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.
APPENDIX C: Team Treatment Survey This Appendix contains details about the team-internal treatment survey used to reduce the long list of treatments to a recommended short list. 16
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey Due to the limited financial resources and time constraints imposed by the project, the research team conducted an internal survey aimed at identifying candidate treatments to be installed at the sites described later in the report. A scale of 1 to 5 was used with 5 indicating the treatment as being very effective. The following tables show the median and average ratings from nine team members for each possible treatment. Following the tables, individual comments made on treatments are provided to document team member thought processes during the actual evaluation. The following bullets summarize the findings from the tables: ⢠Base Case: Sighted pedestrians have better yield and gap detection, some drivers yield. Delay and risk are very high (low numbers) for blind pedestrians and are NOT perfect for sighted pedestrians either. ⢠Driver Information Treatments: donât affect pedestrian behavior, but may help increase yielding. TTI Research has shown some very significant improvements in yielding behavior for some treatments â most notably in-roadway signs and âactive when presentâ flashers. It seems natural to pair these with a yield detection treatment so they actually have a chance of helping blind pedestrians ⢠Traffic Calming Treatments: help increase yielding and reduce risk for all pedestrians. Further reduce delay for sighted pedestrians, but increase vehicle delay. People seem to agree that dropping the speed limit to 15mph is less feasible. ⢠Pedestrian Information Treatments: Rumble strips seem less effective and less applicable at 2-lane RABs and CTLs. Yield and Gap detection systems have the anticipated effect of improving the respective parameters for blind pedestrians. Both mechanisms help reduce pedestrian risk and delay and are most effective if combined. These treatments donât affect driver behavior (i.e. yielding) so it seems intuitive to combine these high-cost technologies with a low-cost treatment to increase yielding! ⢠Unsignalized Distal/Midblock Crosswalk: Seems to have a slight effect on Gap Detection for Blind pedestrians if combined with lower speeds or a median island. Driver yielding is also improved under those conditions. Marginal benefits may not justify the cost and inconvenience of this treatment group â the anticipated effects on delay and risk are marginal. ⢠Signalization: As expected, signals drastically improve yield detection, gap detection and yielding (i.e. compliance with the signal). Signals are expected to make the crossing safer and reduce pedestrian delay, with the tradeoff of added vehicle delay. ⢠There appears to be consensus that vehicle delay from signals is worst for one- stage crossings at the splitter island (HAWK or regular). Two-stage crossings generally result in lower vehicle delay, without any significant drawbacks for pedestrians. These are applicable for one-lane and two-lane roundabouts, not for CTLs. ⢠Distal/Midblock signals are less applicable (less desirable??) than signals at the splitter island. ⢠Grade separated crossings result in safe and undelayed operations but are not applicable at most sites. 17
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey Table 4: Team Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness: Median Ratings by Research Team VEHICLES VEHICLES P(YD) P(GD) P(YD) P(GD) P(Y) DELAY RISK DELAY RISK DELAY 1-LANE RAB 2-LANE RAB CTL Base Case, Unassisted X-ing, Static Signs UA 1.5 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Continuous Flasher DI_CF 1.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 In-roadway warning sign DI_IRW 1.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 In-road flashing crosswalk DI_IRFC 1.8 2.0 4.5 4.0 3.3 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 'Active When Present' DI_AWP 2.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.3 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 Advanced Yield Line DI_AYL 1.5 2.0 4.5 4.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.8 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 Lower Speed (25) TC_LS25 2.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 Lower Speed (15) TC_LS15 2.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 Raised Crosswalk TC_RC 1.8 1.8 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 Surface Alterations / Rumble Str. PI_SA 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 Gap Detection System PI_GD 2.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.3 4.0 3.0 3.0 Yield Detection System PI_YD 4.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.8 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.8 4.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 Yield + Gap Detect PI_YG 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 2.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 Set back XX feet BOTH CROSS. UD_XX 2.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Lower Speed at Distal CW UD_LS 2.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 Median Island for two-stage crossing UD_MI 2.0 2.8 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 2.5 3.3 1.0 Off-Set Exit Crossing UD_EX 2.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.8 4.0 3.0 3.3 1.0 Ped Scramble S_PS 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.3 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 1.