Click for next page ( 32

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 31
31 0 Scale 1=Very Safe and 5=Unsafe 1 Average Rating, 2 3 4 5 n k k ts al al K al al w AW gh gn gn do w w Li Si Si ss ss H nt ng ro ro k k ou 4 oc oc C C ni te /C bl bl ar d d Si ed id id ke ke W M M iz ar ar ay al lit lit M M gn dw Sp Sp 1 2 Si oa te te 5 6 Si Si 7 te te -R te Si Si In Si 3 te Si Data Collection Locations Figure 11. Average pedestrian safety ratings. The unpredictability of drivers remains the number one con- Interviews with traffic engineers revealed the use of several cern to pedestrians, no matter the pedestrian treatment used. different crossing treatments, most of which were evaluated Even at highly controlled crossings where all traffic is required in this project. Most engineers recognized that treatment to stop, determining whether a vehicle will obey the signal was effectiveness varied by street type and traffic conditions. one of the major concerns of the pedestrians surveyed. Many engineers expressed difficulty in using the pedestrian Finally, pedestrians can be greatly influenced by their own traffic signal warrant to address pedestrian crossing prob- abilities. At the two sites with the split midblock signal treat- lems. Some engineers had developed a modified pedestrian ment (Sites 5 and 6), perceptions were greatly altered depend- signal warrant process that was less restrictive than the ing on the pedestrian population. At a location where a MUTCD warrant. greater number of people who are elderly or have disabilities Interviews with transit agency staff revealed awareness will be crossing, the extended median was viewed favorably. that pedestrian crossings were an issue at transit stops. Sev- However, at the location without this type of pedestrian traf- eral transit agencies coordinated with city and state engi- fic, the jog in the pedestrian path is considered a delay and neers in locating transit stops and improving pedestrian therefore not an effective crossing design. crossings. Curbside interviews with pedestrians indicated the follow- ing most common pedestrian concerns: traffic volume (par- Summary ticularly turning traffic), vehicle speeds, and unpredictability The research team conducted several interviews and sur- of motorists (i.e., whether they will stop at marked cross- veys in early phases of the project to gather information about walks). The curbside surveys also indicated that pedestrians pedestrian crossing treatments, use of the pedestrian warrant, typically feel safer with greater levels of vehicle control (i.e., and pedestrian concerns in general. traffic signals or red signal/beacon devices).