National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 6 - Incorporation of Study Results into National Guidelines
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24627.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24627.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24627.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24627.
×
Page 59

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.

56 1. Mead, J., C. Zegeer, and M. Bushell. Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway Measures: A Summary of Available Research. Chapel Hill, NC, Federal Highway Administration, 2013. 2. Huang, H., C. Zegeer, R. Nassi, and B. Fairfax. The Effects of Innovative Pedestrian Signs at Unsignalized Locations: A Tale of Three Treatments. Publication FHWA-RD-00-098, FHWA, U.S. Department of Trans- portation, Washington, D.C., 2000. 3. City of Madison Traffic Engineering Division. Year 2 Field Evaluation of Experimental “In-Street” Yield to Pedestrian Signs. City of Madison Department of Transportation, Madison, WI, 1999. 4. Kannel, E. J., R. R. Souleyrette, and R. Tenges. In-Street Yield to Pedestrian Sign Application in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2003. 5. Kamyab, A., S. Andrle, D. Kroeger, and D. S. Heyer. Methods to Reduce Traffic Speed in High-Pedestrian Rural Areas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1828, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 31–37. 6. Strong, C. and M. Kumar. Safety Evaluation of Yield-to-Pedestrian Channelizing Devices. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA, 2006. 7. Banerjee, I. and D. R. Ragland. Evaluation of Countermeasures: A Study on the Effect of Impactable Yield Signs Installed at Four Intersections in San Francisco. Presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Trans- portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007. 8. Ellis, R., R. Van Houten, and J.-L. Kim. In-Roadway “Yield to Pedestrian” Signs: Placement Distance and Motorist Yielding. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2002, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 84–89. 9. Hua, J., N. Gutierrez, I. Banerjee, F. Markowitz, and D. R. Ragland. San Francisco PedSafe II Project Out- comes and Lessons Learned. Presented at the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009. 10. Bennett, M. K., H. Manal, and R. Van Houten. A Comparison of Gateway In-Street Sign Treatment to Other Driver Prompts to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians at Crosswalks. Presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2014. 11. Fitzpatrick, K., S. Turner, M. Brewer, P. Carlson, B. Ullman, N. Trout, E. S. Park, J. Whitacre, N. Lalani, and D. Lord. TCRP/NCHRP Report 112/562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Transporta- tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006. 12. Clark, K. L., J. E. Hummer, and N. Dutt. Field Evaluation of Fluorescent Strong Yellow-Green Pedestrian Warning Signs. In Transportation Research Record 1538, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 39–46. 13. Van Houten, R., K. Healey, J. E. L. Malenfant, and R. Retting. Use of Signs and Symbols to Increase the Efficacy of Pedestrian-Activated Flashing Beacons at Crosswalks. In Transportation Research Record 1636, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 92–95. 14. Nitzburg, M., and R. Knoblauch. An Evaluation of High-Visibility Crosswalk Treatments—Clearwater, Florida. Publication FHWA-RD-00-105, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001. 15. Van Houten, R., D. McCusker, S. Huybers, J. Malenfant, and D. Rice-Smith. Advance Yield Markings and Fluorescent Yellow-Green RA 4 Signs at Crosswalks with Uncontrolled Approaches. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1818, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 119–124. 16. Lalani, N. Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 2001. 17. Kipp, W. M. E. and J. Fitch. Evaluation of SmartStud In-Pavement Crosswalk Lighting System and BlinkerSign Interim Report. State of Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier, VT, 2011. References