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 Half-Signal S_HS 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 HAWK Signal at Splitter Island - One Stage S_HS1 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.8 4.0 3.8 5.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 HAWK Signal at Splitter Island - Two Stage S_HS2 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 3.8 4.8 3.0 4.3 4.3 2.0 Ped. Actuated Trad. Signal at Splitter - One-Stage S_PA1 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.3 1.8 4.0 3.0 5.0 Ped. Actuated Trad. Signal at Splitter - Two-Stage S_PA2 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.3 4.5 3.8 4.8 3.0 4.3 4.0 2.0 Distal HAWK Signal - One Stage S_DHS1 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 4.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Distal HAWK Signal - Two Stage S_DHS2 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.3 4.3 3.8 4.3 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 Distal Ped. Actuated Signal - One Stage S_DPA1 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.3 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.8 3.3 3.0 Distal Ped. Actuated Signal - Two Stage S_DPA2 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.3 4.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 Pedstrian Overpass GS_OP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 Pedestrian Underpass GS_UP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 GS GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING SIGNALIZATION TREATMENTS w APS S UNSIGNALIZED DISTAL CW UD PEDESTRIAN INFO. TREATMENTS PI TRAFFIC CALMING TREATMENTS TC UA C R O SS IN G T R E A T M E N T S DRIVER INFORMATION TREATMENTS DI TREATMENT FUNCTIONALITY* BEHAVIORAL PARAMETERS PERFORMANCE MEASURES APPLICABILITYBLIND PEDESTRIANS SIGHTED PEDESTRIANS BLIND PEDESTRIANS SIGHTED PEDESTRIANS 18
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey Table 5: Team Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness: AVERAGE Ratings by Research Team VEHICLES VEHICLES P(YD) P(GD) P(YD) P(GD) P(Y) DELAY RISK DELAY RISK DELAY 1-LANE RAB 2-LANE RAB CTL Base Case, Unassisted X-ing, Static Signs UA 1.5 1.7 4.3 3.7 2.2 2.0 1.8 3.5 2.9 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.8 Continuous Flasher DI_CF 1.4 1.6 4.3 3.7 2.1 1.9 1.9 3.0 2.8 3.8 4.0 3.6 3.7 In-roadway warning sign DI_IRW 1.4 1.6 4.3 3.7 2.6 2.0 2.0 3.6 3.1 3.7 2.8 3.1 2.4 In-road flashing crosswalk DI_IRFC 1.6 1.7 4.3 3.8 3.2 2.2 2.3 3.5 3.2 3.6 4.0 3.5 3.8 'Active When Present' DI_AWP 1.8 1.8 4.3 3.8 3.3 2.3 2.4 3.6 3.2 3.6 4.0 3.5 4.0 Advanced Yield Line DI_AYL 1.5 1.8 4.4 3.9 2.4 1.6 1.8 3.6 3.4 3.6 2.5 3.0 2.5 Lower Speed (25) TC_LS25 1.9 1.7 4.3 3.9 3.1 2.5 2.7 4.0 3.4 3.2 4.2 3.3 4.1 Lower Speed (15) TC_LS15 2.0 1.9 4.4 4.1 3.9 2.6 2.9 4.1 3.6 3.2 3.7 2.5 3.6 Raised Crosswalk TC_RC 1.7 1.7 4.4 3.9 4.3 2.2 2.7 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.3 3.5 4.0 Surface Alterations / Rumble Str. PI_SA 2.9 2.6 4.4 4.0 2.6 3.1 2.9 3.7 3.1 4.1 4.0 2.4 3.1 Gap Detection System PI_GD 1.8 4.4 4.4 4.0 2.3 3.3 3.5 3.9 3.5 4.1 4.0 3.1 3.6 Yield Detection System PI_YD 4.1 2.0 4.4 3.9 2.5 3.2 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.9 4.4 3.9 3.9 Yield + Gap Detect PI_YG 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.3 2.4 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.5 4.1 3.9 Set back XX feet BOTH CROSS. UD_XX 2.1 2.3 4.3 3.7 2.1 2.1 2.2 3.1 2.9 3.8 4.0 3.1 1.8 Lower Speed at Distal CW UD_LS 2.1 2.6 4.3 4.1 2.7 2.2 2.8 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.1 1.6 Median Island for two-stage crossing UD_MI 2.3 2.6 4.5 4.3 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.6 2.6 3.4 1.5 Off-Set Exit Crossing UD_EX 2.3 2.1 4.3 4.1 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.3 1.5 Ped Scramble S_PS 4.2 4.2 4.8 4.7 3.8 2.9 3.7 3.5 4.1 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.4 Half-Signal S_HS 4.4 4.2 4.8 4.0 4.1 3.0 4.2 3.4 3.7 2.9 3.8 3.8 4.0 HAWK Signal at Splitter Island - One Stage S_HS1 4.4 4.1 4.9 4.7 3.9 3.2 3.9 3.6 4.2 2.7 4.1 3.6 4.3 HAWK Signal at Splitter Island - Two Stage S_HS2 4.2 4.0 4.8 4.6 3.6 3.3 4.0 3.9 4.1 3.2 3.9 4.2 2.7 Ped. Actuated Trad. Signal at Splitter - One-Stage S_PA1 4.6 4.1 4.8 4.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 3.6 3.9 2.1 3.8 3.1 4.3 Ped. Actuated Trad. Signal at Splitter - Two-Stage S_PA2 4.6 4.2 4.4 4.8 3.7 3.3 4.1 3.6 4.1 3.1 4.1 4.1 2.7 Distal HAWK Signal - One Stage S_DHS1 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.8 3.9 3.1 4.1 3.4 4.0 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.2 Distal HAWK Signal - Two Stage S_DHS2 4.6 4.2 4.8 4.6 3.9 3.3 4.2 3.6 4.0 3.1 3.6 3.8 2.9 Distal Ped. Actuated Signal - One Stage S_DPA1 4.6 4.1 4.7 4.6 3.5 3.1 4.3 3.1 4.0 2.8 3.6 3.3 2.8 Distal Ped. Actuated Signal - Two Stage S_DPA2 4.7 4.3 4.8 4.6 3.6 3.1 4.3 3.3 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.5 2.2 Pedstrian Overpass GS_OP 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 3.0 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.1 5.0 2.6 2.7 2.6 Pedestrian Underpass GS_UP 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 3.0 3.6 4.0 3.9 4.0 5.0 2.6 2.7 2.6 TREATMENT FUNCTIONALITY* BEHAVIORAL PARAMETERS PERFORMANCE MEASURES APPLICABILITYBLIND PEDESTRIANS SIGHTED PEDESTRIANS BLIND PEDESTRIANS SIGHTED PEDESTRIANS UA C R O SS IN G T R E A T M E N T S DRIVER INFORMATION TREATMENTS DI TRAFFIC CALMING TREATMENTS TC PEDESTRIAN INFO. TREATMENTS PI UNSIGNALIZED DISTAL CW UD SIGNALIZATION TREATMENTS w APS S GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING GS 19
