National Academies Press: OpenBook

Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (2006)

Chapter: Chapter 5 - Findings From Surveys

« Previous: Chapter 4 - Review of Pedestrian Signal Warrant
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings From Surveys." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13962.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings From Surveys." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13962.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings From Surveys." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13962.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings From Surveys." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13962.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings From Surveys." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13962.
×
Page 31

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

27 This chapter summarizes the findings from surveys used to obtain information on pedestrian treatments as well as the challenges of identifying and providing pedestrian treat- ments, including traffic control signals. Survey techniques were as follows: • Focus groups of providers, • Phone meetings with providers, • On-site interviews of providers, • A focus group of bus drivers, and • On-street interviews of pedestrians. Appendixes J and K contain details on how each of the sur- veys was conducted. The observations are summarized below. Observations From Survey of Providers Several common themes appeared in the phone conversa- tions, focus groups, and interviews conducted by the research team between December 2002 and June 2003. These themes fall into the following categories and are summarized in the following sections: • Providing pedestrian crossing treatments, • Experience with the pedestrian warrant for traffic signals, and • Transit agency involvement with pedestrian crossings and traffic signals. Providing Pedestrian Crossing Treatments The findings on providing pedestrian crossing treatments are summarized as follows: • Agencies are installing a wide variety of treatments. The agencies interviewed have installed a wide variety of pedestrian crossing treatments (in sum total) that range from the inexpensive (e.g., pedestrian crossing flags or in- street pedestrian crossing signs) to just-as-expensive-as- vehicle traffic signals (e.g., midblock pedestrian traffic signals). Each agency by itself has not experimented with such a wide range of crossing treatments, but several agen- cies have experimented enough to prefer a particular type of treatment to others. City transportation departments were more likely to use innovative or non-standard treat- ments than state transportation agencies. The state agen- cies typically favored conservative, traditional approaches that could be more easily defended in tort or liability court cases. • There are no universal winners or losers, but treatment effectiveness does vary by street environment. For specific crossing treatments, no universal “winners” or “losers” emerged from the site visits, focus groups, and interviews. Instead, the persons interviewed indicated that certain crossing treatments could be more effective than others in certain street environments with particular ranges of traffic characteristics. For example, several cities use crossing treat- ments with steady or flashing red signal displays on high- volume, high-speed roadways to achieve better motorist yielding in this high-risk street environment. These same cities might also use basic crosswalk markings and signs on streets with low to moderate traffic speeds and volumes because motorists are more likely to yield to pedestrians. Common themes in comments for specific types of treat- ments follow: • Steady or Flashing Red Signal Displays. Several cities use treatments with red signal displays on high-volume, high- speed arterial streets. For example, the City of Tucson uses a steady and flashing red signal display on pedestrian acti- vation of their HAWK signals. The City of Los Angeles uses midblock pedestrian signals that display a flashing red sig- nal when activated. The Cities of Seattle and Portland use C H A P T E R 5 Findings From Surveys

