National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 4 - Conclusions
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
Page 74

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.

69 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 2015 Traffic Culture Change Index. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C., 2016. Aarts, L., and I. Schagen. Driving Speed and the Risk of Road Crashes: A Review. Accident Analysis and Preven- tion, Vol. 38, 2006, pp. 215–224. AASHTO. AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th ed. American Association of Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2011. Agerholm, N., D. Knudsen, and K. Variyeswaran. Speed-Calming Measures and Their Effect on Driving Speed— Test of a New Technique Measuring Speeds Based on GNSS Data. Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 46, 2017, pp. 263–270. ARRB Group Project Team. Evaluation of the Fixed Digital Speed Camera Program in New South Wales. Prepared for Roads and Traffic Authority, New South Wales, 2005. Bella, F., and M. Silvestri. Effects of Safety Measures on Driver’s Speed Behavior at Pedestrian Crossings. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 83, 2015, pp. 111–124. Blomberg, R.D., and A.M. Cleven. Pilot Test of Heed the Speed, A Program to Reduce Speeds in Residential Neigh- borhoods. Report No. DOT HS 810 648, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2006. Blomberg, R.D., F.D. Thomas III, and B.J. Marziani. Demonstration and Evaluation of the Heed the Speed Pedestrian Safety Program. Report No. DOT HS 811 515. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2012. Boodlal, L., et al. Factors Influencing Operating Speeds and Safety on Rural and Suburban Roads. Report FHWAHRT-15-030, Federal Highway Administration, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, VA., 2015. Brude U., and J. Larsson. What Roundabout Design Provides the Highest Possible Safety? Nordic Road Transport Research, 2000, pp. 12:17–21. CDOT. City of Chicago Automated Enforcement Program. Chicago Department of Transportation, Chicago, IL, 2016. Chen, L.C., R. Ewing, C.E. McKnight, R. Srinivasan, and M. Rose. Safety Countermeasures and Crash Reduc- tion in New York City—Experience and Lessons Learned. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 50, 2013, pp. 312–322. City and County of Denver. Vision Zero Action Plan. Denver, CO, 2017. City and County of San Francisco. Policy Analysis Report Presented to Board of Supervisors. San Francisco, CA, November 18, 2016. City and County of San Francisco. Two-year Action Strategy 2017–2018. San Francisco, CA, 2017. City of Alexandria. Speed Reducer Program. n.d. Available: https://www.alexandriava.gov/localmotion/info/ default.aspx?id=77924. City of Austin. 2016–2018 Action Plan. Austin, TX, 2016. City of Boston. Boston’s New Default Speed Limit 25 mph Effective Jan. 9, 2017. Published November 30, 2016. Available: https://www.boston.gov/news/bostons-new-default-speed-limit-25-mph-effective-jan-9-2017. City of Cambridge. Brattle Street Traffic Calming Project Evaluation. Cambridge, MA, 2012. City of Chicago. Vision Zero Action Plan 2017–2019. Chicago, IL, 2017. City of Los Angeles. Vision Zero Action Plan. Los Angeles, CA, 2015. City of New York. Vision Zero Action Plan. New York, NY, 2014. City of New York. Vision Zero Four-Year Report. New York, NY, 2018. City of Philadelphia. Three-Year Vision Zero Action Plan. Philadelphia, PA, 2017. City of Portland. Saving Lives with Safe Streets: Vision Zero Action Plan. Portland, OR, 2016. City of Seattle. Vision Zero Action Plan. Seattle, WA, 2015. References

