National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 12 APPENDIX E: SITE PHOTO LOGS
Page 277
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 277
Page 278
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 278
Page 279
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 279
Page 280
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 280
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 281
Page 282
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 282
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 283
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 284
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 285
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 286
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 287
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 288
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 289
Page 290
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 290
Page 291
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 291
Page 292
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 292
Page 293
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 293
Page 294
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 294
Page 295
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 295
Page 296
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 296
Page 297
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 297
Page 298
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 298
Page 299
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 299
Page 300
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 300
Page 301
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 301
Page 302
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 302
Page 303
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 303
Page 304
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 304
Page 305
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 305
Page 306
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 306
Page 307
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 307
Page 308
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 308
Page 309
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 309
Page 310
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 310
Page 311
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 311
Page 312
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 312
Page 313
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 313
Page 314
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 314
Page 315
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 315
Page 316
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 316
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 317
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 318
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 319
Page 320
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 320
Page 321
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 321
Page 322
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 322
Page 323
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 323
Page 324
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 324
Page 325
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 325
Page 326
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 326
Page 327
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 327
Page 328
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 328
Page 329
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 329
Page 330
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 330
Page 331
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 331
Page 332
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 332
Page 333
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 333
Page 334
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 334
Page 335
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 335
Page 336
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 336
Page 337
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 337
Page 338
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 338
Page 339
Suggested Citation:"13 Appendix F: Detailed Field Study Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24675.
×
Page 339

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.

NCHRP 3-78b: Final Project Report April 2016 13 APPENDIX F: DETAILED FIELD STUDY RESULTS 277

NCHRP 3-78b: Final Project Report April 2016 This page intentially left blanks 278

Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities NCHRP 3‐78b SITE SUMMARIES – NCHRP 03‐78B – APPENDIX F 279

280 CTL - Tucson, Arizona – Grant and Oracle Road (NE approach) Studied April 2014 Factor Rating Description Noise OK Low volume in turn lane, few trucks, no other sound sources Visibility Concerning Issue because of cabinets, and because crosswalk is too close to downstream end Lane Utilization n/a n/a because approach is single lane Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Raised Crosswalk SW Quadrant Site Background This site was studied as part of trip evaluating four different channelized turn lanes in Tucson, AZ. The two studied CTLs both featured deceleration lanes, and no acceleration lanes. Both further had a raised crosswalk installed, although the design was such that vehicles could still comfortable traverse it. The southwest crosswalk featured a yield sign (for vehicles) past the crosswalk, while the yield sign at the northeast crosswalk was located at the crosswalk.

281 CTL - Tucson, Arizona – Grant and Oracle Road (NE approach) Studied April 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Tucson, AZ NE n=36 0 0% 2 5.56% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Tucson, AZ NE n=36 3.00 0.56 2.56 3.80 3.43 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Quadrant Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% NE Upstream (n=30G, 30R) 31 (2.9) 23 36 34 30 (3.3) 25 36 34 At X-walk (n=30G, 30R) 21 (2.7) 15 26 23 19 (2.4) 13 24 21 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate NE 67.92% 22.22% 71.79% 67.86% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate NE Blind(n=29) 63% Sighted(n=30) 50% Key Observations • The NE quadrant showed higher yielding rates, despite slightly higher speeds. • The NE quadrant further showed significantly reduced risk, despite a sight obstruction on the approach through two signal cabinets.

CTL - Tucson, Arizona – Grant and Oracle Road (SW approach) Studied April 2014 Factor Rating Description Noise OK However, yield utilization suggests an issue Visibility OK Better than NE approach; two-stage movement Lane Utilization n/a n/a because approach is single lane Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Raised Crosswalk SW Quadrant 282 Site Background This site was studied as part of trip evaluating four different channelized turn lanes in Tucson, AZ. The two studied CTLs both featured deceleration lanes, and no acceleration lanes. Both further had a raised crosswalk installed, although the design was such that vehicles could still comfortable traverse it. The southwest crosswalk featured a yield sign (for vehicles) past the crosswalk, while the yield sign at the northeast crosswalk was located at the crosswalk.

283 CTL - Tucson, Arizona – Grant and Oracle Road (SW approach) Studied April 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Tucson, AZ SW n=45 1 2.17% 4 8.7% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Tucson, AZ SW n=46 3.63 0.27 3.24 3.83 3.82 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Quadrant Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% SW Upstream (n=30G, 27R) 32 (3.4) 26 38 36 29 (3.4) 23 34 33 At X-walk (n=39G, 30R) 20 (2.0) 15 24 22 17 (2.4) 14 24 20 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate SW 49.50% 14.00% 56.34% 65.00% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate SW Blind(n=20) 87% Sighted(n=20) 70% Key Observations • The SW quadrant did not have landscaping separation posing some wayfinding challenges. • Both islands had good wayfinding features through channelization and landscaping.

284 CTL - Tucson, Arizona – Sabino Canyon Road and Tanque Verde Road Studied April 2014 Factor Rating Description Noise OK Easier to hear than Oracle & Grant, bigger island seemed helpful despite high traffic Visibility OK Lane Utilization n/a n/a because approach is single lane December 10 – 14, 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This site was studied as part of trip evaluating four different channelized turn lanes in Tucson, AZ. The studied CTLs featured a deceleration lane and an acceleration lanes. A yield sign was located at the crosswalk.

285 CTL - Tucson, Arizona – Sabino Canyon Road and Tanque Verde Studied April 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Tucson, AZ NE n=37 0 0% 3 8.11% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Tucson, AZ NE 37 4.19 0.54 3.65 4.79 4.66 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Upstream (n=35G, 43R) 30 (3.0) 24 35 33 28 (3.3) 21 33 32 At X-walk (n=30G, 39R) 22 (2.5) 15 26 24 19 (2.3) 13 23 20.3 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate NE 46.62% 14.52% 20.45% 44.44% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate NE Blind (n=30) 57% Sighted (n=30) 53% Key Observations • The site showed generally high speeds and low yielding compared to other CTLs studied in Tucson, which may be related to the large radius of curvature. • No landscape separation is provided on the curb side, posing some wayfinding challenges.

286 CTL - Tucson, Arizona – Wilmot Road and Speedway Boulevard Studied April 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Factor Rating Description Noise OK Visibility OK Lane Utilization n/a Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This site was studied as part of trip evaluating four different channelized turn lanes in Tucson, AZ. The studied CTLs featured a deceleration lane but no acceleration lanes. A stop sign was located at the crosswalk as a vehicular safety treatment, since drivers had limited sight distance to the left when trying to merge onto Speedway Boulevard Eastbound from the CTL.