intersection pedestrian signals that, when activated, display a steady red signal on the major street and a Stop sign on the minor street. • Flashing Beacons. Flashing amber beacons are being installed with particular attention to pedestrian expecta- tions. Many of the engineers interviewed noted that once some pedestrians press a pushbutton, they expect all vehi- cles to yield and thus they may be less cautious crossing the street. Several agencies are using passive detection by sen- sors instead of manual pushbuttons to detect waiting or crossing pedestrians, but this passive detection requires more resources for installation and maintenance. Also, most cities prefer manual pushbutton activation of flash- ing amber beacons to continuously flashing beacons, which traffic officials think eventually lose effectiveness. • In-Roadway Warning Lights. Many cities have installed in-roadway warning lights, but several cities were taking a cautious approach. Several agencies were concerned about the visibility of in-roadway warning lights (absent any additional overhead or side-mounted flashing beacons) in direct sunlight or in queued traffic. A few cities also men- tioned concerns about pedestrian expectations with pedes- trian activation or detection problems with passive detection sensors. A few cities also mentioned that they did not want to jump on the “in-roadway lights bandwagon” and that these devices might be an engineering fad that slowly falls out of favor after more extensive installations. • Median Refuge Islands. Nearly all cities interviewed indi- cated that, where possible to install, a median refuge island was almost always considered, either alone or in conjunc- tion with other treatments. Even the state DOTs, which seemed to favor more traditional approaches, considered median refuge islands an effective treatment to be used wherever possible. One state transportation representative did mention others’ concerns about the crash-worthiness of curbed median refuge islands on high-speed streets. • Advanced Stop/Yield Lines. Several cities interviewed are using advanced stop or yield lines (i.e., transverse trian- gles), typically placed between 30 and 40 ft (9 and 12 m) in advance of the crosswalk markings. The advanced stop/yield lines were held in similar regard as median refuge islands, in that they were being used as a standard design element with crosswalk markings alone or with other more substantial crossing treatments. • Crosswalk Markings. Numerous cities indicated that they use the 2002 FHWA guidelines on crosswalk markings (50) to find out where to mark crosswalks as well as where to provide more substantial pedestrian crossing treatments. Numerous cities also mentioned that they use much greater care in selectively marking crosswalks than they have in the past. A few engineers interviewed still interpret these recommendations as supporting a “mark versus do not mark” decision rather than a “mark versus more sub- stantial treatment” decision. • In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs. Interest in in-street pedestrian crossing signs has been growing. They are viewed as an appropriate treatment for lower-speed (30 mph [48 km/h] or less) roadways. The signs are used to remind drivers of their legal obligation with respect to pedestrians in crosswalks. • Flags. Pedestrian crossing flags are also viewed as an appropriate treatment for lower-speed (35 mph [55 km/h] or less) roadways. Salt Lake City, Utah, has 120 locations with flags, and Kirkland, Washington, has several installa- tions. Some of the other communities interviewed ques- tion the flags’ effectiveness and replacement efforts and costs. The flags are to be picked up by a pedestrian and used to indicate the desire to cross the street. The pedes- trian is to place the flag in the holder when done crossing the roadway; however, sometimes flags are not returned. Cities with experience observe that the rate of disappear- ance decreases after the treatment has been in place for a while. Salt Lake City requires that neighborhood associa- tions or businesses “adopt” the crossing and maintain the supply of crossing flags. Experience with the Pedestrian Warrant for Traffic Signals Comments on experiences with the pedestrian warrants follow. • The pedestrian volumes in the MUTCD warrant are too high to meet. The engineers who expressed concern about the MUTCD pedestrian warrant unanimously agreed that the required pedestrian volumes were too high to ade- quately address many pedestrian crossing issues in their jurisdiction. To address their pedestrian issues, many engi- neers either installed crossing treatments that are less restrictive than traffic signals, modified the existing MUTCD pedestrian warrant, or used a supplementary engineering analysis to justify a traffic signal installation. • Cities’ modifications to the existing MUTCD warrant might have merit. Some of the agencies developed new cri- teria for pedestrian signals to better address pedestrian accommodation issues in their respective jurisdictions. For example, Redmond recently adopted an approach that includes pedestrian volumes that are 80 percent of the val- ues included in the MUTCD. Other cities incorporate reduction factors for different street environments or dif- ferent pedestrian populations (e.g., school children, elderly pedestrians, and those with physical disabilities) and con- sider project demand or project transit ridership in their warrant analyses. 28