70 Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management Corkle, J., J.L. Giese, and M.M. Marti. Investigating the Effectiveness of Traffic-Calming Strategies on Driver Behavior, Traffic Flow, and Speed. Minnesota Local Road Research Board, Minnesota Department of Transportation, October 2001. CTCDC Meeting Minutes. Department of Transportation, November 2, 2017. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ trafficops/ctcdc/docs/CTCDC-11-02-17.pdf. Cunningham, C. M., J.E. Hummer, and J.P. Moon. Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras in Charlotte, North Carolina. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2078, 2001, pp. 127–134. https://doi.org/10.3141/2078-17. Davis, G.A. Relating Severity of Pedestrian Injury to Impact Speed in Vehicle–Pedestrian Crashes: Simple Threshold Model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, 2001, pp. 108–113. https://doi.org/10.3141/1773-13. District of Columbia. Vision Zero: Safe Streets for Washington D.C. Washington, D.C., 2015. Donnell, E.T., S.C. Hines, K.M. Mahoney, R.J. Porter, and H. McGee. Speed Concepts: Informational Guide. FHWA-SA-10-001, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2009. Elvik, R., P. Christensen, and A. Amundsen. Speed and Road Accidents: An Evaluation of the Power Model. The Institute of Transport Economics (TOI), TOI Report 740/2004, December 2004. Elvik, R., and T. Vaa. The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, 1st ed. Elsevier, Boston, Mass., 2004, 1078 pp. Ewing, R. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1999. Ferrier, K. When Lowering Speed Matters Most—Successful Strategies from NYC and Chicago. Published December 7, 2017. Available: https://visionzeronetwork.org/when-lowering-speed-matters/. FHWA. Barrier Guide for Low-Volume and Low-Speed Roads. Report. No. FHWA-CFL/TD-05-009, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2005. FHWA. Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2008. FHWA. Mini-Roundabouts: Technical Summary. Report No. FHWA-SA-10-007, Federal Highway Administra- tion, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2010. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways: 2009 Edition Including Revision 1 dated May 2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Trans- portation, Washington, D.C., 2012a. FHWA. User Guide for USLIMITS. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2012b. FHWA. Engineering Speed Management Countermeasures. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2014. FHWA. Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance Measures. Report No. FHWA- HEP-16-037, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2016. Fleisher, A., M.L. Wier, and M. Hunter. A Vision for Transportation Safety: Framework for Identifying Best Practice Strategies to Advance Vision Zero. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2582, 2016, pp. 72–86. https://doi.org/10.3141/2582-09. Forbes, G.R., T. Gardner, H. McGee, and R. Srinivasan. Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report. Report No. FHWA-SA-12-004, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, 2012. Freedman, M., D. De Leonardis, G. Raisman, D.I. Swan, A. Davis, S. Levi, I. Rogers, and E. Bergeron. Demonstra- tion of Automated Speed Enforcement in School Zones in Portland, Oregon. Prepared for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2006. Gains, A., B. Heydecker, J. Shrewsbury, and S. Robertson. The National Safety Camera Programme 3-Year Evaluation Report. PA Consulting Group and UCL for Department for Transport, London, 2004. Gains, A., B. Heydecker, J. Shrewsbury, and S. Robertson. The National Safety Camera Programme 4-Year Evaluation Report. PA Consulting Group and UCL for Department for Transport, London, 2005. Gan, A., J. Shen, and A. Rodriguez. Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to Improve the Development of District Safety Improvement Projects. Florida Department of Transportation, 2005. Gårder, P. The Impact of Speed and Other Variables on Pedestrian Safety in Maine. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2004, pp. 533–542. Gates, T.J., D.A. Noyce, V. Talada, and L. Hill. The Safety and Operational Effects of “Road Diet” Conversions in Minnesota. Presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007. Gedafa, D. S., B. Kaemingk, B. Mager, J. Pape, M. Tupa, and T. Bohan. Impacts of Alternative Yield Sign Place- ment on Pedestrian Safety. Presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2014. Gill, T. Can I Play Out . . . ? Lessons from London’s Play Home Zones Project. London Play, 2007.