References 57 18. Zegeer, C. V., J. R. Stewart, H. H. Huang, and P. A. Lagerwey. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Cross- walks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines. Publication FHWA- RD-01-075, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2002. 19. Jones, T. L. and P. Tomcheck. Pedestrian Accidents in Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks: A Quantitative Study. ITE Journal, Vol. 70, No. 9, 2000, pp. 42–46. 20. Van Houten, R. The Effects of Advance Stop Lines and Sign Prompts on Pedestrian Safety in Crosswalk on a Multilane Highway. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol. 21, 1988, pp. 245–251. 21. Malenfant, L., and R. Van Houten. Increasing the Percentage of Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians in Three Canadian Cities with a Multifaceted Safety Program. Health Education Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1989, pp. 275–279. 22. Van Houten, R., and L. Malenfant. The Influence of Signs Prompting Motorists to Yield Before Marked Crosswalks on Motor Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts at Crosswalks with Pedestrian Activated Flashing Lights. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 217–225. 23. Malenfant, L., and R. Van Houten. Increasing the Percentage of Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians in Three Canadian Cities with a Multifaceted Safety Program. Health Education Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1990, pp. 275–279. 24. Cynecki, M. J., J. W. Sparks, and J. L. Grote. Rumble Strips and Pedestrian Safety. ITE Journal, 1993, pp. 18–24. 25. Van Houten, R., J. E. L. Malenfant, and D. McCusker. Advance Yield Markings: Reducing Motor Vehicle– Pedestrian Conflicts at Multilane Crosswalks with Uncontrolled Approach. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 69–74. 26. Nambisan, S., V. Vasudevan, M. Dangeti, and V. Virupaksha. Advanced Yield Markings and Pedestrian Safety: Analyses of Use with Danish Offsets and Median Refuge Islands. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008. 27. Pecheux, K., J. Bauer, P. McLeod. Pedestrian Safety Engineering and ITS-Based Countermeasures Program for Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injury Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures Final System Impact Report. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009. 28. Samuel, S., M. R. E. Romoser, L. R. Gerardino, M. Hamid, R. A. Gomez, M. A. Knodler, Jr., J. Collura, and D. L. Fisher. Effect of Advance Yield Markings and Symbolic Signs on Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts: Field Evaluation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2392, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 139–146. 29. Hengel, D. Build It and They Will Yield: Effects of Median and Curb Extension Installations on Motorist Yield Compliance. Presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2013. 30. Feldman, M., J. G. Manzi, and M. Mitman. Empirical Bayesian Evaluation of Safety Effects of High-Visibility School (Yellow) Crosswalks in San Francisco, California. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2198, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 8–14. 31. Chen, L., C. Chen, R. Ewing, C. McKnight, R. Srinivasan, and M. Roe. Safety Countermeasures and Crash Reduction in New York City—Experience and Lessons Learned. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In print, 2012. Retrieved July 23, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.009 32. Fitzpatrick, K. and E. S. Park. Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment. Publication FHWA-HRT-10-042. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010. This study has also been summa- rized in Fitzpatrick, K., S. Chrysler, R. Van Houten, W. Hunter, and S. Turner. Evaluation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Engineering Countermeasures: Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons, HAWKs, Sharrows, Crosswalk Markings, and the Development of an Evaluation Methods Report. Publication FHWA-HRT-11-039, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011. 33. Nassi, R. B., and M. J. Barton. New Traffic Control for an Old Pedestrian Crossing Safety Problem. APWA Reporter, Vol. 75, No. 6, 2008, pp. 44–49. 34. Chalmers, M. “New Traffic Signals Make It Safer for Pedestrians.” USA Today, August 9, 2010. 35. Federal Highway Administration. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB). Publication FHWA-SA-09-009, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009. 36. Van Houten, R., R. Ellis, and E. Marmolejo. Stutter-Flash Light Emitting-Diode Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians at Crosswalks. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2073, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2008, pp. 69–78. 37. Pecheux, K., J. Bauer, P. McLeod. Pedestrian Safety Engineering and ITS-Based Countermeasures Program for Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injury Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures Final System Impact Report. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009. 38. Hua, J., N. Gutierrez, I. Banerjee, F. Markowitz, and D. R. Ragland. San Francisco PedSafe II Project Out- comes and Lessons Learned. Presented at the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.