• Useful criteria for other pedestrian crossing treatments exist. In addition to modifying the existing pedestrian war- rant for traffic signals, several cities have developed instal- lation criteria for other pedestrian crossing treatments such as in-roadway warning lights or flashing beacons. Transit Agency Involvement with Pedestrian Crossings and Traffic Signals Transit agencies are active in providing safe crossings. Fol- lowing is a summary of transit agency involvement: • The level of coordination varies between transit staff and city engineers. The level of coordination between transit agency staff and city engineering staff varies from close col- laboration to casual communication. The level of coordi- nation appears to depend on the existing institutional relationships. In areas with the greatest collaboration, city engineering and transit agency staff worked closely in locating transit stops/stations and installing pedestrian crossing accommodation. In other areas, the relationship was less collaborative and information sharing may have been on a “need-to-know” basis. • Some transit agencies address pedestrian issues. Some transit agencies are attempting to address pedestrian issues through stop location and design. For example, one transit agency was re-evaluating stop locations along several major arterial streets and consolidating some stops closer to intersections or preferred pedestrian crossings. The same transit agency was also considering shifting some bus service to parallel streets to avoid the harsh pedestrian crossing environments of high-speed, high-volume high- ways (although such shifts to lower-speed streets would affect transit mobility). Several transit agencies (or the respective cities) provide extra lighting at busy evening and nighttime stops. Along some routes with widely spaced sig- nals, though, transit agencies have no options other than placing stops at unsignalized locations. • Several cities consider transit activity in pedestrian improvements. Several cities are considering transit stops in pedestrian improvements. For example, city staff may obtain transit boardings and alightings at certain locations 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- ilar transit improvements. Many of the city staff inter- viewed understand the importance of the pedestrian environment in transit mode choices. • Transit agencies provide funds. Several transit agencies commented that they have and will continue to contribute funds toward pedestrian treatments. When appropriate, they will also install bus shelters or other pedestrian ameni- ties (e.g., lighting) to encourage the consolidation of pedes- trians into a preferred crossing location. On-Street Pedestrian Surveys The goal of the on-street pedestrian survey was to obtain the perspectives of pedestrians on their experiences and needs at unsignalized pedestrian crossing locations. Appendix K contains details on the methodology used and findings from the surveys. The methodology and findings are summarized below. Seven sites with five different treatments were ultimately selected for study. The sites were selected on the basis of pedestrian traffic volumes, pedestrian crossing treatment, and roadway characteristics. The selected sites reflected numerous crossing treatments in order to obtain greater per- spective on pedestrian experiences. The treatments consisted of two marked crosswalk treatments, an in-roadway flashing light treatment, a HAWK treatment, two split midblock sig- nal treatments (locally called a “pelican”), and a countdown pedestrian signal treatment at a signalized intersection. The data collection sites were in urban areas with high traffic vol- umes. Table 13 lists the selected sites and where they were and summarizes key characteristics of the site. 29 Site # Pedestrian Treatment Number of Lanes Median Present Distance to Nearest Signalized Intersection 1 Austin, TX Marked Crosswalk Four Two-Way Left-Turn Lane 200 ft (61 m) 2 Tucson, AZ Marked Crosswalk Six Raised 600 ft (183 m) 3 Austin, TX In-Roadway Warning Lights Four Raised 550 ft (168 m) 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 the Sea, FL Countdown Display at Signalized Intersection Two and Four Raised Not Applicable Site Location Table 13. Treatment characteristics.