References 71 Gitelman, V., R. Carmel, F. Pesahov, and S. Chen. Changes in Road-User Behaviors following the Installation of Raised Pedestrian Crosswalks Combined with Preceding Speed Humps, on Urban Arterials. Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 46, 2017, pp. 356–372. Gonzalo-Orden, H., M. Rojo, H. Pérez-Acebo, and A. Linares. Traffic-Calming Measures and Their Effect on the Variation of Speed. Transportation Research Part 18, Vol. 18, 2016, pp. 349–356. Goodwin, A., B. Kirley, L. Sandt, W. Hall, L. Thomas, N. O’Brien, and D. Summerlin. Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasures Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 8th ed. Report No. DOT HS 811 727, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2015. Greedipally, S.R., D. Blower, C. Flannagan, R. Wunderlich, and D. Lord. In-depth Investigation of Factors That Contributed to the Decline in Fatalities from 2008 to 2012 in the United States. Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2018. Grundy, C., R. Steinbach, P. Edwards, J. Green, B. Armstrong, and P. Wilkinson. Effect of 20 mph Traffic Speed Zones on Road Injuries in London, 1986–2006: Controlled Interrupted Time Series Analysis. BMJ, Vol. 339, 2009. Gulden, J., and R. Ewing. New Traffic Calming Device of Choice. ITE Journal, December 2009. Hagen, J.X. Calming New York: An Examination of Neighborhood Slow Zones. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 2018. Hallmark, S., S. Knickerbocker, and N. Hawkins. Evaluation of Low-cost Traffic Calming for Rural Communities – Phase II. Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University. 2013. Hawley, L., C. Henson, A. Hulse, and R. Brindle. Towards Traffic Calming: A Practitioners’ Manual of Implemented Local Area Traffic Management and Blackspot Devices. Publication No. CR 126, Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 1992. Henary, B.Y., J. Crandall, K. Bhalla, C.N. Mock, and B.S. Roudsari. Child and Adult Pedestrian Impact: The Influence of Vehicle Type on Injury Severity. Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Vol. 47, 2003, pp. 105–126. Hu, W., and A.T. McCartt. Effects of Automated Speed Enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland, on Vehicle Speeds, Public Opinion, and Crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 17, 2016, pp. 53–58. Huang, H.F., and M.J. Cynecki. Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behaviors. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1705, 2001, pp. 100–109. https://doi.org/10.3141/2299-11. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Red Light Running, September 2018, Available: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ topics/laws/automated_enforcement. ITE. Safe Routes to School Briefing Sheets: Reduced School Area Speed Limits, Institute for Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., n.d. ITE. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 2010. Jordan. “Rest on Red” Traffic Signal Called into Question, Fox21News, August 2014, Available: http:// www.fox21news.com/news/rest-on-red-traffic-signal-called-into-question/837691994. Jurewicz, C., A. Sobhani, J. Wooley, J. Dutschke, and B. Corben. Exploration of Vehicle Impact Speed—Injury Severity Relationships for Application in Safer Road Design, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 14, 2016, pp. 4247–4256. Kamyab, A., S. Andrle, D. Kroeger, and D.S. Heyer. Methods to Reduce Traffic Speed in High-Pedestrian Rural Areas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1828, 2003, pp. 31–37. Kannel, E.J., R.R. Souleyrette, and R. Tenges. In-Street Yield to Pedestrian Sign Application in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Center for Transportation Research and Education, 2003. Kim, K.K., G.F. Ulfarsson, V.N. Shankar, and S. Kim. Age and Pedestrian Injury Severity in Motor-Vehicle Crashes: A Heteroskedastic Logit Analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 1695–1702. King, M.R. Calming New York City Intersections. Transportation Research Board Circular E-CO19: Urban, 1999. Knapp, K., and K. Giese. Guidelines for the Conversion of Urban Four-Lane Undivided Roadways to Three- Lane Two-Way Left Turn Lane Facilities. Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University. 2001. Kroyer, H.R.G. Is 30 km/h a ‘Safe’ Speed? Injury Severity of Pedestrians Struck by a Vehicle and Relation to Travel Speed and Age. International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences Research, Vol. 39, 2015, pp. 42–50. Le, James. Seattle Department of Transportation. Interview, June 14, 2018. Leaf, W.A., and D.F. Preusser. Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries. Report DOT HS 809 021, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1999. Lefler, D.E., C. Hampton, and C. Gabler. The Fatality and Injury Risk of Light Truck Impacts with Pedestrians in the United States. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 36, 2004, pp. 295–304. Li, H., and D.J. Graham. Quantifying the Causal Effects of 20 mph Zones on Road Casualties in London via Doubly Robust Estimation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 93, 2016, pp. 65–74.