287 CTL - Tucson, Arizona – Wilmot Road and Speedway Boulevard Studied April 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Tucson, AZ NW n=46 1 2.17% 1 2.17% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Tucson, AZ NW n=46 6.31 2.96 3.57 9.27 8.90 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Upstream (n= 41G, 30R) 33 (3.71) 25 40 36 28 (3.35) 23 36 31.65 At X-walk (n= G, R) n/a (stopped) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate NW 88.57% 22.58% 58.82% 75.00% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate NW Blind(n=21) n/a (~100%) Sighted(n=20) n/a (~100%) Key Observations • The stop sign at the crosswalk resulted in very high yield compliance and low speeds at the crosswalk. • The site generally showed low interventions and low delay. • Landscape separation through gravel on the approach facilitated wayfinding. • Lack of landscaping or cut-through on the island posed wayfinding challenges for some participants.

288 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – 28th Street and Canyon Boulevard Studied July 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Factor Rating Description Noise OK Doesn’t seem louder than other CTLs within Boulder Visibility Concerning Crosswalk close to downstream end creating single-stage maneuver Lane n/a Utilization n/a because approach is single lane Site Background This channelized turn lane (CTL) was studied as part of trip evaluating six CTLs in the Boulder, CO area. This CTL is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of 28th Street and Canyon Boulevard. It contains a deceleration lane, a raised crosswalk, but does not have an acceleration lane. This site was one of three of the six Boulder CTL locations that were within the city limits in the downtown area.

289 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – 28th Street and Canyon Boulevard Studied July 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Boulder, CO SW n=48 4 8.33% 4 8.33% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Boulder, CO SW n=48 23.87 21.19 6.63 58.12 41.22 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Upstream (n=30G, 30R) 29(3.5) 23 35 32.5 27(3.9) 18 35 30.7 At X-walk (n=30G, 30R) 15(0.9) 14 17 16 14(1.5) 11 16 15.7 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate SW 40.34% 36.62% 19.69% 72.00% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate SW Blind (n=25) 100% Sighted (n=25) 100% Key Observations • The raised crosswalk at this site may have helped reduce vehicle speeds, but the yielding rate remained relatively low at 40%. • The site showed an unusually high rate of interventions, which may be related to sight distance and audibility challenges at this site. • No separation through landscaping was provided between the sidewalk and the curb.

290 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – 28th Street and Pearl Street (NW approach) Studied July 2014 Factor Rating Description Noise OK Visibility OK Sufficient storage downstream Lane Utilization n/a n/a because approach is single lane Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background The first CTL at this intersection is at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of 28th Street and Pearl Street. It contains a deceleration lane, but does not have an acceleration lane. The second CLT is at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 28th Street and Pearl Street. It contains a deceleration lane, a raised crosswalk, but does not have an acceleration lane. These two sites were two of three of the six Boulder CTL locations that were within the city limits in the downtown area.

291 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – 28th Street and Pearl Street (NW approach) Studied July 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Boulder, CO NW n=58 1 1.72% 0 0% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Boulder, CO NW n=58 15.70 15.26 2.26 43.86 26.97 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Quadrant Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% NW Upstream (n=30G, 30R) 25 (2.9) 20 30 28 21 (2.0) 17 24 23 At X-walk (n=30G, 30R) 14 (2.5) 10 19 17 13 (1.9) 10 18 15 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate NW 57.78% 38.46% 83.61% 84.31% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate NW Blind (n=45) 93% Sighted (n=45) 93% Key Observations • The NW quadrant with the raised crosswalk installed performed notably better in terms of interventions than the NE quadrant with comparable geometry, but no added treatment. • The speeds at the crosswalk were not notable different at the two approaches, and the yielding rates were similar, and yet the NW quadrant showed safety benefits.

292 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – 28th Street and Pearl Street (NE approach) Studied July 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background The first CTL at this intersection is at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of 28th Street and Pearl Street. It contains a deceleration lane, but does not have an acceleration lane. The second CLT is at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 28th Street and Pearl Street. It contains a deceleration lane, a raised crosswalk, but does not have an acceleration lane. These two sites were two of three of the six Boulder CTL locations that were within the city limits in the downtown area. Factor Rating Description Noise OK Low turning traffic Visibility Concerning Single-stage, angle very different, driver sight distance for conflict vehicle is different Lane n/a Utilization n/a because approach is single lane

293 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – 28th Street and Pearl Street (NE approach) Studied July 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Boulder, CO NE n=59 5 8.47% 7 11.86% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Boulder, CO NE n=59 12.15 7.68 3.01 22.66 18.45 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Quadrant Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% NE Upstream (n=30G, 30R) 26 (2.2) 22 30 27 20 (2.7) 16 25 24 At X-walk (n=30G, 30R) 15 (1.9) 12 18 17 13 (2.4) 10 18 16 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate NE 65.96% 51.61% 78.00% 87.18% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate NW Blind (n=45) 93% Sighted (n=45) 93% Key Observations • The NW quadrant with the raised crosswalk installed performed notably better in terms of interventions than the NE quadrant with comparable geometry, but no added treatment. • The speeds at the crosswalk were not notable different at the two approaches, and the yielding rates were similar, and yet the NW quadrant showed safety benefits.

294 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – Foothills Parkway and Arapahoe Avenue Studied July 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This channelized turn lane (CTL) was studied as part of trip evaluating six CTLs in the Boulder, CO area. It is at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Foothills Parkway and Arapahoe Avenue. It contains a deceleration lane, a raised crosswalk, but does not have an acceleration lane. This site was one of three of the six Boulder CTL locations that were outside the city limits along an urban arterial corridor. Factor Rating Description Noise OK Easy to hear Visibility Good Lane Utilization OK n/a n/a because approach is single lane

295 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – Foothills Parkway and Arapahoe Studied July 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Boulder, CO SW n=60 0 0% 2 3.33% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Boulder, CO SW n=60 14.56 9.63 3.48 29.57 23.58 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Upstream (n=22G, 30R) 33(3.6) 25 39 36.9 35(3.6) 28 45 38 At X-walk (n=26G, 34R) 21(4.0) 12 30 25 22(3.2) 15 30 25.1 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate SW 32.41% 45.63% 53.26% 59.18% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate SW Blind (n=20) 75% Sighted (n=20) 70% Key Observations • The raised crosswalk at the site did not result in high yielding rates to pedestrians, and still allowed speeds in excess of 20mph. • No interventions were recorded at this location. • There was no landscaping separation between the sidewalk and the curb at this location.