Survey Design The on-street pedestrian survey had three sections. The first section was to obtain pedestrians’ opinions of the street cross- ing treatment. The second section asked general questions for demographic purposes only. The questions used in Sections 1 and 2 are listed in Table 14. The third section consisted of recording several demographic characteristics that were observed for comparison purposes only. In addition, researchers observed the crossing behavior of the pedestrians at the study location to record if they used the designated crossing, jay- walked, crossed at a nearby intersection, or did something else. A tally was kept of those pedestrians refusing to participate in the survey and why. Reasons given for refusing the survey included that they did not speak English, were in a hurry, or simply preferred not to participate. This information was recorded to determine the level of participation at each location. Survey Protocol The survey was administered at the selected locations where pedestrians could be approached after they crossed at the study site. The potential participants were approached and asked if they would be willing to complete a survey about pedestrian crossings that would take about 5 minutes. The surveyor would read the questions to participants and record his or her responses. On completing the survey, the researcher would record the observational data on the survey form. At each site, the researchers interviewed at least 40 pedestrians to obtain their opinions on the pedestrian crossing treatment. Conclusions for On-Street Surveys Appendix L contains information on the findings for each individual site. Survey conclusions follow. When determining the amount of traffic control to be used at a pedestrian crossing location, many factors should be con- sidered.Those that affect the perception of pedestrians most are • Traffic volume, • Turning traffic, • Presence of pedestrians with handicaps, • Traffic speed, and • The availability of an alternate crossing. This study revealed that, as the control at a pedestrian crossing increases through the addition of signs, flashing 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 ratings were based on a scale where 1 indicates very safe and 5 indicates unsafe. Figure 11 also shows the sites as they progress from least amount of control at the left to most amount of control at the right. The one abnormality in this trend is that the signalized intersection (Site 7) is considered either to be equally safe or less safe than the split midblock signal treatment (Sites 5 and 6). Researchers believe that this variance is because pedestri- ans crossing at a major signalized intersection deal with a larger number of turning vehicles, which diminishes their perceptions of safety. 30 Question Number Question 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+ Table 14. Survey questions.

The unpredictability of drivers remains the number one con- cern to pedestrians, no matter the pedestrian treatment used. Even at highly controlled crossings where all traffic is required to stop, determining whether a vehicle will obey the signal was one of the major concerns of the pedestrians surveyed. Finally, pedestrians can be greatly influenced by their own abilities. At the two sites with the split midblock signal treat- ment (Sites 5 and 6), perceptions were greatly altered depend- ing on the pedestrian population. At a location where a greater number of people who are elderly or have disabilities will be crossing, the extended median was viewed favorably. However, at the location without this type of pedestrian traf- fic, the jog in the pedestrian path is considered a delay and therefore not an effective crossing design. Summary The research team conducted several interviews and sur- veys in early phases of the project to gather information about pedestrian crossing treatments, use of the pedestrian warrant, and pedestrian concerns in general. Interviews with traffic engineers revealed the use of several different crossing treatments, most of which were evaluated in this project. Most engineers recognized that treatment effectiveness varied by street type and traffic conditions. Many engineers expressed difficulty in using the pedestrian traffic signal warrant to address pedestrian crossing prob- lems. Some engineers had developed a modified pedestrian signal warrant process that was less restrictive than the MUTCD warrant. Interviews with transit agency staff revealed awareness that pedestrian crossings were an issue at transit stops. Sev- eral transit agencies coordinated with city and state engi- neers in locating transit stops and improving pedestrian crossings. Curbside interviews with pedestrians indicated the follow- ing most common pedestrian concerns: traffic volume (par- ticularly turning traffic), vehicle speeds, and unpredictability of motorists (i.e., whether they will stop at marked cross- walks). The curbside surveys also indicated that pedestrians typically feel safer with greater levels of vehicle control (i.e., traffic signals or red signal/beacon devices). 31 0 1 2 3 4 5 Sit e 1 M ark ed Cr oss wa lk Sit e 2 M ark ed Cr oss wa lk Sit e 3 In -Ro ad wa y W arn ing Lig hts Sit e 4 HA WK Sit e 5 Sp lit M idb loc k S ign al Sit e 6 Sp lit M idb loc k S ign al Sit e 7 Si gn aliz ed /Co un tdo wn Data Collection Locations A ve ra ge R at in g, Sc al e 1= Ve ry S af e an d 5= Un sa fe Figure 11. Average pedestrian safety ratings.

Next: Chapter 6 - Field Studies »
Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and National Cooperative Highway Research Program have jointly produced and published Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. The product, which can be referred to as TCRP Report 112 or NCHRP Report 562, examines selected engineering treatments to improve safety for pedestrians crossing high-volume and high-speed roadways at unsignalized locations. The report presents the edited final report and Appendix A. TCRP Web-Only Document 30/NCHRP Web-Only Document 91 (Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings: Appendices B to O) contains the remaining appendixes of the contractor's final report.

A summary of TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562 as published in the July-August 2007 issue of the TR News is available online.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!