before
turning right.
• Line of sight limitation— the southeast corner has an embankment with overgrown foliage
that restricts drivers’ visibility of pedestrians attempting to cross to the west.
Implications for pedestrian risk:
The risks for pedestrians vary depending on the signal phase and portion of the crosswalk.
During the pedestrian “ Walk” phase, the primary risk is in the east part of the crosswalk from
vehicles turning right on red when pedestrians ( and bicyclists) have the right- of- way. These
vehicles are exiting the freeway at high speeds and are focusing on vehicles approaching from
their left. The risk is exacerbated by the line of sight limitations caused by bushes and the
embankment at the southeast corner and possibly by the low expectation of encountering a
pedestrian or bicyclist. Observers learned anecdotally about two bicycle collisions or near
misses at this location.
During the pedestrian “ Don’t walk” phase, pedestrians are also at risk while standing on the
southeast corner. This risk is from vehicles, especially trucks, encroaching on the sidewalk as
they turn right. Since this is a relatively short crossing, pedestrians may be tempted to cross
against the light during a gap in traffic. This puts pedestrians at risk in any part of the crosswalk
since approaching vehicles will have the light in their favor.
Implications for bicyclist risk in the bicycle path:
The TSC generally found that bicyclists stopped for the red light at this location; however, a
bicyclist not stopping for the light would be at risk given the speed of vehicles coming off the
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 48 of 175
freeway. Bicyclists following the traffic signal are at risk primarily from vehicles turning right
on red, given that drivers are focused on vehicles and do not expect to encounter a bicyclist.
Additionally, although this crossing is part of a bicycle route, it is not clear where bicycles are
allowed to be, and drivers may not expect them in the crosswalk.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 49 of 175
Suggested improvements for Crossing # 6
Basic Treatment
Physical Infrastructure
• Enhanced crosswalk marking
• Add texture prior to crosswalk to alert drivers to approaching crosswalk
• Recessed stop bar
• Marked bicycle path in crosswalk
• Remove shrubbery on southeast corner
Signage
• Signs or pavement stencils for pedestrians to watch for vehicles
• Upgrade “ Ped Xing” sign
• Bay Trail signage to clarify bicycle route and alert drivers to existence of bicycle route
Enforcement
• Vehicle compliance with pedestrian and bicyclist right of way
ADA
• Upgrade curb ramps ( add texture) and signals ( add audible signals) as needed
Additional Items
Physical infrastructure
• Extend curb on the east side of the crossing to force turning drivers to slow, while
accommodating right- turning trucks
• Extend median further into the intersection to restrict northbound through movements
Electronic signs
• Pedestrian triggered flashing “ Yield to Pedestrian” sign on both sides of the off- ramp
• In roadway lighting triggered by pedestrian
Signal timing and traffic flow
• Prohibit right turn on red, at least during off- peak periods ( i. e. lunch hours and weekends)
• Add red arrow signal prohibiting northbound right turns activated by pedestrian push- button
Other
• Change middle lane to right- turn only, prohibiting traffic from going straight back onto
freeway. ( This reduces the possibility of backed- up traffic on off- ramp due to no right turn
on red and restricts use of the intersection as a freeway bypass).
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 50 of 175
8. POWELL AND CHRISTIE
8.1. DESCRIPTION
The intersection of Powell and Christie is one block east of Powell and I- 80. To the north along
Christie are commercial, office, and residential developments. To the south, Christie serves the
Powell Street Plaza and then turns east to meet Shellmound Street. To the east, the Powell Street
Bridge crosses over the railroad tracks and to the west Powell continues to the I- 80 on- ramps and
the Marina. Land uses at this intersection include a hotel to the southeast, the shopping center
parking lot to the southwest, an electronics store to the northeast, and a gas station to the
northwest. The crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection ( crossing Christie) is also part of
the Bay Trail ( Figure 7).
Figure 7: Aerial View of Powell and Christie
Table 9: Vehicle Volume at Each Crossing: Powell and Christie
CROSSING VEHICLE VOLUME
ACROSS CROSSING
PERCENT OF
INTERSECTION TOTAL
# 7 8,074 30
# 8 21,643 84
# 9 11,862 45
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 51 of 175
Note: sum of percentages exceeds 100 because many vehicles cross more than one crosswalk.
8.2. VEHICLE PATTERNS
Based on traffic counts provided by the City, Powell and Christie has the highest vehicle volume
of the four intersections, carrying almost 26,000 total vehicles during the a. m. and p. m. data
collection periods ( 9a. m.- 1p. m. and 5p. m.- 9p. m.) ( Figure 7 and Table 9). The a. m. and p. m.
peak hour flows are 3033 and 4310, respectively. Vehicle patterns here are also more varied
than at the other intersections.
All four right turns at this intersection are permitted during the red phase. Red light running has
been an issue at this intersection, particularly for left turns from westbound Powell onto Christie.