296 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – Foothills and Baseline Road (NE approach) Studied July 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This site features two channelized turn lanes (CTLs). The first CTL is at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Foothills Parkway and Baseline Road. It contains a deceleration lane, an acceleration lane and sound strip treatment. The second CTL is at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Foothills Parkway and Baseline Road. It contains a deceleration lane, an acceleration lane and a raised crosswalk. These sites were two of three of the six Boulder CTL locations that were outside the city limits along an urban arterial corridor. Factor Rating Description Noise OK Visibility OK Lane Utilization n/a n/a because approach is single lane

297 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – Foothills and Baseline Road (NE approach) Studied July 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Boulder, CO NE, no TRMT n=59 0 0% 1 1.69% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Boulder, CO NE n=59 12.97 13.95 4.40 39.54 23.09 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Quadrant Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% NE Upstream (n=9G, 30R) 33(6.0) 26 41 40.4 31 (3.3) 24 37 34 At X-walk (n=16G, 28R) 25(3.4) 18 32 28.5 22(3.5) 15 30 25 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate NE 36.05% 48.39% 81.54% 73.58% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate NE Blind (n=21) 81% Sighted (n=20) 75% Key Observations • Some participants expressed a positive experience through the added auditory feedback from the sound strips in the SW quadrant. • The overall performance of the CTL with sound strips was only marginally better than the one without the treatment. • Drivers tended to try and avoid the sound strips by merging into the CTL late. • Yielding at these locations was quite low compared to other sites in Boulder.

298 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – Foothills and Baseline Road (SW approach) Studied July 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Factor Rating Description Noise OK Visibility OK Lane Utilization n/a n/a because approach is single lane Site Background This site features two channelized turn lanes (CTLs). The first CTL is at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Foothills Parkway and Baseline Road. It contains a deceleration lane, an acceleration lane and sound strip treatment. The second CTL is at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Foothills Parkway and Baseline Road. It contains a deceleration lane, an acceleration lane and a raised crosswalk. These sites were two of three of the six Boulder CTL locations that were outside the city limits along an urban arterial corridor.

299 CTL - Boulder, Colorado – Foothills and Baseline Road (SW approach) Studied July 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Boulder, CO SW, Sound Strip n=60 0 0% 2 3.33% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Boulder, CO SW n=60 9.82 5.17 1.70 16.39 13.85 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Quadrant Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% SW Upstream (n=24G, 31R) 28(4.2) 20 41 31 29(5.8) 20 45 32.5 At X-walk (n=23G, 30R) 20(2.6) 15 25 22.7 18(3.5) 11 26 20 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate SW 30.48% 59.38% 76.81% 75.47% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate SW Blind (n=20) 95% Sighted (n=20) 85% Key Observations • Some participants expressed a positive experience through the added auditory feedback from the sound strips in the SW quadrant. • The overall performance of the CTL with sound strips was only marginally better than the one without the treatment. • Drivers tended to try and avoid the sound strips by merging into the CTL late. • Yielding at these locations was quite low compared to other sites in Boulder.

300 CTL - Cary, North Carolina – Kildaire Farm Road and Tyron Road Studied November 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This channelized turn lane is at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Kildaire Farm Road and Tyron Road in Cary, North Carolina. It features a deceleration lane, but no acceleration lane, and no pedestrian signage at the crosswalk. Kildaire Farm Road features an uphill grade in advance of the CTL.

301 CTL - Cary, North Carolina – Kildaire Farm Road and Tyron Road Studied November 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Cary, NC SW n=41 2 4.88% 5 12.20% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Cary, NC SW n=41 16.01 7.86 7.37 24.80 22.24 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Upstream (n=23G, 30R) 38 (6.0) 21 50 42 34.8 (4.5) 26 48 39 At X-walk (n=30G, 31R) 15.2 (1.4) 12 17 17 13.5 (1.3) 10 16 15 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate SW 46.77% 31.03% 60.00% 45.83% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate SW Blind (n=24) 58% Sighted (n=25) 45% Key Observations • The upgrade along the approach toward the CTL, and the position of the crosswalk made it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians. • The large splitter island, without landscaping or cut-through walkway, posed significant wayfinding challenges for the participants.

302 CTL - Greenbelt, Maryland – Kenilworth Avenue and East-West Studied September 2014 Factor Rating Description Noise Concerning High noise Visibility Concerning Not ideal visibility Lane Utilization n/a n/a because approach is single lane Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This channelized turn lane (CTL) is at northwest quadrant of the intersection of Kenilworth Avenue and West Highway Street in Greenbelt, Maryland. The site features a deceleration lane and an acceleration lane. No further treatment is installed beyond standard pedestrian signage at crosswalk.

303 CTL - Greenbelt, Maryland – Kenilworth Avenue and East-West Studied September 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Greenbelt MD NW n=48 5 10.42% 6 12.50% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Greenbelt MD NW n=48 20.05 18.69 3.98 52.40 37.63 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Approach Signal: Green Approach Signal: Red Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Upstream (n= 16G, 29R) 28(6.2) 14 36 34 29(4.8) 19 38 34 At X-walk (n= 16G, 29R) 17(2.8) 12 22 19.5 15(2.6) 10 21 17.6 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate NW 23.21% 43.59% 84.51% 60.00% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate NW Blind (n=30) 80% Sighted (n=30) 53% Key Observations • The intersection adjacent to the CTL featured frequent heavy vehicle activity, resulting in a loud ambient noise level and difficulty hearing vehicles in the turn lane. • The yielding rate at the site was quite low at 23%. • This CTL showed the highest overall intervention rate of all studied CTLs in the project at 10.4%. • There was no separation between sidewalk and curb, posing wayfinding challenges for several participants. • Participants also expressed difficulties orienting themselves on the large splitter island.

304 RBT - Ann Arbor, Michigan – Ellsworth and State Road (Entry) Studied October 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This two-lane roundabout site is at State St. and Ellsworth Road. It is a true two- lane roundabout with an offset-left design (i.e. higher deflection at entry, and relatively straight exits). The crosswalks at this location are staggered (zig-zag), with the exit leg moved approximately 40' further away from the circle. State Road has a speed limit of 35mph and a daily volume of 31,500 north of the intersection and 17,600 south of the intersection. Ellsworth Road has a speed limit of 45 mph and a daily traffic volume of 15,600 east and 13,000 west of intersection. The roundabout is outfitted with grooved rumble strips in advance of the crosswalk at a distance of approximately 20-30’ before the crosswalk markings. Presumably, these rumble strips are intended to alert drivers of the upcoming crosswalk.

305 RBT - Ann Arbor, Michigan – Ellsworth and State Road (Entry) Studied October 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Ann Arbor, MI West Entry n=32 0 0% 0 0% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Ann Arbor, MI West Entry n=32 7.85 4.76 3.40 14.25 11.67 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% West Entry (n=30) 18 (2.0) 15 24 20 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate West Entry 78.26% 52.78% 57.14% 83.33% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate Entry Blind (n=25) 28% Sighted (n=25) 36% Key Observations • The two-lane roundabout featured slow vehicular speed and high yielding at the entry, but fast speeds and low yielding at the exit. • The rumble strips were difficult to hear outside of the vehicle at the slow travel speeds, and further were placed very close to the crosswalk, which gave little reaction time for pedestrians. • No interventions were recorded at the entry leg, but 3.1% at the exit leg.

