Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 29
29 · Useful criteria for other pedestrian crossing treatments · Several cities consider transit activity in pedestrian exist. In addition to modifying the existing pedestrian war- improvements. Several cities are considering transit stops rant for traffic signals, several cities have developed instal- in pedestrian improvements. For example, city staff may lation criteria for other pedestrian crossing treatments obtain transit boardings and alightings at certain locations such as in-roadway warning lights or flashing beacons. to have a better sense of total pedestrian activity. Or, when considering certain roadway changes or improvements, city staff may contact the transit agency to discuss any sim- Transit Agency Involvement with ilar transit improvements. Many of the city staff inter- Pedestrian Crossings and Traffic Signals viewed understand the importance of the pedestrian Transit agencies are active in providing safe crossings. Fol- environment in transit mode choices. lowing is a summary of transit agency involvement: · Transit agencies provide funds. Several transit agencies commented that they have and will continue to contribute · The level of coordination varies between transit staff and funds toward pedestrian treatments. When appropriate, city engineers. The level of coordination between transit they will also install bus shelters or other pedestrian ameni- agency staff and city engineering staff varies from close col- ties (e.g., lighting) to encourage the consolidation of pedes- laboration to casual communication. The level of coordi- trians into a preferred crossing location. nation appears to depend on the existing institutional relationships. In areas with the greatest collaboration, city On-Street Pedestrian Surveys engineering and transit agency staff worked closely in locating transit stops/stations and installing pedestrian The goal of the on-street pedestrian survey was to obtain crossing accommodation. In other areas, the relationship the perspectives of pedestrians on their experiences and needs was less collaborative and information sharing may have at unsignalized pedestrian crossing locations. Appendix K been on a "need-to-know" basis. contains details on the methodology used and findings from · Some transit agencies address pedestrian issues. Some the surveys. The methodology and findings are summarized transit agencies are attempting to address pedestrian issues below. through stop location and design. For example, one transit Seven sites with five different treatments were ultimately agency was re-evaluating stop locations along several selected for study. The sites were selected on the basis of major arterial streets and consolidating some stops closer pedestrian traffic volumes, pedestrian crossing treatment, to intersections or preferred pedestrian crossings. The and roadway characteristics. The selected sites reflected same transit agency was also considering shifting some bus numerous crossing treatments in order to obtain greater per- service to parallel streets to avoid the harsh pedestrian spective on pedestrian experiences. The treatments consisted crossing environments of high-speed, high-volume high- of two marked crosswalk treatments, an in-roadway flashing ways (although such shifts to lower-speed streets would light treatment, a HAWK treatment, two split midblock sig- affect transit mobility). Several transit agencies (or the nal treatments (locally called a "pelican"), and a countdown respective cities) provide extra lighting at busy evening and pedestrian signal treatment at a signalized intersection. The nighttime stops. Along some routes with widely spaced sig- data collection sites were in urban areas with high traffic vol- nals, though, transit agencies have no options other than umes. Table 13 lists the selected sites and where they were and placing stops at unsignalized locations. summarizes key characteristics of the site. Table 13. Treatment characteristics. Site Number of Median Distance to Nearest # Site Location Pedestrian Treatment Lanes Present Signalized Intersection 1 Austin, TX Marked Crosswalk Four Two-Way 200 ft (61 m) Left-Turn Lane 2 Tucson, AZ Marked Crosswalk Six Raised 600 ft (183 m) 3 Austin, TX In-Roadway Warning Four Raised 550 ft (168 m) Lights 4 Tucson, AZ HAWK Four Raised 1,000 ft (305 m) 5 Tucson, AZ Split Midblock Signal Six Raised 3,200 ft (975 m) 6 Tucson, AZ Split Midblock Signal Six Raised 950 ft (290 m) 7 Lauderdale by Countdown Display at Two and Raised Not Applicable the Sea, FL Signalized Intersection Four
OCR for page 30
30 Survey Design Conclusions for On-Street Surveys The on-street pedestrian survey had three sections. The first Appendix L contains information on the findings for each section was to obtain pedestrians' opinions of the street cross- individual site. Survey conclusions follow. ing treatment. The second section asked general questions for When determining the amount of traffic control to be used demographic purposes only. The questions used in Sections 1 at a pedestrian crossing location, many factors should be con- and 2 are listed in Table 14. The third section consisted of sidered. Those that affect the perception of pedestrians most are recording several demographic characteristics that were observed for comparison purposes only. In addition, researchers · Traffic volume, observed the crossing behavior of the pedestrians at the study · Turning traffic, location to record if they used the designated crossing, jay- · Presence of pedestrians with handicaps, walked, crossed at a nearby intersection, or did something else. · Traffic speed, and A tally was kept of those pedestrians refusing to participate in · The availability of an alternate crossing. the survey and why. Reasons given for refusing the survey included that they did not speak English, were in a hurry, or This study revealed that, as the control at a pedestrian simply preferred not to participate. This information was crossing increases through the addition of signs, flashing recorded to determine the level of participation at each location. lights, and/or signals, the pedestrians' perception of safety also increases. This trend is illustrated in Figure 11 where the average pedestrian safety ratings for each site are plotted. The Survey Protocol ratings were based on a scale where 1 indicates very safe and The survey was administered at the selected locations 5 indicates unsafe. Figure 11 also shows the sites as they where pedestrians could be approached after they crossed at progress from least amount of control at the left to most the study site. The potential participants were approached amount of control at the right. and asked if they would be willing to complete a survey about The one abnormality in this trend is that the signalized pedestrian crossings that would take about 5 minutes. The intersection (Site 7) is considered either to be equally safe or surveyor would read the questions to participants and record less safe than the split midblock signal treatment (Sites 5 and his or her responses. On completing the survey, the researcher 6). Researchers believe that this variance is because pedestri- would record the observational data on the survey form. At ans crossing at a major signalized intersection deal with a each site, the researchers interviewed at least 40 pedestrians to larger number of turning vehicles, which diminishes their obtain their opinions on the pedestrian crossing treatment. perceptions of safety. Table 14. Survey questions. Question Question Number SECTION 1 1 On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being very safe and 5 not safe) how safe did you feel crossing this street? 2 Is there anything at this street crossing that was confusing or that you had a hard time understanding? If yes, explain. 3 What is the maximum amount of time a person should have to wait to cross this street? <30 s, <1 minute, <2 minutes, <3 minutes 4 Do you think this (name of crosswalk treatment) is safe and effective? Why or why not? 5 Is there any thing else that could be added to improve the safety of this street crossing? If yes, explain. 6 (If at an uncontrolled crossing) If this crossing was not here, would you walk to that next intersection (point to intersection of interest)? Why or why not? SECTION 2 7 Did your trip today start with a bus ride, car, or walking? 8 In a typical week, how many times do you cross the street at this location? 9 How many streets do you cross in a typical day? 1 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20 10 Do you have a current driver's license? Yes No 11 Do you consider yourself to be visually disabled/impaired? Yes No 12 Is your age category between: 21-40 41-55 56-64 65+