72 Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management Li, H., G., Daniel, and A. Majumdar. The Impacts of Speed Cameras on Road Accidents: An Application of Propensity Score Matching Methods. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 60, 2013, pp.148–157. Li, R., K. El-Basyouny, and A. Kim. Before-and-After Empirical Bayes Evaluation of Automated Mobile Speed Enforcement on Urban Arterial Roads. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2516, 2015, pp. 44–52. https://doi.org/10.3141/2516-07. Lopez, D.G., Rosman, D.L., Jelinek, G.A., Wilkes, G.J., and P.C. Sprivulis. Complementing Police Road-Crash Records with Trauma Registry Data—An Initial Evaluation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 32, 1999, pp. 771–777. Lum, H.S. The Use of Road Markings to Narrow Lanes for Controlling Speed in Residential Areas. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, June 1984. Martin, J., and D. Wu. Pedestrian Fatality and Impact Speed Squared: Cloglog Modeling from French National Data. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 19, 2018, pp. 94–101. Mountain, L.J., W.M. Hirst, and M.J. Mahar. Costing Lives or Saving Lives: A Detailed Evaluation of the Impact of Speed Cameras. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 45, 2004, pp. 280–287. Mountain, L.J., W.M. Hirst, and M.J. Maher. Are Speed Enforcement Cameras More Effective Than Other Speed Management Measures? The Impact of Speed Management Schemes on 30 mph Roads. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2005, pp. 742–754. NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials, New York City, 2013. NHTSA. Traffic Safety Facts 2016. Report No. DOT HS 812 493, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2018. NTSB. Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles. National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., 2017. NYCDOT. Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Study. New York City Department of Transportation, New York, NY, 2004. NYCDOT. Automated Speed Enforcement Program Report. New York City Department of Transportation, 2016. PBOT. Saving Lives with Safe Streets: Vision Zero Annual Report 2017. Portland Bureau of Transportation, Portland, OR 2018a. PBOT. Speed Limits in Portland. Portland Bureau of Transportation. Updated March 9, 2018. 2018b. Available: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/594740. Pitt R., B. Guyer, C.-C. Hsieh, and M. Malek. The Severity of Pedestrian Injuries in Children: An Analysis of the Pedestrian Injury Causation Study, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 22, 1990, pp. 549–559. Ponnaluri, R.V., and P.W. Groce. Operational Effectiveness of Speed Humps in Traffic Calming. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, Vol. 75, No. 7, 2005, pp. 26–30. Pucher, J., and R. Buehler. Trends in Walking and Cycling Safety: Recent Evidence from High-Income Countries, with a Focus on the United States and Germany. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 107, 2017, pp. 281–287. Retting, R.A., S.A. Ferguson, and A.T. McCartt. A Review of Evidence-Based Traffic Engineering Measures Designed to Reduce Pedestrian-Motor Vehicle Crashes. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, 2003, pp. 1456–1463. Retting, R. A., C.M. Farmer, and A.T. McCartt. Evaluation of Automated Speed Enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 9, 2008, pp. 440–445. Richards, D.C. Relationship between Speeds and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car Occupants. Road Safety Web Publication No. 16, Department for Transport, London, 2010. Rosén, E., and U. Sander. Pedestrian Fatality Risk as a Function of Car Impact Speed. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2009, pp. 536–542. Rosén, E., H. Stigson, and U. Sander. Literature Review of Pedestrian Fatality Risk as a Function of Car Impact Speed. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, 2011, pp. 25–33. Rothman, L., A. Macpherson, R. Buliung, C. Macarthur, T. To, K. Larsen, and A. Howard. Installation of Speed Humps and Pedestrian-Motor Vehicle Collisions in Toronto, Canada: A Quasi-experimental Study. BMC Public Health, Vol. 15, 2015. Roudsari, B.S., C.N. Mock, R. Kaufman, D. Grossman, B.Y. Henary, and J. Crandall. Pedestrian Crashes: Higher Injury Severity and Mortality Rate for Light Truck Vehicles Compared with Passenger Vehicles. Injury Prevention, Vol. 10, 2004. SDOT. Stone Way Rechannelization: Before and After Study. Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA, 2010. SDOT. Nickerson Street Rechannelization: Before and After Study. Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA, 2011. SDOT. NE 125th Street Rechannelization. Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA, 2013. SDOT. NE 75th Street Redesign. Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA, 2015. SDOT. Rainier Avenue South Safety Corridor Project Evaluation. Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA, 2017a.