306 RBT - Ann Arbor, Michigan – Ellsworth and State Road (Exit) Studied October 2014 Exhibit 1: Traf fic Volume Factor Rating Description Noise Concerning High exiting traffic, some trucks, lots of honking Visibility Concerning Right turn challenge close to crosswalk (despite offset) Lane OK Utilization Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This two-lane roundabout site is at State and Ellsworth Roads. It is a true two- lane roundabout with an offset-left design (i.e. higher deflection at entry, and relatively straight exits). The crosswalks at this location are staggered (zig-zag), with the exit leg moved approximately 40' further away from the circle. State Road has a speed limit of 35mph and a daily volume of 31,500 north of the intersection and 17,600 south of the intersection. Ellsworth Road has a speed limit of 45 mph and a daily traffic volume of 15,600 east and 13,000 west of intersection. The roundabout is outfitted with grooved rumble strips in advance of the crosswalk at a distance of approximately 20-30’ before the crosswalk markings. Presumably, these rumble strips are intended to alert drivers of the upcoming crosswalk.

307 RBT - Ann Arbor, Michigan – Ellsworth and State Road (Exit) Studied October 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Ann Arbor, MI West Exit n=32 1 3.13% 6 18.75% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Ann Arbor, MI West Exit n=32 9.93 2.23 7.88 12.93 11.73 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% West Exit (n=30) 27 (5.1) 18 36 33 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate West Exit 8.00% 68.75% 32.31% 95.24% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate Exit Blind (n=25) 24% Sighted (n=25) 28% Key Observations • The two-lane roundabout featured slow vehicular speed and high yielding at the entry, but fast speeds and low yielding at the exit. • The rumble strips were difficult to hear outside of the vehicle at the slow travel speeds, and further were placed very close to the crosswalk, which gave little reaction time for pedestrians. • No interventions were recorded at the entry leg, but 3.1% at the exit leg.

308 RBT - Ann Arbor, Michigan – Nixon Road and Huron Parkway (Entry) Studied October 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This single-lane site is at Huron Parkway and Nixon Road. It has single-lane approaches on all four legs and standard crosswalks approximately 20’ from the circulatory roadway. A set of four rumble strips is milled approximately 50’ prior to each crosswalk to alert drivers and provide an auditory queue for pedestrians.

309 RBT - Ann Arbor, Michigan – Nixon Road and Huron Parkway (Entry) Studied October 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Ann Arbor, MI South Entry n=40 0 0% 2 5% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Ann Arbor, MI South Entry n=40 5.78 3.11 3.04 9.35 9.11 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Entry (n=30) 15 (2.5) 12 22 17 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate South Entry 82.35% 72.68% 76.00% 100% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate Entry Blind (n=20) 100% Sighted (n=25) 96% Key Observations • The single-lane roundabout featured very slow vehicular speed and generally high yielding compliance from drivers. • Frequent pedestrian activity was observed at the site, raising driver expectations of pedestrians. • The rumble strips were difficult to hear outside of the vehicle at the slow travel speeds, and further were placed very close to the crosswalk, which gave little reaction time for pedestrians. • No interventions were recorded at either the entry or the exit legs.

310 RBT - Ann Arbor, Michigan – Nixon Road and Huron Parkway (Exit) Studied October 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This single-lane site is at Huron Parkway and Nixon Road. It has single-lane approaches on all four legs and standard crosswalks approximately 20’ from the circulatory roadway. A set of four rumble strips is milled approximately 50’ prior to each crosswalk to alert drivers and provide an auditory queue for pedestrians.

311 RBT - Ann Arbor, Michigan – Nixon Road and Huron Parkway (Exit) Studied October 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Ann Arbor, MI South Exit n=40 0 0% 2 5% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Ann Arbor, MI South Exit n=40 8.39 8.79 2.66 23.08 15.31 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% Exit (n=30) 16 (2.2) 11 22 18 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate South Exit 45.45% 78.75% 72.73% 100% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate Exit Blind (n=20) 95% Sighted (n=25) 52% Key Observations • The single-lane roundabout featured very slow vehicular speed and generally high yielding compliance from drivers. • Frequent pedestrian activity was observed at the site, raising driver expectations of pedestrians. • The rumble strips were difficult to hear outside of the vehicle at the slow travel speeds, and further were placed very close to the crosswalk, which gave little reaction time for pedestrians. • No interventions were recorded at either the entry or the exit legs.

312 RBT - Cary, North Carolina – Old Apex Road and West Chatham (Entry) Studied November 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This single-lane roundabout is at the intersection of Old Apex Road and West Chatham Street in Cary, North Carolina. This three-legged roundabouts has no additional treatments installed. Factor Rating Description Noise OK Visibility OK Lane Utilization OK

313 RBT - Cary, North Carolina – Old Apex Road and West Chatham (Entry) Studied November 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Cary, NC West Entry n=40 1 2.50% 3 7.50% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Cary, NC West Entry n=40 11.35 4.59 5.53 15.87 15.02 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% West Entry (n=30) 18(0.78) 16 19 19 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate West Entry 61.36% 61.04% 58.33% 90.48% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate Entry Blind (n=25) 56% Sighted (n=25) 40% Key Observations • Detectable warnings don’t extend all the way across the crossing, and some participants missed them because of that. • Exiting traffic at roundabout appears to mask some of the auditory information for making decisions at the entry point to the roundabout. • Some participants experienced long delays and waiting for quiet periods until the exit vehicles had passed. • Deflection and curvature at the entry helps keep speeds down. Both entry and exit speeds are slow with high yielding. • Entering traffic does not have clear visibility of the circulating lane, partially due to the vertical alignment. • Some participants stepped up on the island and were not comfortable stepping back into splitter island, because they thought it was roadway. The island surface should be something the clearly is not a walkable surface (i.e. landscaping, gravel, etc.) but not concrete, asphalt, etc.