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey COMMENTS Base Case, Unassisted X-ing, Static Signs REVIEWER #1 REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - There will be great differences in yield and gap detection depending on the geometry of the baseline roundabout or channelized turn lane. I'm assuming a 2- land RAB with no particular traffic calming other than what is expected in good RAB design. REVIEWER #4 REVIEWER #5 REVIEWER #6 REVIEWER #7 - To me the driver yielding probability changes depending on the width of the lane, speed, and whether it's one lane or multiple lanes, so I've put a number there, but don't really feel very comfortable with the fact that we're rating single lane and multi-lane roundabouts the same; Also, these ratings for sighted pedestrians, in my mind, don't consider those who are elderly or who have cognitive disabilities; I'd rate those populations more like blind peds, needing more time to make the decision and making more risky decisions REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 - Easiest to install, so applicable to all treatments. Vehicle delay is as low as possible, provided that ped volumes are low (no need to contain peds into platoons). DRIVER INFORMATION TREATMENTS Continuous Flasher REVIEWER #1 - Not effective for blind peds unless paired with a yield detection system of some sort. Not in favor of continuous intervention as drivers will get used to it. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - This treatment resulted in <50% yield rate in the TTI study. Results better on smaller, slower traffic crossings. Not expected to improve yield or gap detection. If considered, consider only for 1-lane RAB. REVIEWER #4 - This treatment resulted in <50% yield rate in the TTI study. Results better on smaller, slower traffic crossings. Not expected to improve yield or gap detection. If considered, consider only for 1-lane RAB. REVIEWER #5 REVIEWER #6 - Not likely to have much impact over base case - which I used as a benchmark REVIEWER #7 REVIEWER #8 - While this is applicable to all locations, I would strongly discourage its use. If using a flasher, it should ALWAYS be 'active when present'!! REVIEWER #9 - Easy to install, but not expected to be effective in promoting vehicular yielding. 20
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey In-roadway warning sign REVIEWER #1 - Not effective for blind peds unless paired with a yield detection system of some sort. I think an active intervention will be more effective than passive. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - This treatment resulted in <50% yield rate in the TTI study. Results better on smaller, slower traffic crossings. Not expected to improve yield or gap detection. If considered, consider only for 1-lane RAB. REVIEWER #4 - This treatment resulted in <50% yield rate in the TTI study. Results better on smaller, slower traffic crossings. Not expected to improve yield or gap detection. If considered, consider only for 1-lane RAB. REVIEWER #5 REVIEWER #6 - No improvement over base case REVIEWER #7 - Inman's results indicated that drivers' yielding went from 11% to 16% with the signs, but drivers stopped for less time when they stopped in response to in- street signs and that the signs may possibly be a negative for blind pedestrians. Drivers only stopped for an average of 4 seconds, I think, while without signs, they averaged more like 10 seconds. I wouldn't really expect much effect at one lane if they aren't actually in the roadway. REVIEWER #8- Ped Delay performance measures seem to be directly related to driver yielding behavior - more yielding, less delay (assuming yield detection) REVIEWER #9 - Better suited for multilane crossings where sign is located between lanes. In-road flashing crosswalk REVIEWER #1 - Not effective for blind peds unless paired with a yield detection system of some sort. This is good for catching driver attention. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - This treatment, if combined with accessible information to bind peds when the lights come on, could result in better gap/yield detection. I would not expect it to improve gap or yield detection without accessible information. I am concerned that risky behavior would increase, however. REVIEWER #4 - This treatment, if combined with accessible information to bind peds when the lights come on, could result in better gap/yield detection. I would not expect it to improve gap or yield detection without accessible information. I am concerned that risky behavior would increase, however. REVIEWER #5 - I had assumed that a 'flashing crosswalk' treatment would be pedestrian actuated. REVIEWER #6 - If flashing continuously - not much impact REVIEWER #7 - If accompanied by accessible information, (which I think is necessary), it could increase risky behavior by blind peds. Could also increase risky behavior by sighted peds, but they could monitor cars reaction more easily 21
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #8 - Ped Delay performance measures seem to be directly related to driver yielding behavior - more yielding, less delay (assuming yield detection) REVIEWER #9 - Potential maintenance challenges 'Active When Present' REVIEWER #1 - Not effective for blind peds unless paired with a yield detection system of some sort. Also good for getting attention only when attention is needed. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - This treatment also resulted in <50% yield rate in the TTI study. If combined with accessible information there is some possibility that gap/yield detection would increase for blind peds when used at 1-lane RAB or CTL, but risky behavior might also increase. REVIEWER #4 - This treatment also resulted in <50% yield rate in the TTI study. If combined with accessible information there is some possibility that gap/yield detection would increase for blind peds when used at 1-lane RAB or CTL, but risky behavior might also increase. REVIEWER #5 - What kind of sign/display is being referred to here. Active when present implies that it is pedestrian-actuated, but does not say what type of sign/display REVIEWER #6 - If lights are activated when peds are present, presumably this will increase yielding modestly - the key question is whether the yields can be detected - without yield detect considered in the ratings of the various treatments - the ratings are of limited usefulness I've rated this without yield detect considered, with increased yielding alone rated in the fifth column P(Y) REVIEWER #7 - ditto on above comments REVIEWER #8 - Ped Delay performance measures seem to be directly related to driver yielding behavior - more yielding, less delay (assuming yield detection) REVIEWER #9 Advanced Yield Line REVIEWER #1 - Not effective for blind peds unless paired with a yield detection system of some sort. Particularly useful for one lane roundabouts where yielding culture is good (too good?) REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - It is possible that AYL would resulting greater yielding because drivers could have greater distance in which to react to ped. However, in the absence of GD, YD, or YG, it might be even more difficult for blind peds to detect gaps/yields. REVIEWER #4 - It is possible that AYL would resulting greater yielding because drivers could have greater distance in which to react to ped. However, in the absence of GD, YD, or YG, it might be even more difficult for blind peds to detect gaps/yields. REVIEWER #5 Applicable only to 2-lane facility type. Under applicability to CTL, are you assuming only a single CTL? 22
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #6 - I don't see much benefit here - and it certainly would increased the likelihood of missed yields on the part of blind folk REVIEWER #7 - Would negatively affect blind pedestrians' ability to detect yielding vehicles, because cars would be further away; don't know that it would affect drivers' probability of yielding at all. Where do you put an advanced yield line for the exit crossings? Doesn't seem like it would really apply well to roundabouts or CTL's REVIEWER #8 - The advanced yield line only makes sense at 2-lane approaches (reduce multiple threat crashes). That said, I think it makes sense to paint a solid yield line on all approaches to let drivers know where to yield (and let pedestrians and yield detection devices know where to look) REVIEWER #9 - Not practical for rbt exits - not enough room unless crosswalk is located much further away from rbt. Only useful for multilane rbt entries. Blind peds may have difficulty hearing vehicles yield at advanced yield line. TRAFFIC CALMING TREATMENTS Lower Speed (25) REVIEWER #1 - Likely to increase yield rate, may result in a small amount of improvement in gap/yield detection for blind peds. May reduce delay if yield rate increases, and if gap/yield detection increases. Reduced delay could lead to taking less risky gaps by blind peds. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Likely to increase yield rate, may result in a small amount of improvement in gap/yield detection for blind peds. May reduce delay if yield rate increases, and if gap/yield detection increases. Reduced delay could lead to taking less risky gaps by blind peds. REVIEWER #4 - Likely to increase yield rate, may result in a small amount of improvement in gap/yield detection for blind peds. May reduce delay if yield rate increases, and if gap/yield detection increases. Reduced delay could lead to taking less risky gaps by blind peds. REVIEWER #5 - Lower vehicle speed will not by itself guarantee lower risk unless one assumes it increases the likelihood of drivers yielding (both voluntarily and upon ped taking risky gap) REVIEWER #6 - Will increase yields - with beneficial result if detectable REVIEWER #7 - I'm not really sure how we test this. What traffic calming treatments are we envisioning working at an exit lane crosswalk? And lower speed is not really a treatment, so how do we get lower speed reliably at multilane roundabout, particularly at the exits; seems the speed can vary greatly depending on geometry and volume. REVIEWER #8 - Speeds at most single-lane roundabouts and CTLs are probably (hopefully) lower then this anyways 23
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #9 - Geometric delay is less likely to be perceived by drivers than control (e.g., signal) delay. Lower Speed (15) REVIEWER #1 - More likely to increase yield rate than 25 mph; may result in a small amount of improvement in gap/yield detection for blind peds. May reduce delay if yield rate increases, and if gap/yield detection increases. Reduced delay could lead to taking less risky gaps by blind REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - More likely to increase yield rate than 25 mph; may result in a small amount of improvement in gap/yield detection for blind peds. May reduce delay if yield rate increases, and if gap/yield detection increases. Reduced delay could lead to taking less risky gaps by blind REVIEWER #4 - More likely to increase yield rate than 25 mph; may result in a small amount of improvement in gap/yield detection for blind peds. May reduce delay if yield rate increases, and if gap/yield detection increases. Reduced delay could lead to taking less risky gaps by blind REVIEWER #5 - Lower speed may increase likelihood of driver yielding; may be associated with an increase in perceived risk on part of pedestrian, but not necessarily likelihood of his/her taking risky gap REVIEWER #6 REVIEWER #7 - lower speed doesn't affect probability of yield or gap detection; might actually be disadvantage because vehicle is quieter; could improve chance for vehicles to stop for pedestrians and decrease risk, but I'm not sure that we can get that at exits, except by installing raised crosswalks and we have that listed separately REVIEWER #8 - Speed Limit 15 is like a general traffic calming strategy. Probably more applicable to downtown areas REVIEWER #9 - Difficult to achieve with design vehicle constraints. Serious path overlap problems can occur at multilane entries and exits if too slow. Lower speed means quieter environment - may be difficult to hear gaps. Raised Crosswalk REVIEWER #1 - Should have higher yield creation rates than lowering speeds. Should also help blind peds stay in crosswalk. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Expected to improve yield rate. May result in slightly improved gap/yield detection. If it results in improved gap/yield detection, could result in slightly decreased delay, but may not reduce risk decisions. Expected to have considerable benefit for wayfinding--staying within crosswalk. REVIEWER #4 - Expected to improve yield rate. May result in slightly improved gap/yield detection. If it results in improved gap/yield detection, could result in slightly 24
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey decreased delay, but may not reduce risk decisions. Expected to have considerable benefit for wayfinding--staying within crosswalk. REVIEWER #5 - Perception of raised crosswalk may prompt vehicles to reduce speed increasing the likelihood of yielding (all assumptions). If there are increased yields ped travel time, on average, will be reduced REVIEWER #6 - I don't think any of these treatments above will work very effectively at a multilane roundabout REVIEWER #7 - Assuming that raised crosswalk gets speeds down? REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 25
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey PEDESTRIAN INFORMATION TREATMENTS Surface Alterations / Rumble Str. REVIEWER #1 - If rumble strips are present primarily to give auditory info, there are problems with placement that are tough to overcome. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - May improve yield rate slightly. Expected to improve yield detect, and possibly gap detect at 1-lane RAB and possibly CTL with deceleration lane. REVIEWER #4 - May improve yield rate slightly. Expected to improve yield detect, and possibly gap detect at 1-lane RAB and possibly CTL with deceleration lane. REVIEWER #5 - Ped delay is reduced IF treatment improves ped ability to detect gaps and yielded vehicles. Likewise risk will be reduced IF treatment improves gap and yield detection on ped's part; and likelihood of yielding on drivers part. REVIEWER #6 - N help, really, over baseline REVIEWER #7 - AT one lane roundabout only or separated channelized lane only; no effect on yielding; it's a variation of a yield and gap detection systems, but needs more testing to see if it's feasible; If individuals reliably detect yields, it could have a positive effect on vehicle delay; need to offset the exit crosswalk? REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 Gap Detection System REVIEWER #1 - If the technology works, and we can figure out where to put it, I assume GD will improve gap detection. Probably not as beneficial as yield detection. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - If the technology works, and we can figure out where to put it, I assume GD will improve gap detection. Probably not as beneficial as yield detection. REVIEWER #4 - If the technology works, and we can figure out where to put it, I assume GD will improve gap detection. Probably not as beneficial as yield detection. REVIEWER #5 REVIEWER #6 - Will be challenging to configure and potentially expensive - but it has potential - must be error free!! REVIEWER #7 - only works if there are adequate gaps! Entry probably easier to do than exit lane and not sure how easy it is to implement on multi-lane facility or on ctl, since vehicles might change lanes at the last minute REVIEWER #8 - Gap Detection System is probably only applicable on the entry leg to roundabouts and CTLs with deceleration lanes. Honestly, I am less and less convinced that this makes any sense. You are spending a lot on technology and then rely on the device to make decisions for you. Worst part about it, the drivers have no idea that this thing is in place and are therefore oblivious to how it may guide pedestrian behavior. It also doesn't make sense to install this at the entry and not the exit leg. I also don't see how you could ever justify installing 26
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey this over a signal. If you think about it, the system will only give you a 'crossable gap' indication, if there is no traffic - well if there isn't any traffic than you don't really have to worry about a signal causing vehicle delay! So why not spend the money on a HAWK? REVIEWER #9 - Detection of gaps on exit will be difficult to configure if crosswalk is in splitter island - lack of space. Yield Detection System REVIEWER #1 - This seems most beneficial to me, as long as it is placed to fit the culture and environment properly. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - If the technology works, and we can figure out where to put it, I assume YD will improve yield detection. Consider on 2-lane RAB. Try combining with AYL as well as standard yield line location. REVIEWER #4 - If the technology works, and we can figure out where to put it, I assume YD will improve yield detection. Consider on 2-lane RAB. Try combining with AYL as well as standard yield line location. REVIEWER #5 REVIEWER #6 - This one has real potential at a one laner REVIEWER #7 - only works if there are adequate yields REVIEWER #8 - This makes a lot more sense, because the detection area is a lot better defined. Impact on delay depends on the amount of drivers yielding - so it would make intuitive sense to combine this with a low-cost treatment to increase driver yielding (in-roadway cones, raised CW, 'active when present') REVIEWER #9 Yield + Gap Detect REVIEWER #1 -Not sure how this would play out logistically, but it seems enticing to try. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - If the technology works, and we can figure out where to put it, I assume YG may improve both yield and gap detection. However, I wouldn't expect it to be much better than YD alone. REVIEWER #4 - If the technology works, and we can figure out where to put it, I assume YG may improve both yield and gap detection. However, I wouldn't expect it to be much better than YD alone. REVIEWER #5 REVIEWER #6 - If the technology works, and we can figure out where to put it, I assume YG may improve both yield and gap detection. However, I wouldn't expect it to be much better than YD alone. REVIEWER #7 - only works if there are adequate gaps and yields; no effect at all if there are high volumes and low yielding 27
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #8 - This makes more sense than GD alone - but I am still hesitant of the effectiveness and reliability of the gap detect component of the system REVIEWER #9 DISTAL/MIDBLOCK CROSSING Set back XX feet BOTH CROSS. REVIEWER #1 - This logically seems to provide some useful effect but I don't think the effect is that great. Certain constraint remain. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - It would be of some interest to determine whether, particularly on exit lane crossings, there would be improved performance in gap/yield detection for bind peds. I wouldn't expect it to be much, however. If vehicle storage is the issue, I expect this can be modeled without human factors testing. REVIEWER #4 - It would be of some interest to determine whether, particularly on exit lane crossings, there would be improved performance in gap/yield detection for bind peds. I wouldn't expect it to be much, however. If vehicle storage is the issue, I expect this can be modeled without human factors testing. REVIEWER #5 - Estimated vehicle delay at distal CW assumed to derive from increased likelihood of vehicles yielding to pedestrians REVIEWER #6 REVIEWER #7 - I think the distance from the roundabout could make a lot of difference in my answers. REVIEWER #8 - This really has two potential benefits: removing the crosswalk from the noise of the roundabout and separating decisions for drivers. I can see the danger though, that a distal CW without speed treatments may actually make crossing more difficult. At the roundabout, entering drivers are already prepared to stop and exiting drivers should still be at a relatively low speed - at a distal location, people may be less willing to delay their trip a second time and yield to a pedestrian. The delay for pedestrians does not incorporate added travel time from the main intersection REVIEWER #9 - Infeasible for CTL, assuming intersection is signalized - midblock xwalk will need to be quite distant to clear signal queues. Not likely to be practical in most cases. Midblock xwalk easier to distinguish exiting vehicles. Lower Speed at Distal CW REVIEWER #1 - Lower speeds anywhere are going to increase yield and perhaps gaps but need to marry this with a detect system. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Not expected to result in much, if any, improvement in gap/yield detection. I think TTI data may be useful for modeling the effect of different speeds and widths on yielding. 28
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #4 - Not expected to result in much, if any, improvement in gap/yield detection. I think TTI data may be useful for modeling the effect of different speeds and widths on yielding. REVIEWER #5 - Associated with increased likelihood of yielding at distal location combined with increased likelihood of yielding associated with lower speed REVIEWER #6 REVIEWER #7 - lower speed than what? REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 Median Island for two-stage crossing REVIEWER #1 - Median island are generally a good idea, if possible. They make the crossing task easier to perform overall. REVIEWER #2 - maybe it helps a bit as peds need to focus one direction at a time.. Questions⦠how would blind peds know this is 1 vs. 2 stage crossing?? REVIEWER #3 - The median island would be required for a two-stage crossing. I don't think this requires human factors research, but modeling could tell us something about delay for both peds and vehicles. REVIEWER #4 - The median island would be required for a two-stage crossing. I don't think this requires human factors research, but modeling could tell us something about delay for both peds and vehicles. We'd also want to consider out-of-direction travel. REVIEWER #5 REVIEWER #6 - Improves yield detect because you don't have to detect both ways simultaneously REVIEWER #7 REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 - Depends on space to accomplish this. Off-Set Exit Crossing REVIEWER #1 - The off-set crossing idea is intriguing. What has been the experience of England in using this? REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - May result in modest improvement in gap and yield detection at 1-lane RAB. I think it would be more informative to test off-set crossings at conventional distance from the circular roadway. REVIEWER #4 - May result in modest improvement in gap and yield detection at 1-lane RAB. I think it would be more informative to test off-set crossings at conventional distance from the circular roadway. REVIEWER #5 REVIEWER #6 - Not sure what you mean here, exactly REVIEWER #7 29
