Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2016)

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.

86 ACRONYMS AND TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT Acronyms ADA Americans with Disabilities Act HAWK high-intensity activated cross walk HCM Highway Capacity Manual HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program HSM Highway Safety Manual LOS level of service LPI leading pedestrian interval MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NACE National Association of County Engineers NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures PBCAT Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool PCS pedestrian countdown signal PHB pedestrian hybrid beacon QOS quality of service RRFB rectangular rapid flash beacon RSA road safety audit RTOR right turn on red SRTS Safe Routes to School Definitions of Terms Complete Streets – Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities may move safely along and across a “complete street.” A model Complete Streets Policy is that transportation agencies routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users (Smart Growth America, National Complete Streets Coalition). Crash modification factor (CMF) – A CMF is a multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure. Standard errors of the estimate give an idea of the quality of the estimate and potential variation of effect. If available, calibrated or locally developed state estimates may provide a better estimate of effects for the state (Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse).

87 Data-driven approach – A data-driven approach to traffic safety broadly encompasses analysis of safety data (which may include crashes or identified risk factors associated with roadways) to assess problem types and to identify cost-effective solu- tions. Both reactive and systemic approaches can be used to analyze and quantify problem locations. See those definitions and FHWA’s Accelerating Innovation, Data-Driven Safety Analysis web page (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/edc-3/ analysis.cfm), and the Highway Safety Manual (2010) for more information. Proposed Rights-of-Way Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG) – “The guidelines ensure that sidewalks, pedestrian street crossings, pedestrian signals, and other facilities for pedestrian circulation and use con- structed or altered in the public right-of-way by state and local governments are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities. When the guidelines are adopted, with or without additions and modifications, as accessibility standards in regulations issued by other federal agencies implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act, compliance with the accessibility standards is mandatory” (United States Access Board, http://www. access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/proposed-rights-of-way-guidelines). Self-enforcing roads – This concept has mostly been defined in terms of enforcing motorist speeds. A self-enforcing road- way design reduces the opportunities for drivers to speed, but it could also be viewed as helping to ensure that road users in general have less opportunity (or desire) to violate road safety rules and obligations. In terms of speed management, the goal of self-enforcing design is to increase consistency of design with established speed limits, and to design the road itself to induce drivers to adopt operating speeds that are within established limits and appropriate for conditions, thereby reducing the need for traffic law enforcement of speed limits (Brewer et al. 2001). Self-explaining roads – Self-explaining road design keys on the development of a consistent design and appearance for each roadway purpose or function category (Brewer et al. 2001). Self-explaining road design complements self-enforcing road design by making the type of road and associated speed limit(s) and other appropriate behaviors more readily evident to drivers. Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) – A TZD framework encompasses a highway safety vision that seeks to eliminate highway fatalities as a threat to public and personal health (FHWA 2015). Also see Toward Zero Deaths, National Strategy on Highway Safety website supported by federal (FHWA, FMCSA, NHTSA) and other national and international partners, including AAS- HTO, NACE, the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (http://www. towardzerodeaths.org/). United States Road Assessment Program (USRAP) – A safety benchmarking program sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, modeled on similar programs used in other countries. For more information, see http://www.usrap.us/home/ Vision Zero – Similar to TZD, Vision Zero is a traffic safety vision that no one should be killed or seriously injured within the transportation system, and that measures can be taken by system designers and operators as well as users to prevent deaths in traffic. This vision originated in Sweden in the 1990s and came to dominate the decision framework and traffic safety discussion there by the mid-1990s. A key principle is that users make mistakes, but should not die as a result; speed manage- ment is therefore a key aspect of a Vision Zero framework. Vision Zero is described in a number of English language report summaries on the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute website (https://www.vti.se/en/) the and Vision Zero Initiative website (http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/en/Concept/).