HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: HB 1113 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety
SPONSOR(S): Fine
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: SB 1412
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or
BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF
1) Tourism, Infrastructure & Energy Subcommittee 15 Y, 2 N Johnson Keating
2) Infrastructure & Tourism Appropriations 10 Y, 1 N Hicks Davis
Subcommittee
3) Commerce Committee 18 Y, 3 N Johnson Hamon
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Florida law provides that the driver of a vehicle must stop for a pedestrian who is walking in a crosswalk in
accordance with a traffic control signal or where signage indicates the driver must stop. If there are no traffic
control signals or signage in place at a crosswalk, the driver of a vehicle must yield to a pedestrian who is on
the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling. If traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians
may not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. If there is no crosswalk, pedestrians crossing a
roadway must yield to vehicles.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) and local governments utilize various types of equipment or signals
to indicate when pedestrians may safely cross at midblock crosswalks (crosswalks that are not at an
intersection). One type of signal commonly used is a rectangular rapid flash beacon (RRFB). The RRFB
consists of two rapidly and alternately flashing yellow rectangular LED lights that function as a warning beacon
to drivers. Pedestrians press the call button to activate the yellow flashing lights, but should wait for motorists
to stop before they cross.
The bill creates the “Sophia Nelson Pedestrian Safety Act.”
The bill requires a traffic engineering study conducted by a Florida licensed professional engineer prior to
installing a new mid-block crosswalk (MBC). MBCs installed on public roads must conform to certain provisions
of the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and other applicable DOT standards,
manuals, and specifications, and must include a pedestrian-facing sign containing language stating duties
applicable to a pedestrian.
The bill requires, by October 1, 2024, that the entity with jurisdiction over a public highway, street, or road with
a MBC must ensure that such crosswalk is controlled by the required coordinated traffic control signal devices
and pedestrian control signals. Alternatively, the entity may remove the crosswalk.
Additionally, by October 1, 2022, the bill requires DOT to seek approval from the federal government to allow
the use of red RRFBs in place of yellow RRFBs. If approved, all entities with jurisdiction over MBCs must
replace existing yellow RRFBs with red RRFBs within 12 months of federal authorization. If the request is
denied, all entities with jurisdiction over MBCs must remove all yellow RRFBs or retrofit MBCs with legally
acceptable equipment as required in the bill.
The bill provides legislative findings that this bill fulfills an important state interest.
The bill will likely have a significant, negative fiscal impact to state and local governments. See Fiscal Analysis
for details.
The bill has an effective date of October 1, 2021.
This document does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives .
STORAGE NAME: h1113f.COM
DATE: 4/14/2021
 FULL ANALYSIS
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Current Situation
Unless otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer, pedestrians are required to obey the
instructions of official traffic control devices that are specifically applicable to pedestrians.1 If a sidewalk
is provided, and no circumstances prevent a pedestrian’s use of the sidewalk, a pedestrian is prohibited
from walking on a roadway that is paved for vehicular traffic.2 If a sidewalk is not provided, a
pedestrian, when practicable, must walk only on the shoulder on the left side of the roadway in relation
to the pedestrian’s direction of travel, facing traffic that may approach from the opposite direction.3
The driver of a vehicle must stop for a pedestrian who is walking in a crosswalk at in accordance with a
traffic control signal or where signage indicates the driver to stop. If there are no traffic control signals
or signage in place at a crosswalk, the driver of a vehicle must yield to a pedestrian who is on the half
of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling.4 If traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians
cannot cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.5 If there are no crosswalks, pedestrians
crossing a roadway must yield to vehicles.6
When pedestrian traffic control signals or signage is installed, such indicators must conform to the
requirements of the most recent Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).7 The MUTCD
defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices
on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) maintains the MUTCD.8
The Department of Transportation (DOT) and local governments utilize various types of MUTCD
approved signals to indicate when pedestrians may safely cross midblock crosswalks (MBCs).9 Two
types of signals commonly used by DOT and local governments are a rectangular rapid flash beacon
(RRFB) and a pedestrian hybrid beacon.10 The RRFB consists of two rapidly and alternately flashing
yellow rectangular LED lights that function as a warning beacon to drivers.11 Pedestrians press the call
button to activate the flashing lights, but should wait for motorists to stop before they cross.12 The
pedestrian hybrid beacon consists of three signal sections with a circular yellow signal indication
centered below two horizontally aligned circular red signal indications.13 The pedestrian hybrid beacon
is not illuminated until a pedestrian activates it and triggers the warning flashing yellow lens facing the
street.14 After a set amount of time, the indication changes to a solid yellow light to inform drivers to
prepare to stop.15 The beacon then displays a dual solid red light to drivers on the street and a walking
person symbol to pedestrians on the crosswalk.16 At the conclusion of the walk phase, the beacon
1 S. 316.130(1), F.S.
2 S. 316.130(3), F.S.
3 S. 316.130(4), F.S.
4 S. 316.130(7), F.S.
5 S. 316.130(11), F.S.
6 S. 316.130(10), F.S.
7 S 316.0755, F.S.
8 U.S. Department of Transportation, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), (updated
February 2, 2021), https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2021).