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #8 - The added benefits are obviously only at the exit leg to a roundabout - but they should be quite significant here. REVIEWER #9 - Depends on space to accomplish this. SIGNALIZATION TREATMENTS Ped Scramble REVIEWER #1 - No reason to test. Unlikely to be implemented except in rare instances. Not informative to blind peds without APS. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - No reason to test. Unlikely to be implemented except in rare instances. Not informative to blind peds without APS. REVIEWER #4 - No reason to test. Unlikely to be implemented except in rare instances. Not informative to blind peds without APS. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 - I wouldn't go here REVIEWER #7 - Delay really depends on the volume and minimum gap settings, doesn't it?? Only reasonable to install at locations with very high pedestrian volumes; seems to have high potential for sighted peds to ignore because it's likely to increase their delay; don't see it applying to CTL REVIEWER #8 - The high pedestrian delay is due to a higher vehicle clearance time (vehicle green indication). I think if the approach signals are independent that you can get away with shorter 'min green times' for vehicles and thus have lower ped delays REVIEWER #9 - Inappropriate for most scenarios - recommend dropping. Half-Signal REVIEWER #1 - Ratings are based on trad. Signal with flashing green. I am thinking that the flashing green may not only increase the yield rate, when not actuated, but may also decrease the likelihood of rear-end collisions. Useless to blind peds unless an APS is provided. Ratings assume presence of APS. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Ratings are based on trad. Signal with flashing green. I am thinking that the flashing green may not only increase the yield rate, when not actuated, but may also decrease the likelihood of rear-end collisions. Useless to blind peds unless an APS is provided. Ratings assume presence of APS. REVIEWER #4 - Ratings are based on trad. Signal with flashing green. I am thinking that the flashing green may not only increase the yield rate, when not actuated, but may also decrease the likelihood of rear-end collisions. Useless to blind peds unless an APS is provided. Ratings assume presence of APS. 30
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 - APS assumed REVIEWER #7 - Really flashing green, to yellow to red?? Then no different from ped activated traditional REVIEWER #8 - I don't see how this is applicable for any of the sites - seems to make most sense at a midblock. Not sure how this affects the performance measures REVIEWER #9 - N/A for rbts and CTL. 31
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey HAWK Signal at Splitter Island - One Stage REVIEWER #1 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. With that, will provide excellent crossing info, testing done in Raleigh seemed to support this, but placement needs to be investigated. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Especially important to test at CTL. REVIEWER #4 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Especially important to test at CTL. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 REVIEWER #7 - I really don't see the usefulness of not splitting the crossing into two stages; maybe a small one lane roundabout and CTL REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 - Highly feasible at CTL at signalized intersection - hardware already in place, can time ped signal current with vehicle phases to minimize overall delay. Requires hardware not typically present at roundabout. HAWK Signal at Splitter Island - Two Stage REVIEWER #1 Ratings assume presence of an APS. With that, will provide excellent crossing info, testing done in Raleigh seemed to support this, but placement needs to be investigated. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Especially important to test at 2-lane RAB. REVIEWER #4 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Especially important to test at 2-lane RAB. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 REVIEWER #7 - wouldn't use two stages at CTL REVIEWER #8 - Slightly longer delay times, because phases are longer REVIEWER #9 - N/A for CTL. Requires hardware not typically present at roundabout. Ped. Actuated Trad. Signal at Splitter - One-Stage REVIEWER #1 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Important to test at CTL. REVIEWER #2 32
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #3 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Important to test at CTL. REVIEWER #4 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Important to test at CTL. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 REVIEWER #7 - ditto on the one stage with HAWK REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 - Highly feasible at CTL at signalized intersection - hardware already in place, can time ped signal current with vehicle phases to minimize overall delay. Requires hardware not typically present at roundabout. Ped. Actuated Trad. Signal at Splitter - Two-Stage REVIEWER #1 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Important to test at 2-lane RAB. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Important to test at 2-lane RAB. REVIEWER #4 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. Important to test at 2-lane RAB. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 REVIEWER #7 - what kind of timing are we talking about? I'd like to try a very short WALK for these or for the HAWK. Could peds do ok with a 2 second WALK, particularly since they'll have the APS cue too? REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 - N/A for CTL. Requires hardware not typically present at roundabout Distal HAWK Signal - One Stage REVIEWER #1 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. With that, will provide excellent crossing info, testing done in Raleigh seemed to settle this. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #4 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. 33