314 RBT - Cary, North Carolina – Old Apex Road and West Chatham (Exit) Studied November 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This single-lane roundabout is at the intersection of Old Apex Road and West Chatham Street in Cary, North Carolina. This three-legged roundabouts has no additional treatments installed. Factor Rating Description Noise OK Visibility Concerning Crosswalk is close to circle Lane OK Utilization

315 RBT - Cary, North Carolina – Old Apex Road and West Chatham (Exit) Studied November 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Cary, NC West Exit n=41 2 4.88% 2 4.88% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Cary, NC West Exit n=41 11.68 2.22 10.20 15.48 13.28 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% West Exit (n=30) 21(1.34) 17 23 22 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate West Exit 32.20% 67.00% 43.90% 83.33% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate Exit Blind (n=25) 52% Sighted (n=25) 56% Key Observations • Detectable warnings don’t extend all the way across the crossing, and some participants missed them because of that. • Exiting traffic at roundabout appears to mask some of the auditory information for making decisions at the entry point to the roundabout. • Some participants experienced long delays and waiting for quiet periods until the exit vehicles had passed. • Deflection and curvature at the entry helps keep speeds down. Both entry and exit speeds are slow with high yielding. • Entering traffic does not have clear visibility of the circulating lane, partially due to the vertical alignment. • Some participants stepped up on the island and were not comfortable stepping back into splitter island, because they thought it was roadway. The island surface should be something the clearly is not a walkable surface (i.e. landscaping, gravel, etc.) but not concrete, asphalt, etc.

316 RBT - Greenbelt, Maryland – Cherrywood and Greenbelt (Entry) Studied September 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Factor Rating Description Noise Concerning Exiting traffic made it difficult to hear entry Visibility OK Lane Utilization n/a n/a because approach is single lane Site Background This roundabout is at the intersection of Cherrywood Lane and Greenbelt Metro Drive in Greenbelt, Maryland. It contains slip lanes and raised crosswalks. The west approach entry and exit legs of this site were studied.

317 RBT - Greenbelt, Maryland – Cherrywood and Greenbelt (Entry) Studied September 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Greenbelt, MD West Entry n=48 1 2.08% 1 2.08% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Greenbelt, MD West Entry n=48 24.02 28.51 5.45 80.54 38.77 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% West Entry (n=30) 17.3 (3.3) 12 26 20 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate West Entry 41.94% 38.47% 42.16% 88.37% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate Entry Blind (n=20) 90% Sighted (n=25) 92% Key Observations • The Raised Crosswalk resulted in slowing of vehicles at the crosswalk. • The channelized turn lane from north to west saw frequent platoons of vehicles as drivers were leaving the Metro Station north of the roundabout. • The site saw frequent pedestrian and bicycle activity from travelers walking/biking to and from the Metro station. • The splitter island did not feature detectable warning surfaces, resulting in wayfinding challenges and confusion expressed by several participants. • No landscaping was provided to separate the sidewalk from the curb at the exit leg, and only hardscaping was present on the entry.

318 RBT - Greenbelt, Maryland – Cherrywood and Greenbelt (Exit) Studied September 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volume Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This roundabout is at the intersection of Cherrywood Lane and Greenbelt Metro Drive in Greenbelt, Maryland. It contains slip lanes and raised crosswalks. The west approach entry and exit legs of this site were studied.

319 RBT - Greenbelt, Maryland – Cherrywood and Greenbelt (Exit) Studied September 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Greenbelt, MD West Exit n=50 2 4.00% 7 14% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Greenbelt, MD West Exit n=50 26.16 18.94 8.71 58.44 43.05 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% West Exit (n=30) 16.5 (3.2) 11 28 18 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Quadrant Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate West Exit 13.68% 30.77% 45.21% 63.64% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Quadrant Blind/Sighted Yield Rate Exit Blind (n=27) 56% Sighted (n=25) 41% Key Observations • The Raised Crosswalk resulted in slowing of vehicles at the crosswalk. • The channelized turn lane from north to west saw frequent platoons of vehicles as drivers were leaving the Metro Station north of the roundabout. • The site saw frequent pedestrian and bicycle activity from travelers walking/biking to and from the Metro station. • The splitter island did not feature detectable warning surfaces, resulting in wayfinding challenges and confusion expressed by several participants. • No landscaping was provided to separate the sidewalk from the curb at the exit leg, and only hardscaping was present on the entry.

320 RBT - Hilliard, Ohio – Cemetery Road and Main Street (W Entry) Studied May 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This roundabout has two‐lane entries and exits at all approaches and is outfitted with in‐road yield‐to‐pedestrian warning signs. The east approach features an offset exit leg, while the west approach has more standard crosswalk geometry. The east approach further has overhead flashing beacons for a school crossing, but these devices were not active during the study. Factor Rating Description Noise OK Elevated Visibility Concerning Overlapping decision points Lane Utilization Imbalanced

321 RBT - Hilliard, Ohio – Cemetery Road and Main Street (W Entry) Studied May 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Hilliard, OH West Entry n=53 1 1.9% 13 25% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Hilliard, OH West Entry n=53 14.80 14.46 3.95 42.86 23.42 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% West Entry (n=30) 16.4 (2.2) 13.0 21.0 19.0 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Approach Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate West Entry 63.64% 38.57% 28.00% 78.57% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Approach Entry/Exit Blind/Sighted Yield Rate West Entry Blind (n=25) N/A Sighted (n=25) N/A Key Observations • A high school was located at the north-west corner of the roundabout. • Traffic pattern and driving behavior was different during morning, mid-day and evening, slower, more cautious traffic during morning and aggressive droving during peak hour and evening. • West leg both entry and exit resulted in high rate of intervention and risky events. • The roundabout was located in a vicinity of another roundabout. • The roundabout has a history of failure to yield at entry and high crash rate (mostly PDOs). • The roundabout get very congestion during afternoon/evening peak hour. • Lane drops upstream and downstream of the roundabout and an inefficient signal located downstream are a few of the causes of gridlock.

322 RBT - Hilliard, Ohio – Cemetery Road and Main Street (W Exit) Studied May 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This roundabout has two‐lane entries and exits at all approaches and is outfitted with in‐road yield‐to‐pedestrian warning signs. The east approach features an offset exit leg, while the west approach has more standard crosswalk geometry. The east approach further has overhead flashing beacons for a school crossing, but these devices were not active during the study.

323 RBT - Hilliard, Ohio – Cemetery Road and Main Street (W Exit) Studied May 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Hilliard, OH West Exit n=56 8 14% 6 11% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Hilliard, OH West Exit n=56 17.86 8.87 6.79 32.68 25.61 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% West Exit (n=30) 20.8 (3.2) 16.0 30.0 24.0 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Approach Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate West Exit 21.27% 42.11% 9.62% 80.00% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Approach Entry/Exit Blind/Sighted Yield Rate West Exit Blind (n=25) 45% Sighted (n=25) 25% Key Observations • A high school was located at the north-west corner of the roundabout. • Traffic pattern and driving behavior was different during morning, mid-day and evening, slower, more cautious traffic during morning and aggressive droving during peak hour and evening. • West leg both entry and exit resulted in high rate of intervention and risky events. • The roundabout was located in a vicinity of another roundabout. • The roundabout has a history of failure to yield at entry and high crash rate (mostly PDOs). • The roundabout get very congestion during afternoon/evening peak hour. • Lane drops upstream and downstream of the roundabout and an inefficient signal located downstream are a few of the causes of gridlock.