9 DOT, Pedestrian Facilities, https://www.fdot.gov/roadway/bikeped/default.shtm (last visited Mar, 2, 2021). For purposes of this bill
analysis, a MBC is defined as a crosswalk which is at least 100 feet from an intersection.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 U.S. Department of Transportation, Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment (July 2010),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10045/index.cfm (last visited Mar. 2, 2021).
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
STORAGE NAME: h1113f.COM PAGE: 2
DATE: 4/14/2021
 displays an alternating flashing red light, and pedestrians are shown an upraised hand symbol with a
countdown display informing them of the time remaining to cross the street.17
In July 2008, the MUTCD was updated via a memorandum18 to provide interim approval of RRFBs for
optional use in limited circumstances. The interim approval allows for the usage of RRFBs as a warning
beacon to supplement standard pedestrian crossing warning signs and markings at either a pedestrian
or school crossing.19 The cost is approximately $10,000 to $15,000 for purchase and installation of two
RRFB units (one on either side of a street).20 FHWA will grant interim approval for the optional use of
an RRFB as a warning beacon in addition to standard pedestrian crossing or school crossing signs at
crosswalks by any jurisdiction that submits a written request to FHWA’s Office of Transportation
Operations.21 A state may request interim approval for all jurisdictions in that state.22
MBCs on the state highway system, both controlled and uncontrolled, are typically justified and
installed as a result of a traffic engineering or safety study. To meet and conform to the requirements of
the MUTCD and DOT’s standards, a fully signalized MBC must serve a minimum of 133 pedestrians in
the peak hour.23
The current estimated quantity of MBCs on the state highway system include:
Controlled MBCs24
 Total MBCs with Traffic Signals = 7
 Total MBCs with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon = 15
Uncontrolled MBCs25
 Total MBCs with warning signs and pavement markings only = 83
 Total MBCs with Yellow Circular Flashing Beacons = 5
 Total MBCs with Yellow RRFBs = 23126
Effect of Proposed Changes
The bill creates the “Sophia Nelson Pedestrian Safety Act.”
The bill provides that before the installation of a pedestrian crosswalk after October 1, 2021, on a public
highway, street, or road which is located at any point other than an intersection with another public
highway, street, or road, a traffic engineering study must be conducted by a Florida licensed
professional engineer which recommends installation of such crosswalk.
The bill also provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary:
 A pedestrian crosswalk on a public highway, street, or road that has a posted speed limit of 30
miles per hour or more, which is located at any point other than an intersection with another
public highway, street, or road, must conform to the requirements of chapter 4D and 4E27 of the
most recent MUTCD and other applicable DOT standards, manuals, and specifications and
17 Id.
18 See Memorandum of Interim Approval for Optional Use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11) (July 16, 2008),
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/fhwamemo.htm (last visited Mar. 2, 2021).
19 U.S. Department of Transportation, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB),
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/unsignalized/tech_sum/fhwasa09009/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2021).
20 Id.
21 See Memorandum of Interim Approval for Optional Use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11) (July 16, 2008),
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/fhwamemo.htm (last visited March 2, 2021).
22 Id.
23 Department of Transportation, Agency Analysis of 2021 House Bill 1113 (Version 2), p. 6. Mar. 11, 2021.
24 Controlled MBCs contain either a traffic signal or pedestrian hybrid beacon.
25 Uncontrolled MBCs contain devices such as pedestrian activated flashing beacons, RRFBs, street signs and/or pavement markings
only.
26 Department of Transportation, Agency Analysis of 2021 House Bill 1113 (Version 2), pp. 4-5. Mar. 11, 2021.
27 Chapter 4D relates to traffic control signal features including designs for certain traffic control devices. Chapter 4E relates to
pedestrian control features. Chapter 4F relates to pedestrian hybrid beacons. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf (last
visited Mar. 16, 2021).
