The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 15-36

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 15... ... 13 CHAPTER THREE GUIDANCE AND CURRENT PRACTICES REGARDING SELECTING AND PRIORITIZING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING RESOURCES FOR IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS It is clear that crossings cannot be provided everywhere pedestrians may potentially cross a street. However, at certain locations, pedestrians need assistance from designs or traffic control devices or both to create sufficient gaps in traffic, to reduce speeds or conflicts with motor vehicles and exposure to potential crashes, and to reduce unnecessary delay for a level of safety and service that motorists typically expect. Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... 14 data-driven approach to prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle improvements along existing roads; and is designed to work for agencies at all levels of government with different prioritization purposes and different levels of technical capacity, available data, and experience" (Lagerwey et al. Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... 15 The Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) software was created to help agencies type their pedestrian crashes if crash type information is lacking in their existing crash databases, as it is for many (Harkey et al. Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... 16 may have safety issues, or reactively, once locations have been identified through crash data analysis, complaints, or other public or stakeholder input (Nabors et al. Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... 17 Stopping Sight Distance as a Function of Speed (Reproduced from FHWA 2009, Table 6E-1) Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... 18 compared with unmarked crosswalks at similar locations. However, on multilane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000 vehicles per day, a marked crosswalk alone was associated with higher pedestrian crash rates than similar locations with no marked crosswalks. Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... 19 • Practitioners were concerned that traffic signal warrants then in place were too high to meet, • Treatment effectiveness varied by environment, and • Some practitioners interviewed at the time interpreted the findings from FHWA's Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations report recommendations as supporting a "mark versus do not mark" decision rather than a "mark versus more substantial treatment" decision. Interviews with pedestrians revealed that the most common pedestrian concerns were • Unpredictability of motorists, in particular whether they will stop or yield at marked crosswalks; • Traffic volume (particularly turning traffic) Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... 20 Inputs for PEDSAFE Countermeasure Selection Tool 1. In what type of area is the roadway located? Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... 21 • Exclusive pedestrian signal phasing • Improved signal timing, including increasing pedestrian walking period • Replacing traditional pedestrian signals with those with countdown timers • Modifying signal phasing to include a leading pedestrian interval • Removing unwarranted signals on one-way streets • Converting permissive or permissive/protected leftturn signal phasing to protected-only phasing • Using the pedestrian hybrid (HAWK) signal • Installing traffic and pedestrian signals when warranted. Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 22 areas. However, with the assistance of examples and case examples, the guidance is tailored to be appropriate for implementation in school walking routes, school zones, and other areas near schools. Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... 23 • Narrowing measures such as bulb-outs/curb extensions (tried) Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... 24 New York City, a Vision Zero city, has taken an assertive approach to managing speed, described in the case example in chapter five. Design Resources Although many of the previously mentioned resources describe design or geometric-based countermeasures and also touch on the importance of good design generally, the resources described here are the key national resources available to guide pedestrian facility design. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... 25 Of the other design guides mentioned earlier, the AASHTO guides are widely used by state and local jurisdictions. The MUTCD is a key resource for most agencies. Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... 26 in need of pedestrian crossing improvements. These processes often included analysis of crash data and complaints, which are considered reactive processes -- that is, they react to existing problems. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... 27 2 -- Public requests for investigation 3 -- Locations identified as part of a plan 4 -- Locations identified using Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalk criteria 5 -- Observation by Traffic Engineering or Police. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, described the following: 1. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... 28 noted that only what the states indicated can be reported, and states may not have mentioned all the processes in use.) Other methods are also used by 14% of states to gather information for identifying locations. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... 29 • Safe Routes to School or school audits (two localities) • Engineering analysis (one locality) Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... 30 A few other methods were also mentioned as being used, including engineering judgment; coordination (by states) with local governments; web search of measures implemented in other states and cities; in-service evaluation of similarly treated sites; and other internal policies, procedures, and plans. Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... 31 • Other state manuals and technical guidance, including traffic engineering manual -- two states. One state each mentioned the following resources: • State pedestrian (or bicycle) Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... 32 latent demand at some locations, and the other related to deriving costs and benefits of threshold numbers (both vehicle and pedestrian volumes) for midblock crosswalks. Read the entire page →
From page 35... ... 33 It should be noted that certainly far more candidate locations than could ever be treated can be readily identified through existing data-driven and systemic mechanisms/ approaches -- but what is helpful are decision support tools that help apply limited resources to the most beneficial locations/sites that are best utilized. Additional spatial analysis and analytic-based tools would be of value. Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... 34 A state and a local jurisdiction also mentioned the need for improvements in guidance or improvements in practice relating to the balance of vehicular LOS with pedestrian needs. Responses include the following: Sometimes pedestrian crossings are not installed because movement along the roadway is prioritized. Read the entire page →

From page 15...

... 13 CHAPTER THREE GUIDANCE AND CURRENT PRACTICES REGARDING SELECTING AND PRIORITIZING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING RESOURCES FOR IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS It is clear that crossings cannot be provided everywhere pedestrians may potentially cross a street. However, at certain locations, pedestrians need assistance from designs or traffic control devices or both to create sufficient gaps in traffic, to reduce speeds or conflicts with motor vehicles and exposure to potential crashes, and to reduce unnecessary delay for a level of safety and service that motorists typically expect.