Click for next page ( 33


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 32
32 CHAPTER 6 Field Studies This chapter summarizes the field data collection I travels and contacts with cities, states, and transit agencies. approaches used in this project to evaluate pedestrian cross- States in this initial list were Texas, Utah, Washington, Ore- ing treatments. Details on the study sites as well as the data gon, California, and Arizona. Comprehensive evaluation collection techniques are provided below. data were collected at 40 sites, and video for an additional two sites was provided to the research team for analysis. Two of the three additional sites were in Maryland, while the Background remaining site was a midblock crosswalk in Arizona that had A field study approach was developed to provide insight been selected for data collection by the research team. There- into the actual behavior of motorists and pedestrians at loca- fore, 42 unique locations are represented in the evaluation tions with existing pedestrian crossing treatments. The specific dataset. measures of effectiveness (MOEs) used for the pedestrian The sites were selected to represent various treatment crossing evaluations are listed in Table 15. Also, the research types and site conditions. Specific site selection was based on team collected data on site conditions at existing crossing several factors so that the research team could obtain data treatment locations, which were used to help explain the vari- across a representative range of treatment types, street envi- ation in MOE results for similar treatments at different loca- ronments, and traffic conditions. The primary factors were tions. Essentially, the team conducted observational and as follows: operational studies at existing crossing treatments with special consideration given to site conditions that ultimately influ- Proximity to transit stop sample of sites near or at a tran- enced the effectiveness of crossing treatments. sit stop, The primary MOEs focused on motorist and pedestrian Roadway type moderate to high traffic volumes, behavior, conflicts, and delays at existing crossing treatment Proximity to driveways locations where turning traffic locations. The research team believed that this combination conflicts from nearby driveways are nominal, of behavioral and operational data analysis provided the best Area type suburban and urban, and insight into the effectiveness of pedestrian crossing treat- Pedestrian age and ability sample of sites with a range of ments. Table 15 summarizes the MOEs along with the pedestrian ages represented including the elderly and method of calculation or the categories used to classify them. pedestrians with disabilities. In addition to these MOEs, other crossing characteristics were desired in order to gain a thorough understanding of Study Sites pedestrian movements at each site. Some of these character- istics included the gender of the pedestrian, the direction of In total, 42 study sites were selected in seven different states the crossing movement, and the number of vehicles that did (see Table 16). The study sites were chosen in an effort to dis- not stop when the treatment was activated. tribute the different types of crossing treatments in certain regions, such that the data for a particular treatment is not collected from a single city. This could not be avoided for two Site Selection treatments (i.e., HAWK and in-street crossing sign) were each The initial goal for the project was to collect data at 40 only installed in a single city. The sites were chosen to focus sites. Potential sites were identified during the project's Phase on arterial streets, with a range of operational and design

OCR for page 32
33 Table 15. Summary of pedestrian crossing treatment measures of effectiveness. MOE Description Categories or Method of Calculation Pedestrian visual Percent of crossing events in 1. Looked in both directions search which pedestrians use proper 2. Looked in only one direction visual search 3. Did not look in either direction Pedestrian Percent of crossing events in 1. Crossed within 10 ft (3 m) of crosswalk crosswalk which pedestrians cross within 2. Crossed between 10 and 50 ft (3 and 15 m) from compliance 10 ft (3 m) of marked crosswalk crosswalk 3. Crossed greater than 50 ft (15 m) from crosswalk Pedestrian Percent of crossing events in 1. Activated treatment and waited for proper time to cross activation which pedestrians activate 2. Activated treatment but did not wait treatment (where applicable) 3. Did not activate treatment 4. Treatment malfunctioned (no activation) Pedestrian- Percent of crossing events 1. Conflict with first direction of major street vehicular vehicle conflicts having a pedestrian-vehicle traffic conflict 2. Conflict with second direction of major street vehicular traffic 3. Conflict with left-turning side street traffic 4. Conflict with right-turning side street traffic Pedestrian delay Seconds of delay per Difference in time between these two events: pedestrian while waiting to 1. The pedestrian approached within 3 ft (0.9 m) of the cross crossing and indicated intent to cross the street. 2. The pedestrian began to cross the street. Pedestrian Average walking speed (ft/s) 1. Elderly and/or with physical disabilities walking speed of pedestrian groups 2. School children (ages 0-12) 3. Teenagers (ages 13-18) 4. Young adult (ages 19-30) 5. Middle aged (ages 31-60) 6. Older (age above 60 but not in Group #1) Motorist Percent of motorists yielding Number of cars that stopped for (or yielded to) the staged compliance or stopping for pedestrians pedestrian divided by the number of cars that should have stopped characteristics (e.g., number of lanes, presence of median in this category are present at the crossing location at all refuge island, and speed limit). Although not by design, 40 of times. Examples (see Figure 14) include in-street pedes- the 42 study sites were in the western United States. However, trian crossing signs, high-visibility signs and markings, and the sites still included a wide range of climate and urban median refuge islands. design features that were important to represent (e.g., snow- fall, cold winters, pedestrian-friendly versus less-than- The treatment abbreviations as shown in subsequent tables friendly street design, and aggressive drivers). and figures are as follows: Half signals (Half); Descriptions of Crossing Treatments HAWK signal beacon (HAWK); The research team categorized the crossing treatments into Midblock pedestrian signal (Msig); three basic types according to function and design: Smart pedestrian warning, where an overhead pedestrian sign and two yellow flashing beacons are passively activated Red signal or beacon devices that display a circular red by an approaching pedestrian (OfPa), indication to motorists at the pedestrian crossing location. Overhead flashing beacons, where an overhead pedestrian Examples (see Figure 12) include a midblock traffic signal, sign and two yellow flashing beacons are activated when a half signal, or HAWK signal beacon. button is pushed by the pedestrian (OfPb); Active when present devices that display a warning only Pedestrian crossing flags (Flag); when pedestrians are present or crossing the street. Examples High-visibility markings and signs (HiVi); (see Figure 13) include flashing amber beacons (both push- In-street pedestrian crossing sign (InSt); and button and passive detection) and pedestrian crossing flags. Pedestrian median refuge island (Refu). Enhanced and/or high visibility devices and design treat- ments that enhance both the ability of pedestrians to cross Figure 15 shows the number of sites in the seven states rep- the street and the visibility of the crossing location and resented in the study. Table 17 lists the 42 sites included in the pedestrians waiting to cross. Warning signs and markings study along with their characteristics.