A camera to enforce red light running was recently installed to help address this issue.
About 35 percent of vehicles are split between two right- turn movements:
• Eastbound Powell onto southbound Christie ( 22 %)
• Southbound Christie onto westbound Powell ( 13%)
It should be noted that vehicle data for this intersection was collected before Christie was made
one- way eastbound by Shellmound Street. This one- way segment starts several hundred feet
from the intersection, and has resulted in a decrease in the volume of vehicles entering the
intersection northbound on Christie.
8.3. PEDESTRIAN PATTERNS
There are only two legal crosswalks in this intersection, on the west ( crossing Powell) and south
( crossing Christie). Both of these crosswalks have pedestrian countdowns, and these are the only
countdowns in the four intersections included in this study. Neither the north leg of the
intersection ( crossing Christie) nor the east leg ( crossing Powell) is presently a legal crosswalk:
both have signage and barriers prohibiting pedestrian crossing.
During the observations, over 50% of pedestrians used the western crossing and 22% used the
southern crossing. However, an additional 19% crossed the northern leg, and 5% crossed the
eastern leg of the intersection. That pedestrians cross at these illegal crossing sites suggests that
there is demand to cross these legs. Pedestrian destinations were fairly evenly split between west
( 32%), south ( 32%), and north ( 26%), with 10% going east.
Pedestrians were fairly evenly split by gender ( 56% male/ 44% female). This intersection had the
highest percentage of older pedestrians, with 8% over 65, and 65% of pedestrians traveled in
groups of two or more.
Of all the intersections studied, Powell and Christie had the highest percentage of vehicle
violations of pedestrian right of way, experienced by more than 23% of observed pedestrians.
This rate is two to ten times higher than other intersections. Most of these vehicles were turning
right. These violations were evenly split between the south and west crossings.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 52 of 175
Compared to other intersections, this one also had many more conflicts where vehicles changed
course to avoid a pedestrian. Most of these were between pedestrians crossing west in the north
leg and right turning vehicles from Powell.
Pedestrian compliance with signals was high: over 80% began crossing on the “ Walk” signal,
and almost 90% finished crossing before the “ Solid red hand”. However, this intersection also
had the highest percentage of people running to get across the street— over 15%. Most of these
were people crossing the northern ( illegal) leg. A few, crossing the western leg, stopped in the
median.
This intersection also had the highest percentage of left- turning vehicles observed encroaching
on pedestrians. All except one of these left- turn encroachments occurred between pedestrians
crossing ( illegally) at the north leg of the intersection and vehicles from the dual left- turn lanes
on eastbound Powell.
From this analysis and feedback at community meetings, the main issues at this intersection
include right- turning vehicles not stopping for pedestrians, long crossing distances, and the lack
of a crosswalk in the north leg.
8.4. BICYCLE PATTERNS
Bicycle facilities at this intersection include a Class I bike path on the southwest sidewalk that
runs along the northern edge of the Powell Plaza shopping center. This is proposed to be part of
the Bay Trail. The route continues across the southern crosswalk and through a hotel parking lot
( via land granted as an easement) on the southeast corner. There is a bike route sign at the
southwest corner with an arrow directing bicyclists across Christie. This route runs parallel to
the Powell Street Bridge and connects to a bike lane on Shellmound and to the continuation of
the Bay Trail to the south on Shellmound.
Bicyclists at Powell and Christie had the most diverse travel patterns: north to south ( 29%), east
to west ( 19%), west to east ( 19%); and west to south ( 14%). The vast majority traveled in lane 1
( next to the curb) rather than the sidewalk path. Over 85% began in lane 1, and over 70% ended
in lane 1. This may be because most were commuters, who tend to prefer riding on the street. It
may also reflect the poor signage and incomplete network of off- street paths.
Compared to other intersections, this intersection had the highest percentage of bicycle
commuters ( 94%) and lowest percentage of recreational bicyclists ( 6%). It also had the highest
percentage of female bicyclists ( near 25%). Almost all bicyclists were riding alone ( 90%).
The majority of bicyclists here were compliant with signals. Over 85% began crossing on green.
However, this intersection had the lowest percentage of bicyclists able to finish crossing on
green ( 68%). Vehicles at Powell and Christie were most likely to stop or swerve to avoid a
bicyclist, though this was still very rare ( 2 cases observed). Both cases involved right- turning
vehicles stopping to avoid through- moving bicyclists. There were a few bicyclist violations
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 53 of 175
( crossing on a red light), and no vehicle violations observed. All of the encroachment issues
involved right- turning vehicles.
Based on feedback from community meetings, a major issue for bicyclists at this intersection is
that drivers turning right from Powell to Christie often do not stop and do not expect bicyclists.