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. It'll work, I suspect REVIEWER #7 - If peds use the crosswalk! But, my expectation is that they won't unless there are strong measures to keep them from crossing closer to the roundabout, or the main ped desire lines are away from the roundabout anyway. I don't see a lot of value that we won't get with the signal closer to the roundabout REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 - Not practical for CTLs at signalized intersections due to queues at signal unless midblock crossing is 250+ ft away - doesn't qualify as treatment of intersection. Distal HAWK Signal - Two Stage REVIEWER #1 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. With that, will provide excellent crossing info, testing done in Raleigh seemed to settle this. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #4 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #7 REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 - Not practical for CTLs at signalized intersections due to queues at signal unless midblock crossing is 250+ ft away - doesn't qualify as treatment of intersection. Distal Ped. Actuated Signal - One Stage REVIEWER #1 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #4 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 34
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #7 REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 - Not practical for CTLs at signalized intersections due to queues at signal unless midblock crossing is 250+ ft away - doesn't qualify as treatment of intersection. Distal Ped. Actuated Signal - Two Stage REVIEWER #1 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #4 - Ratings assume presence of an APS. Expected to result in good yield/gap detection as well as yield rate. No good reason to test. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields are n/a if signal is present (or a 5.0 in terms of elimination of requirement). When signal is present, key issue is locating call button and presence of APS REVIEWER #6 - For the signals - not sure that distal v conventional location matters a lot - If APS is in place - detection will occur. Increased detection is the main reason for distal if APS is NOT In the scenario REVIEWER #7 REVIEWER #8 REVIEWER #9 - Not practical for CTLs at signalized intersections due to queues at signal unless midblock crossing is 250+ ft away - doesn't qualify as treatment of intersection. GRADE SEPARATED CROSSINGS Pedestrian Overpass REVIEWER #1 - Unrealistic, expensive, potentially creates more problems than it solves. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - I think the effect of this solution, in addition to its very high cost, will be negative in most regards unless it is made completely impossible for pedestrians to cross at street level. I think risk will increase for both blind and sighted pedestrians unless they are prevented from making street-level crossings. REVIEWER #4 - I think the effect of this solution, in addition to its very high cost, will be negative in most regards unless it is made completely impossible for pedestrians to cross at street level. I think risk will increase for both blind and sighted pedestrians unless they are prevented from making street-level crossings. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields n/a given overpass/underpass (or could be considered a 5.0 given elimination of these requirements. Vehicle delay would be decreased compared to baseline REVIEWER #6 - I'm not really interested in this one REVIEWER #7 35
Appendix C: Team Treatment Survey REVIEWER #8 - more difficult at CTL - would have to go across entire intersection to make sense REVIEWER #9 - Eliminates interaction and therefore delay between vehicles and peds. Completely impractical and undesirable in 99.99% of all cases, plus unnecessary to test - recommend dropping. Pedestrian Underpass REVIEWER #1 - Unrealistic, expensive, potentially creates more problems than it solves. REVIEWER #2 REVIEWER #3 - I think the effect of this solution, in addition to its very high cost, will be negative in most regards unless it is made completely impossible for pedestrians to cross at street level. I think risk will increase for both blind and sighted pedestrians unless they are prevented from making street-level crossings. REVIEWER #4 - I think the effect of this solution, in addition to its very high cost, will be negative in most regards unless it is made completely impossible for pedestrians to cross at street level. I think risk will increase for both blind and sighted pedestrians unless they are prevented from making street-level crossings. REVIEWER #5 - Detection of gaps and yields n/a given overpass/underpass (or could be considered a 5.0 given elimination of these requirements. Vehicle delay would be decreased compared to baseline REVIEWER #6 REVIEWER #7 REVIEWER #8 - more difficult at CTL - would have to go below entire intersection to make sense REVIEWER #9 - Eliminates interaction and therefore delay between vehicles and peds. Completely impractical and undesirable in 99.99% of all cases, plus unnecessary to test - recommend dropping. 36
