This study evaluated the safety effect of the flashing yellow arrow (FYA) treatment at signalized intersections. The major objective of this strategy is to reduce the frequency of left-turn (LT) crashes, especially those that involve a collision between left turns and vehicles traveling straight through from the opposite direction. The project team conducted an empirical Bayes before-after analysis of installations in Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Oregon. The treatments were divided into seven categories depending on the phasing system in the before and after periods, number of roads where FYAs were implemented, and number of legs at each intersection. The first five categories involved permissive or protected-permissive phasing in the before period. Intersections in these five treatment categories experienced a reduction in the primary target crashes under consideration: LT crashes and left-turn-with-opposing-through (LTOT) crashes at the intersection level. The reduction ranged from 15 to 50 percent depending on the treatment category. Intersections in categories 6 and 7 had at least one protected LT phase in the before period, and after phasing had an FYA protected-permissive LT phase without time-of-day operation (category 6) and with time-of-day operation (category 7). Consistent with results from previous studies, these intersections experienced an increase in LT and LTOT crashes. The B/C ratios for categories 1-5 ranged from 56:1 to 144:1.

This study evaluated the safety effect of the flashing yellow arrow (FYA) treatment at signalized intersections. The major objective of this strategy is to reduce the frequency of left-turn (LT) crashes, especially those that involve a collision between and vehicles traveling straight through from the opposite direction.--Abstract.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety effects of two countermeasures with respect to vehicle–pedestrian crashes—the provision of protected or protected/permissive left-turn phasing and the provision of leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs)—using a before–after empirical Bayesian methodology. The study used data from North American cities that had installed one or both of the countermeasures of interest, including Chicago, IL; New York City, NY; Charlotte, NC; and Toronto, ON. This study showed that the provision of protected left-turn phasing reduced vehicle–vehicle injury crashes but did not produce statistically significant results for vehicle–pedestrian crashes overall. A disaggregate analysis of the effect of protected or protected/permissive left-turn phasing on vehicle–pedestrian crashes indicated that this strategy may be more beneficial when there are higher pedestrian and vehicle volumes, particularly above 5,500 pedestrians per day. At these high-volume locations, the left-turn phasing evaluation resulted in a potential benefit–cost (B/C) ratio range of 1:15.6::1:38.9. The evaluation of LPIs showed that the countermeasure reduced vehicle–pedestrian crashes. This evaluation produced a crash modification factor of 0.87 with a potential B/C ratio range of 1:207::1:517.