References 73 SDOT. Vision Zero Progress Report. Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA, 2017b. SFMTA. Minna-Natoma Home Zone Final Evaluation Report. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, San Francisco, CA, 2015. Soole, D.W., B.C. Watson, and J.J. Fleiter. Effects of Average Speed Enforcement on Speed Compliance and Crashes: A Review of the Literature. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 54, 2013, pp. 46–56. Srinivasan, R., M. Parker, D. Harkey, D. Tharpe, and R. Sumner. Expert Systems for Recommending Speed Limits in Speed Zones. Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2006. Stutts, J., and W. Hunter. Police Reporting of Pedestrians and Bicyclists Treated in Hospital Emergency Rooms. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1635, 1998, pp. 88–92. https://doi.org/10.3141/1635-12. SWOV. Zones 30: Urban Residential Areas. SWOV Institute for Road Safety, the Netherlands, 2009. Tang, C.K. Do Speed Cameras Save Lives? Spatial Economics Research Center, London, 2017. Tefft, B.C. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 50, 2013, pp. 871–878. Tester, J.M., G.W. Rutherford, Z. Wald, and M.W. Rutherford. A Matched Case-Control Study Evaluating the Effectiveness of Speed Humps in Reducing Child Pedestrian Injuries. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 94, 2004, pp. 646–650. Thomas, L. Road Diet Conversions: A Synthesis of Safety Research, PBIC White Paper Series. Report No. DTFH61- 11-H-00024, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2013. Thomas, L., N.J. Thirsk, and C.V. Zegeer. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016. Thomas, L., L. Sandt, C. Zegeer, W. Kumfer, K. Lang, B. Lan, Z. Horowitz, A. Butsick, J. Toole, and R. Schneider. NCHRP Research Report 893: Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2018. Torbic, D.J. et al. NCHRP Report 737: Design Guidance for High-Speed to Low-Speed Transition Zones for Rural Highways. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012. TRB. Special Report 254: Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1998. Traffic Advisory Unit, Chicane Schemes. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 12/97. Department for Transport, London, UK, 1997. Ullman, G.L., and E.R. Rose. Evaluation of Dynamic Speed Display Signs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Record, No. 1918, 2005, pp. 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0361198105191800112. U.S. Roads. Neighborhood Traffic Calming: Seattle’s Traffic Circle Program. Road Management & Engineering Journal. 1998. Accessed May 30, 2018. Available: http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmej/9801/rm980102.htm. Van Houten, R., and J. Hochmuth. Evaluation of R1-6 Gateway Treatment Alternatives for Pedestrian Crossings: Follow-up Report. Roadway Safety Institute, Minneapolis, MN, 2017. Vision Zero Initiative. What is Vision Zero? n.d. Available: https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision- zero/ Vision Zero Network. Taming Speed for Safety. March 14, 2018 [Online]. Available: https://visionzeronetwork. org/case-study-portland-tames-speed/ VHB. Two Low-Cost Safety Concepts for Two-Way STOP-Controlled, Rural Intersections on High-Speed Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadways. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., FHWA-HRT-08-063, 2008. Walter, L., J. Broughton, and J. Knowles. The Effects of Increased Police Enforcement Along a Route in London. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 43, 2011, pp. 1219–1227. Wargo, B.W., and N.W. Garrick. Shared Space: Could Less Formal Streets be Better for Both Pedestrians and Vehicles? Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 3, 2016. Washington Traffic Safety Commission. Automated Speed Enforcement Pilot Project Evaluation: Final Report as Submitted to the Legislature. 2011. Wegman, F., A. Dijkstra, G. Schermers, and P. Vliet. Sustainable Safety in the Netherlands: The Vision, The Implemen- tation, and the Safety Effects. Report No. R-2005-5, SWOV Institute for Road Safety, The Netherlands, 2005. Zangenehpour, S., C. Chung, S. Saneinejad, and J. Coleman. Impact of Curb Radius Reduction on Pedestrian Safety: A Before–After Surrogate Safety Study in Toronto. Brisk Synergies, 2017. Zegeer, C.V., R. Stewart, H. Huang, and P. Lagerwey. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines. Report No. FHWA-RD-01-075, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2002. Zegeer, C.V., D. Nabors, and P. Lagerway. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, 2013. Available: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures.cfm