324 RBT - Hilliard, Ohio – Cemetery Road and Main Street (E Entry) Studied May 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This roundabout has two‐lane entries and exits at all approaches and is outfitted with in‐road yield‐to‐pedestrian warning signs. The east approach features an offset exit leg, while the west approach has more standard crosswalk geometry. The east approach further has overhead flashing beacons for a school crossing, but these devices were not active during the study.

325 RBT - Hilliard, Ohio – Cemetery Road and Main Street (E Entry) Studied May 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Hilliard, OH East Entry n=60 1 1.7% 7 12% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Hilliard, OH East Entry n=60 21.70 13.36 5.61 38.82 37.42 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% East Entry (n=30) 16.8 (2.4) 13.0 23.0 19.0 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Approach Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate East Entry 57.97% 35.83% 14.42% 93.33% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Approach Entry/Exit Blind/Sighted Yield Rate East Entry Blind (n=25) 55% Sighted (n=25) 25% Key Observations • A high school was located at the north-west corner of the roundabout. • Traffic pattern and driving behavior was different during morning, mid-day and evening, slower, more cautious traffic during morning and aggressive droving during peak hour and evening. • West leg both entry and exit resulted in high rate of intervention and risky events. • The roundabout was located in a vicinity of another roundabout. • The roundabout has a history of failure to yield at entry and high crash rate (mostly PDOs). • The roundabout get very congestion during afternoon/evening peak hour. • Lane drops upstream and downstream of the roundabout and an inefficient signal.

326 RBT - Hilliard, Ohio – Cemetery Road and Main Street (E Exit) Studied May 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This roundabout has two‐lane entries and exits at all approaches and is outfitted with in‐road yield‐to‐pedestrian warning signs. The east approach features an offset exit leg, while the west approach has more standard crosswalk geometry. The east approach further has overhead flashing beacons for a school crossing, but these devices were not active during the study.

327 RBT - Hilliard, Ohio – Cemetery Road and Main Street (E Exit) Studied May 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Hilliard, OH East Exit n=60 4 6.7% 7 12% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Hilliard, OH East Exit n=60 17.41 10.52 6.07 35.84 24.09 Exhibit 5: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% East Exit (n=30) 25.5 (3.9) 18.0 35.0 29.7 Exhibit 6: Yield and Gap Rates Approach Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate East Exit 23.44% 44.90% 19.30% 81.82% Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Approach Entry/Exit Blind/Sighted Yield Rate East Exit Blind (n=25) 56% Sighted (n=25) 55% Key Observations • A high school was located at the north-west corner of the roundabout. • Traffic pattern and driving behavior was different during morning, mid-day and evening, slower, more cautious traffic during morning and aggressive droving during peak hour and evening. • West leg both entry and exit resulted in high rate of intervention and risky events. • The roundabout was located in a vicinity of another roundabout. • The roundabout has a history of failure to yield at entry and high crash rate (mostly PDOs). • The roundabout get very congestion during afternoon/evening peak hour. • Lane drops upstream and downstream of the roundabout and an inefficient signal located downstream are a few of the causes of gridlock.

328 RBT - Novi, Michigan – Maple Road and Farmington Road (S Entry) Studied August 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This multi-lane roundabout is at Maple Road and Farmington Road. The roundabout was previously evaluated in a separate research project in (a) a “before” condition without treatment, and (b) in an “after” condition with Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) installed. For this study, the roundabout was outfitted also with raised crosswalk at four test legs: 3-lane entry from east, three-lane exit to east, two- lane entry from south, and two-lane exit to north.

329 RBT - Novi, Michigan – Maple Road and Farmington Road (S Entry) Studied August 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Novi, MI South Entry n=36 0 0% 1 2.78% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Novi, MI South Entry n=36 9.30 1.22 7.86 10.67 10.30 Exhibit 5: Yield and Gap Rates Approach Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate South Entry 65.15% 46.22% 22.73% 100% Exhibit 6: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% South Entry (n=30) 13(2.7) 9 22 15 Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Approach Exit/Entry Blind/Sighted Yield Rate South Entry Blind (n=21) 81% Sighted N/A Key Observations • The Raised Crosswalk resulted in significant slowing of vehicles due to a large vertical elevation and steep transition slope. • The resulting vehicle speeds were very low, which may also have contributed to reasonably high yielding behavior. • The north exit showed unusually high numbers of interventions, despite being only two lanes across. • The raised crosswalks resulted in a drastic safety and accessibility improvement over the previous RRFB-only test, but the design of the raised crosswalk resulted in frequent driver frustration.

330 RBT - Novi, Michigan – Maple Road and Farmington Road (N Exit) Studied August 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This multi-lane roundabout is at Maple Road and Farmington Road. The roundabout was previously evaluated in a separate research project in (a) a “before” condition without treatment, and (b) in an “after” condition with Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) installed. For this study, the roundabout was outfitted also with raised crosswalk at four test legs: 3-lane entry from east, three-lane exit to east, two- lane entry from south, and two-lane exit to north. Factor Rating Description Noise OK High exiting volume and ambient noise resulting from heavy east-to-west through traffic, which may have made it difficult to hear exiting traffic. Visibility Concerning Issue because of cabinets, and because crosswalk is too close to downstream end Lane Imbalanced Utilization Favoring inside lane, but no queuing

331 RBT - Novi, Michigan – Maple Road and Farmington Road (N Exit) Studied August 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Novi, MI North Exit n=42 3 7.14% 7 16.67% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Novi, MI North Exit n=42 8.24 1.52 6.59 10.29 9.61 Exhibit 5: Yield and Gap Rates Approach Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate North Exit 65.43% 47.17% 26.32% 100% Exhibit 6: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% North Exit (n=30) 15 (4.6) 9 25 21 Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Approach Exit/Entry Blind/Sighted Yield Rate North Exit Blind N/A Sighted (n=15) 67% Key Observations • The Raised Crosswalk resulted in significant slowing of vehicles due to a large vertical elevation and steep transition slope. • The resulting vehicle speeds were very low, which may also have contributed to reasonably high yielding behavior. • The north exit showed unusually high numbers of interventions, despite being only two lanes across. • The raised crosswalks resulted in a drastic safety and accessibility improvement over the previous RRFB-only test, but the design of the raised crosswalk resulted in frequent driver frustration.