58 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments 39. Hunter, W. W., R. Srinivasan, and C. A. Martell. Evaluation of the Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon at a Pinellas Trail Crossing in St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, 2009. 40. Shurbutt, J. and R. Van Houten. Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks. Publication FHWA-HRT-10-043, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010. This research is also summarized in Fitzpatrick, K., S. Chrysler, R. Van Houten, W. Hunter, and S. Turner. Evaluation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Engineering Countermeasures: Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons, HAWKs, Sharrows, Crosswalk Markings, and the Development of an Evaluation Methods Report. Publication FHWA-HRT-11-039, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011. 41. Ross, J., D. Serpico, and R. Lewis. Assessment of Driver Yielding Rates Pre- and Post-RRFB Installation, Bend, Oregon. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, 2011. 42. Domarad, J., P. Grisak, and J. Bolger. Improving Crosswalk Safety: Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Trial in Calgary. In Calgary 2013–The Many Faces of Transportation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2013. 43. Fitzpatrick, K., M. A. Brewer, and R. Avelar. Driver Yielding at Traffic Control Signals, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, and Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons in Texas. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2463, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp. 46–54. 44. Foster, N., C. M. Monsere, and K. Carlos. Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behaviors at Enhanced Multi- lane, Midblock Pedestrian Crossings: A Case Study in Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2464, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp. 59–66. 45. Huang, H. An Evaluation of Flashing Crosswalks in Gainesville and Lakeland. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, 2000. 46. Godfrey, D. and T. Mazella. Kirkland’s Experience with In-Pavement Flashing Lights at Crosswalks. Presented at ITE/IMSA Annual Meeting, Lynnwood, WA, 1999. 47. Zegeer, C. V., J. Stutts, H. Huang, M. J. Cynecki, R. Van Houten, B. Alberson, R. Pfefer, T. R. Neuman, K. L. Slack, and K. K. Hardy. NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan—Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004. 48. Cairney, P. Pedestrian Safety in Australia. Publication FHWA-RD-99-093, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999. 49. Claessen, J. and D. Jones. The Road Safety Effectiveness of Wide Raised Medians. Proc. 17th ARRB Conference, 17(5), 1994, pp. 269–284. 50. Bacquie, R., D. Egan, and L. Ing. Pedestrian Refuge Island Safety Audit. Presented at 2001 ITE Spring Conference and Exhibit, Monterey, CA, 2001. 51. King, M. R. Calming New York City Intersections. In Transportation Research Circular E-CO19: Urban Street Symposium—Conference Proceedings, Dallas, TX, 1999. 52. Huang, H. F. and M. J. Cynecki. The Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior. Publication FHWA-RD-00-104, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001. 53. Johnson, R. S. Pedestrian Safety Impacts of Curb Extensions: A Case Study. Publication FHWA-OR-DF-06-01, Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, 2005. 54. Hengel, D. Build It and They Will Yield: Effects of Median and Curb Extension Installations on Motorist Yield Compliance. Presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2013. 55. Huang, H. F. and M. J. Cynecki. The Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior. Publication FHWA-RD-00-104, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001. 56. MUTCD—Interim Approval for Optional Use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11), FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008. 57. Shurbutt, J., R. Van Houten, S. Turner, and B. Huitema. An Analysis of the Effects of Stutter Flash LED Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians Using Multilane Crosswalks. Transportation Research Record. No. 2073, pp. 69–78, 2009. 58. Shurbutt, J. and R. Van Houten. Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks. Technical Report, FHWA-HRT-10-043, 2010. 59. Huybers, S., R. Van Houten, and J. E. L. Malenfant. Reducing Conflicts between Motor Vehicles and Pedes- trians: The Separate and Combined Effects of Pavement Markings and a Sign Prompt. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 2004, pp. 445–456. 60. Van Houten, R. and L. Malenfant. The Influence of Signs Prompting Motorists to Yield 50 Feet (15.5 M) Before Marked Crosswalks on Motor Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts at Crosswalks with Pedestrian Activated Flashing Lights. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 24, 1992, pp. 217–225.

References 59 61. Van Houten, R., D. McCusker, and J. E. L. Malenfant. Advance Yield Markings: Reducing Motor Vehicle– Pedestrian Conflicts at Multilane Crosswalks with Uncontrolled Approach. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 69–74. 62. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009. 63. Bennett, M. and R. Van Houten. A Comparison of Gateway In-Street Sign Treatment to Other Driver Prompts to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians at Crosswalks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 2014, pp. 1–13. 64. Gross, F., B. Persaud, and C. Lyon. Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors. Report FHWA-SA-10-032, 2010. 65. Hauer, E. Observational Before-After Studies in Road Safety, Pergamon Press, 1997. 66. Zegeer, C., J. Stewart, H. Huang, P. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B. Campbell. Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-HRT-04-100, 2005. 67. AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual, 2010. 68. Campbell, J. L., M. G. Lichty, J. L. Brown, C. M. Richard, J. S. Graving, J. Graham, M. O’Laughlin, D. Torbic, and D. Harwood. NCHRP Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Second Edition, Transpor- tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012. 69. AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 2004. 70. Van Houten, R., J. LaPlante, and T. Gustafson. “Evaluating Pedestrian Improvements: Final Report”, Michigan DOT, December 3, 2012.

Next: Appendix A - Selected Treatment Types for Evaluation »
Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments quantifies the safety benefits of four types of pedestrian crossing treatments—rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, pedestrian refuge islands, and advanced YIELD or STOP markings and signs—and presents a crash modification factor (CMF) for each treatment type. This information, which is suitable for inclusion in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) CMF Clearinghouse, and other guidance, will be valuable to transportation agencies in choosing the appropriate crossing treatment for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.

  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!