A second issue is that southbound bicyclists in the northern leg on Christie have to ride in the
middle of the street to avoid the dual left- turn lanes. Finally, although there is a “ Bike Route”
sign with a straight arrow at the southern crossing, the bicycle route through the parking lot is not
obvious to drivers and may be unclear to bicyclists.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 54 of 175
8.5. INDIVIDUAL CROSSINGS
8.5.1. Crossing # 7— Unmarked ( blocked) crossing across north leg of Christie
Description and primary issues
This leg has five lanes of traffic: two northbound and three southbound, which include dual
right- turn lanes and a combined through/ left- turn lane. The stop bar for southbound vehicles is
pulled back substantially from the corner.
There are two related issues at this crossing:
• Although this crosswalk has a pedestrian barrier, a substantial number of pedestrians were
observed crossing here – almost as many as used the south crosswalk. Because the east side
of the intersection is also not a marked crosswalk, and has six lanes of high- speed traffic,
pedestrians who want to go from the northeast corner ( by Good Guys) to any other corner in
the intersection will most likely cross at the north leg.
• Drivers do not expect a pedestrian here since it is not a legal pedestrian crossing.
Given the high pedestrian use, lack of alternative crossings, and the low volume of right turns
from Powell onto northbound Christie, re- striping this crosswalk should be considered.
According to City staff, the worst bottleneck in Emeryville occurs at this intersection in the
southbound direction. This could potentially be improved by converting Christie back to two-way
traffic. In the meantime, countermeasures should be considered in light of this bottleneck
and attempt to limit vehicle delay.
Implications for pedestrian risk
The fact that this crossing is blocked means that most drivers do not expect pedestrians at this
crossing. This is borne out by the observation data, which shows many pedestrians running
across the northern leg, and several conflicts between pedestrians and westbound vehicles
turning right from Powell onto Christie.
Implications for bicyclist risk
Because there is only one through lane, drivers going to the shopping center at the southwest
corner of the intersection must merge across two lanes ( across right- turning vehicles from
Powell) to make a right turn into the parking lot. This is a problem for bicyclists, who must ride
in the middle of traffic if they want to go straight through the intersection.
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 55 of 175
Suggested improvements for Crossing # 7
Basic Treatment
Physical Infrastructure
• Convert to legal crosswalk
• Pedestrian pushbuttons and countdown signal
• Textured curb ramps and audible signals
Enforcement
• Vehicle compliance with pedestrian right of way
Additional Items
Physical infrastructure
• Extend curb at northeast corner to reduce speeds of right- turning vehicles from Powell Street
Bridge
• Change center southbound lane from right turn only to through- only
Signal timing
• Implement a leading pedestrian interval ( for pedestrians at northeast corner)
Emeryville Pedestrian and Bike Safety Evaluation Page 56 of 175
8.5.2. Crossing # 8— West side of Christie across Powell
Description and primary issues
This crosswalk crosses eight lanes of traffic: five eastbound and three westbound. It is the
longest crossing in the study at 100 feet. Eastbound lanes include dual left- turn lanes onto
Christie, a through lane, a through/ right- turn lane onto Christie, and a right- turn lane onto
Christie. The three westbound lanes receive traffic from the two right- turn lanes off of Christie,
two through lanes on Powell, and a left- turn lane from Christie. The northwest corner is bulbed
out. There is a “ Yield: Pedestrian Crossing” sign at the north corner. The pedestrian signal is a
countdown. There is median extending to the crosswalk with a very small “ thumbnail” piece on
the opposite side of the crosswalk.
There are several major issues at this crossing:
• Two lanes of heavy, high speed traffic turning right on green from Christie onto Powell
during the pedestrian “ Walk” phase.
• Two lanes of heavy, high speed traffic turning right on red from Powell onto Christie during
the pedestrian “ Walk” phase.
• The sheer width of the intersection and volume of traffic is intimidating to cross.
• Narrowness of the median. There is a push button on the median, but very little space for
pedestrians to stand.
Implications for pedestrian risk
Pedestrian risk depends on the portion of the crossing. At the south end of the crossing
pedestrians face risk from the two lanes of vehicles turning right from Powell onto Christie. This
is the heaviest vehicle right- turn pattern in the set of intersections ( 5,749 vehicles during the 8
hour a. m. and p. m. peaks) matched only by the right- turn volume from westbound Powell onto
the Frontage on- ramp ( 5,736). The primary risk for pedestrians in this segment is vehicles
turning right on red during the pedestrian “ Walk” phase. Vehicles are typically moving at fairly
high speeds, made possible by the large turning radius. The potential for “ multiple threat”
injuries is high at this location since the view of a vehicle in the outer lane may be blocked by a
vehicle in the inner lane ( i. e., the lane next to the curb). In addition, vehicles in the outer lane
have a larger turning radius and may be traveling faster than vehicles in the inner lane. When
drivers do stop for pedestrians, they often stop inside the crosswalk area, encroaching on