332 RBT - Novi, Michigan – Maple Road and Farmington Road (E Entry) Studied August 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This multi-lane roundabout is at Maple Road and Farmington Road. The roundabout was previously evaluated in a separate research project in (a) a “before” condition without treatment, and (b) in an “after” condition with Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) installed. For this study, the roundabout was outfitted also with raised crosswalk at four test legs: 3-lane entry from east, three-lane exit to east, two- lane entry from south, and two-lane exit to north.

333 RBT - Novi, Michigan – Maple Road and Farmington Road (E Entry) Studied August 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Novi, MI East Entry n=31 0 0% 2 6.45% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Novi, MI East Entry n=31 9.35 2.86 5.37 12.09 11.33 Exhibit 5: Yield and Gap Rates Approach Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate East Entry 90.77% 42.37% 26.67% 100% Exhibit 6: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% East Entry (n=30) 13 (2.2) 9 18 15 Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Approach Exit/Entry Blind/Sighted Yield Rate East Entry Blind (n=20) 55% Sighted (n=15) 93% Key Observations • The Raised Crosswalk resulted in significant slowing of vehicles due to a large vertical elevation and steep transition slope. • The resulting vehicle speeds were very low, which may also have contributed to reasonably high yielding behavior. • The north exit showed unusually high numbers of interventions, despite being only two lanes across. • The raised crosswalks resulted in a drastic safety and accessibility improvement over the previous RRFB-only test, but the design of the raised crosswalk resulted in frequent driver frustration.

334 RBT - Novi, Michigan – Maple Road and Farmington Road (E Exit) Studied August 2014 Exhibit 1: Traffic Volumes Exhibit 2: Special Feature Site Background This multi-lane roundabout is at Maple Road and Farmington Road. The roundabout was previously evaluated in a separate research project in (a) a “before” condition without treatment, and (b) in an “after” condition with Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) installed. For this study, the roundabout was outfitted also with raised crosswalk at four test legs: 3-lane entry from east, three-lane exit to east, two- lane entry from south, and two-lane exit to north.

335 RBT - Novi, Michigan – Maple Road and Farmington Road (E Exit) Studied August 2014 Exhibit 3: O&M Estimated Intervention and Risky Events O&M and Observer Interventions O&M Estimated Interventions O&M Estimated Risky Events Count Rate Count Rate Novi, MI East Exit n=32 0 0% 4 12.50% Exhibit 4: Delay Values Average Delay (sec.) Count Ave. St. Dev. Min Max 85% Novi, MI East Exit n=32 10.85 4.25 8.61 17.22 13.48 Exhibit 5: Yield and Gap Rates Approach Yield Rate Yield Utilization Rate Crossable Gap Rate Crossable Gap Utilization Rate East Exit 54.05% 47.50% 25.00% 81.82% Exhibit 6: Free-Flow Speed Statistics Location Avg. (St. Dev) Min Max 85% East Exit (n=30) 15 (3.9) 9 22 20 Exhibit 7: Yielding Rate Approach Exit/Entry Blind/Sighted Yield Rate East Exit Blind (n=20) 50% Sighted (n=16) 38% Key Observations • The Raised Crosswalk resulted in significant slowing of vehicles due to a large vertical elevation and steep transition slope. • The resulting vehicle speeds were very low, which may also have contributed to reasonably high yielding behavior. • The north exit showed unusually high numbers of interventions, despite being only two lanes across. • The raised crosswalks resulted in a drastic safety and accessibility improvement over the previous RRFB-only test, but the design of the raised crosswalk resulted in frequent driver frustration.

336 14 REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2011. Ashmead, D., D. Guth, R. Wall, R. Long, and P. Ponchillia. Street Crossing by Sighted and Blind Pedestrians at a Modern Roundabout. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 11, November 1, 2005, pp. 812–821. Barlow, J.M., Bentzen, B.L., Sauerburger, D., and Franck, L. (2010) Teaching travel at complex intersections. In W. Winer, R. Welsh, and B. Blasch. (Eds.). Foudations of orientation and mobility (3rd Edition, Volume 2). New York, NY: American Foundation for the Blind. Bentzen, B. L., Barlow, J.M., and Tabor, L. (2000). Detectable warnings: Synthesis of U.S. and international practiced, Washington, DC, US Access Board. Campbell, B. J., Zegeer, C.V., Huang, H. H., and Cynecki, M .J. A REVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Federal Highway Administration, 2004, 150 p. City of San Diego, Design Manual; http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/pdf/peddesign.pdf Accessed July 30, 2012, pp. 82. Delaware Department of Transportation, Register of Regulations http://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/manuals/traffic_calming/pdf/deldotfinal.pdf Accessed July 30, 2012. Emerson, R.W., and d. Sauerburger. 2008. “Detecting Approaching Vehicles at Streets with No Traffic Control.” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol. 102, No. 12, pp. 747-760. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad, Federal Highway Administration. Office of Safety Research and Development. FHWA-RD-03-042 McLean, VA. 2000. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks. FHWA-HRT-10-043. Federal Highway Administration. September 2010. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), TOPR Number #34: Accelerating Roundabout Implementation in the United States, Contract Number: DTFH61-10-D-00023, 2011. Fitzpatrick, Kay; Turner, Shawn M; Brewer, Marcus; Carlson, Paul J; Ullman, Brooke; Trout, Nada D; Park, Eun Sug; Whitacre, Jeffrey; Lalani, Nazir; Lord, Dominique. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. TCRP-NCHRP Report, 2006, 109p. Geruschat, Duane R. and Shirin E. Hassan, Driver Behavior in Yielding to Sighted and Blind Pedestrians at Roundabouts. In Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. Volume 99, Number 5, May 2005. Guth, D. A. and R. O. LaDuke. 1994. The veering tendency of blind pedestrians: An analysis of the problem and literature review. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol. 88, pp. 391–400.