STORAGE NAME: h1113f.COM PAGE: 3
DATE: 4/14/2021
 must include a pedestrian-facing sign containing language stating duties applicable to a
pedestrian.
 A pedestrian crosswalk on a public highway, street, or road that has a posted speed limit of 29
miles per hour or less which is located at any point other than an intersection with another
public highway, street, or road, must include a pedestrian-facing sign containing language
stating duties applicable to a pedestrian.
The bill requires traffic control signal devices and pedestrian control signals at MBCs with posted speed
limits of 30 miles per hour or more to be coordinated with traffic control signal devices at intersections
adjacent to the crosswalk. The traffic control signal devices at intersections adjacent to the crosswalk
must be taken into consideration as provided in the most recent MUTCD and other applicable DOT
specifications.
The bill requires, by October 1, 2024, that the entity with jurisdiction over a public highway, street, or
road with a MBC must ensure that such crosswalk is controlled by the required coordinated traffic
control signal devices and pedestrian control signals. Alternatively, the entity may remove the
crosswalk.
The bill requires DOT, by October 1, 2022, to submit to the federal government a request for
authorization to allow existing yellow RRFB traffic control devices to be replaced by red RRFB traffic
control devices. If the federal government grants the request, the entity with jurisdiction over the MBC
must replace all yellow RRFBs with red RRFBs within 12 months after the date of federal authorization.
If the federal government denies the request, the applicable entity must remove all yellow RRFBs at
MBC by October 1, 2025. The entity with jurisdiction over the crosswalk may retrofit the crosswalk with
legally acceptable equipment.
The bill provides that the Legislature finds and declares that this act fulfills an important state interest.
The bill has an effective date of October 1, 2021.
B. SECTION DIRECTORY:
Section 1: Provides a short title.
Section 2: Creates s. 316.0756, F.S., relating to traffic control devices at crosswalks.
Section 3: Provides a declaration of important state interest.
Section 4: Provides an effective date of October 1, 2021.
II. FISCAL ANALYSIS & ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
A. FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENT:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
DOT has identified 319 uncontrolled and 22 controlled MBCs located on the state highway system
that would be impacted by the provisions of this bill. DOT derived its total estimated cost of $14.9
million in capital costs and $159,000 in recurring annual maintenance for additional traffic signals by
using the following per location costs:
 Replacing/retrofitting an uncontrolled MBC with a coordinated traffic signal - $300,000
 Retrofit pedestrian hybrid beacons to a full coordinated traffic signal - $18,000
STORAGE NAME: h1113f.COM PAGE: 4
DATE: 4/14/2021
  Retiming an uncoordinated MBC traffic signal to coordinate with adjacent traffic signals -
$5,525
 Removal of an uncontrolled MBC - $7,000
 Maintaining a traffic signal - $5,139
 Signal warrant/traffic engineering study - $10,000
The costs to install pedestrian-facing signs containing language stating duties applicable to a
pedestrian is negligible ($130 per install). DOT estimates that the total retiming cost associated with
coordinating traffic control signal devices and pedestrian control signals at MBCs with posted speed
limits of 30 miles per hour or more with traffic control signal devices at intersections adjacent to the
crosswalk would be $38,675. If it was determined, based upon the most recent MUTCD and other
applicable DOT standards, manuals, and specifications, that a MBC could not be retrofitted to be
controlled by coordinated traffic control signal devices and pedestrian control signals, the crosswalk
must be removed. The cost to remove unwarranted MBC’s is estimated to be $1,974,000.
Should the federal government grant the state’s request to allow yellow RRFB traffic control devices
to be replaced by red RRFB traffic control devices, the fiscal impact is indeterminate. Because red
RRFB traffic control devices do not currently exist, certain required design and operational elements
are not developed at this time. 28 If the federal government does not grant the request, the
department assumes 10 percent of the uncontrolled MBCs would meet the requirements for the
installation of a traffic signal resulting in an upgrade of 31 crosswalks. The remaining 90 percent
(282 MBCs) would not meet the requirements, and therefore, would be removed altogether. The
construction costs associated with retrofitting MBCs to coordinated traffic signals or removing the
crosswalk altogether are estimated to be $9,300,000 and $1,974,000, respectively. DOT also
assumes that all 15 of the MBCs controlled by a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon would meet the
requirements for the installation of pedestrian traffic signals and the cost to retrofit these locations
would be $270,000.
The costs associated with performance of a traffic engineering study by a Florida licensed
professional engineer can be absorbed within existing resources as this is already a part of DOT’s
process. The cost f