Next: Appendix A - Annotated Literature Review »
Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Measures that are effective at reducing speed, such as speed humps and mini traffic circles, are sometimes used in low-speed areas such as school zones. But they are often not recommended or allowed (via local policy) on the higher-speed streets typically associated with the highest injury severity for pedestrians.

For those higher-speed streets, redesigning them to communicate lower speed, such as through a roadway-reconfiguration effort, can effectively accomplish the goal of lowering speed. In the absence of street redesign, however, another effective current solution is enforcement, and particularly automated speed enforcement (ASE) that frees police to focus on other issues and that is free from implicit or explicit bias. It is important to carefully consider community context when selecting locations to employ ASE, to avoid disproportionately burdening any historically disadvantaged communities that surround the typically high-speed streets that need to be addressed.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 535: Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management aims to document what is known about strategies and countermeasures to address pedestrian safety via traffic-speed management in urban environments. For example, the City of San Francisco regularly uses curb extensions as traffic-calming devices on its streets. However, the political and land use context of each city heavily influences the types of treatments that are considered feasible for each city. Thus, the City of Los Angeles has had to find alternatives to both ASE and road diets, the latter of which have been the subject of intense public backlash in some cases.

These realities—that speed management can be fraught with difficulty—have spurred creative thinking about how to work within contextual confines, resulting in some particularly noteworthy and promising practices. For example, the City of Nashville anticipated potential backlash against speed-management efforts and thus chose to work with advocacy groups to identify areas of the city desiring walkability improvements. By installing walkability improvements in those areas first, city leaders created instant wins that could be used as leverage for future projects.

The authors of the synthesis found there may be a need for greater clarity about the speed-limit-setting process, as well as for greater collaboration between local and state agencies when state roads run through urban areas. In particular, it may be worth exploring whether there is a need for a framework that will foster collaboration between local and state staff on safety initiatives such as achieving flexibility in roadway design, changing laws or regulations that govern speed-limit setting, and finding a balance between local safety needs and regional mobility needs. Such a framework may support both local and state agencies attempting to address safety issues and reach larger goals as articulated through movements like Vision Zero.

  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!