337 Guth, D., D. Ashmead, R. Long, R. Wall, & P. Ponchillia, (2005). Blind and sighted pedestrians’ judgments of gaps in traffic at roundabouts. Human Factors, 47, 314-331. Guth, D., D.A., Long, R.G.,Wall Emerson, R., Ponchillia, P. and Ashmead, D. (2013). Blind and sighted pedestrians’ road crossing judgments at a single lane roundabout. Human Factors, 55, 3, 632-642. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2010. Inman, Vaughan W; Davis, Gregory W; Sauerburger, Dona. Roundabout Access for Visually Impaired Pedestrians: Evaluation of a Yielding Vehicle Alerting System for Double-Lane Roundabouts. Transportation Research E-Circular, Issue E-C083, 2005, 18p. Inman, Vaughan, Davis, Gregory W., and Sauerburger, D. (2006). Pedestrians and Potential Treatments to Improve Access, Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-080. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C., 2009. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies, 2nd Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C., 2010. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcsop/Chapter5c.pdf Accessed July 30, 2012a. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), IT Proposed Recommended Practice, http://www.avongov.org/egov/docs/1210705816_260986.pdf Accessed July 30, 2012b. ISO 23599: 2012. Assistive Products for Blind aand Vision-Impaired Persons—Tactile Walking Surface Indicators.https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#isa:std:iso:23599:3d-1:v1:en. Kallie, C.S. Schrater, P.R., and Legge, G.E. (2007). Variability in stepping direction explains the veering behavior of blind walkers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 183-200. Koslow, M., Kinsella, J., and Gast-Bray, A. (2013). Intersection Crossing Based on a Pedestrian Time Gap. ITE Journal. 39-41. Long, R. G., D. A. Guth, D. H. Ashmead, R.W. Emerson, and P. Ponchillia. 2005. “Modern Roundabouts: Access by Pedestrians who are Blind.” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. Vol. 99, No. 10. Mohammadipour, Amir H; Alavi, Seyed Hafez. The optimization of the geometric cross-section dimensions of raised pedestrian crosswalks: A case study in Qazvin. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 41, Issue 2, 2009, pp 314-326. National Science Foundation Grant # CBET-0756263: Development and Evaluation of Methodological Framework for Real-World Vehicle Energy Use and Emissions Estimation at Multiple Temporal and Vehicular Scales, 2012.

338 NIH National Institutes of Health, NIH. NIH/NEI Bioengineering Research Partnership Grant R01 EY12894-03, 2010. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Traffic Calming Measures and Design Guidelines ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%20383.pdf Accessed July 30, 2012. Persaud, B.N., R. A. Retting, P. E. Garder, and D. Lord 2000. Crash Reduction Following Installation of Roundabouts in the United States. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Arlington, V.A. RCOC Road Commission for Oakland County (2011). Road Commission for Oakland County HAWK and RRFB Study. http://www.rcocweb.org/Lists/Publications/Attachments/127/ HAWK%20Final%20Report%202011.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2012. Rodegerdts, L., M. Blogg, E. Wemple, E. Myers, M. Kyte, M. Dixon, G. List, A. Flannery, R. Troutbeck, W. Brilon, N. Wu, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, D. Harkey, and D. Carter. 2007. NCHRP Report 572: Roundabouts in the United States. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington, D.C. Rodegerdts, L.; J. Bansen, C. Tiesler, J. Knudsen, E. Myers, M. Johnson, M. Moule, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, S. Hallmark, H. Isebrands, R. B. Crown, B. Guichet, A. O'Brien. 2010. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide - Second Edition. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington, D.C. Salamti Katayoun, Schroeder B. J., Geruschat D., Roupail, N., Event Based Modeling of Driver Yielding Behavior to Pedestrians at Two-lane Roundabouts, Submitted for presentation at 92nd TRB Annual Meeting, January 2012, Washington, DC. Salamati, K., B.J. Schroeder, N.M. Rouphail, C. Cunningham, D. Kaber, and Y. Zhang. Simulator Study of Driver Responses to Pedestrian Treatments at Multilane Roundabouts. Accepted for Publication in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. In Press. Schroeder, Bastian J; Rouphail, Nagui M; Emerson, Robert S Wall. Exploratory Analysis of Crossing Difficulties for Blind and Sighted Pedestrians at Channelized Turn Lanes. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Issue 1956, 2006, pp 94-102. Schroeder, B.J.; N.M. Rouphail, and R.G. Hughes (2008), Toward Roundabout Accessibility – Exploring the Operational Impact of Pedestrian Signalization Options at Modern Roundabouts, Journal of Transportation Engineering Vol. 134, No. 6, American Society of Civil Engineers. Schroeder, B. J. (2008), A Behavior-Based Methodology for Evaluating Pedestrian-Vehicle Interaction at Crosswalk. Doctoral Dissertation in Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University. May 2008. Schroeder, Bastian, J; Rouphail, Nagui M. Mixed-Priority Pedestrian Delay Models at Single-Lane Roundabouts. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Issue 2182, 2010, pp 129-138. Schroeder, B.; R. Hughes; N. Rouphail; C. Cunningham; K. Salamati; R. Long; D. Guth; R. Emerson, R. Wall; D. Kim; J. Barlow, J. B. Bentzen, L. Rodegerdts; E. Myers. 2011. NCHRP Report 674: Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.

339 Schroeder, Bastian; Hughes, Ronald; Rouphail, Nagui; Cunningham, Christopher; Salamati, Katy; Long, Richard; Guth, David; Emerson, Robert Wall; Kim, Dae; Barlow, Janet; Bentzen, Billie Louise; Rodegerdts, Lee; Myers, Ed. Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. NCHRP Report, Issue 674, 2011a, 150p. Schroeder, B. and N. Rouphail (2011b), Event-Based Modeling of Driver Yielding Behavior at Unsignalized Crosswalks. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering. Volume 137. Issue 7. American Society of Civil Engineers. Schroeder, Bastian J; Rouphail, Nagui M. Empirical Behavioral Models to Support Alternative Tools for the Analysis of Mixed-Priority Pedestrian-Vehicle Interaction in a Highway Capacity Context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 16, 2011c, pp 653-663. Schroeder, Bastian J., Katy Salamati, Lee Rodegerdts, et al. (2015) Accelerating Roundabouts in the US: Volume I of VII – Evaluation of Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons at Multilane Roundabouts, Final Report. FHWA-SA-15-069. Washington, DC. Scott, A.C., Barlow, J.M., Guth, D.A., Bentzen, B.L., Cunningham, C.M., & Long, R. (2011)a Walking between the lines: Nonvisual cues for maintaining heading during street crossings. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 662 – 674. Scott, A.C., Barlow, J.M., Guth, D.A., Bentzen, B.L., Cunningham, C.M., & Long, R. (2011)b. Nonvisual cues for aligning to cross streets. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 648 - 661. Shurbutt J. and R. Van Houten, TechBrief: Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks, Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-046, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 2010. US Access board US Access Board, Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rights of Way. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Released July 26, 2011. http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/nprm.htm. Last accessed July 27, 2011.

Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Web-Only Document 222: Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities provides guidance to engineers and planners on the design of roundabouts and channelized turn lanes for accessibility. NCHRP Web-Only Document 222 is the final report for NCHRP Research Report 834: Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook.

The accessibility of modern roundabouts and intersections with channelized turn lanes is an important civil rights challenge in the United States that has broad potential implications for engineering practice in this country. This report builds on the results of NCHRP Report 674: Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. It provides a framework for empirical study and analysis of accessibility performance, documents field testing of several treatments, and provides a research extension through modeling and simulation to expand the results beyond the field-tested sites.

  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!