Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 37-62
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 37... ...
35 CHAPTER FOUR RECOMMENDED APPLICATIONS, EFFECTIVENESS, AND CURRENT USE OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS This chapter summarizes practices regarding applications of 25 specific pedestrian crossing treatments. The next sections describe the treatments and their intended uses as described by the current recommended practice documents summarized in chapter three, provide a summary of effectiveness from the literature synthesis, and characterize uses of the treatments reported by states and select local jurisdictions.
|
From page 38... ...
36 so that generalizable conclusions about safety effects can be difficult to reach. Therefore, other measures of effectiveness (MOEs)
|
From page 39... ...
37 NACTO's Urban Street Design Guide indicates that lane widths of 10 ft are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on a street's safety without affecting traffic operations. NACTO also mentions that some cities may want to consider 11-ft lanes (versus 10)
|
From page 40... ...
38 and suburban areas. An average 29% reduction (CMF of 0.71)
|
From page 41... ...
39 Studies for NCHRP Report 562 found that motorist yielding rates varied widely across sites with median islands and marked crosswalks. Some of the explanatory variables included the number of through lanes and posted speed limit (Fitzpatrick et al.
|
From page 42... ...
40 A speed table is a long, broad speed hump or a flat-topped speed hump typically used to reduce vehicle speeds on residential roads. Speed tables can be used in combination with curb extensions where parking exists.
|
From page 43... ...
41 The only treatments often mentioned in survey responses as being used in conjunction with raised crosswalks/speed tables were signs and pavement markings. Curb Extension/Bulb-Out Description and Purpose of Treatment Curb extensions are installations at intersections or midblock locations that extend the sidewalk or curb line into the street or parking lane, thus reducing the street width and crossing time.
|
From page 44... ...
42 FIGURE 11 The effective corner radius controls turning speeds and the ability of large vehicles to turn. Source: PEDSAFE, Michele Weisbart.
|
From page 45... ...
43 injury collisions for all road users (Elvik and Vaa 2004)
|
From page 46... ...
44 Use of Pedestrian Overpass/Bridge Although a majority of agencies sometimes use or have used overpasses (83% of states and 61% of local jurisdictions) per the respondents to this survey, some are no longer using them or trying to remove them owing to a lack of ADA compliance, or use them rarely.
|
From page 47... ...
45 TABLE 7 OVERVIEW OF STUDIES AND FINDINGS FOR EFFECTS OF DESIGN TREATMENTS ON PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Design or Treatment Area Types Studied Key Measured Effects Raised median/ pedestrian crossing Mostly urban, suburban multilane arterials; controlled and uncontrolled crossings • CMF estimate of 0.54 pedestrian crashes at uncontrolled locations with marked crosswalk • CMF estimate of 0.61 pedestrian crashes at uncontrolled locations (unmarked crosswalk) • Raised medians may sometimes contribute to increased speeds.
|
From page 48... ...
46 does not indicate the frequency or intensity of use of different treatments. TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF STATES AND OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS USING EACH OF THE DESIGN TREATMENTS TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS Design Features States Using Treatment Local Jurisdictions Using Treatment Raised median 88.9% 66.7% Pedestrian refuge/median crossing island 97.2% 94.4% Raised crosswalk or speed table 16.7% 72.2% Curb extension/bulb-out 94.4% 94.4% Reduce corner radius 63.9% 77.8% Road diet 77.8% 72.2% Narrow lane width 66.7% 77.8% Corridorwide speed calming 33.3% 66.7% Pedestrian overpass/bridge 83.3% 61.1% Pedestrian underpass/tunnel 61.1% 44.4% Enhanced illumination at pedestrian crossings 72.2% 77.8% Total responding 36 18 The design treatments most often used (at least sometimes)
|
From page 49... ...
47 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES If road designs are such that traffic speeds and conflict potential between motor vehicles and pedestrians are high, it becomes more important to select traffic control devices to safely manage the interactions of pedestrians and motorists. Treatment descriptions, safety effects, and use of various traffic control devices (TCDs)
|
From page 50... ...
48 and by 37 percent (CMF of 0.63) when applied in school crossing zones (Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes 2013 citing Chen et al.
|
From page 51... ...
49 and Van Houten 1990; Van Houten 1998; Van Houten and Malenfant 1992; Van Houten, Malenfant, and McCusker 2001; Van Houten et al.
|
From page 52... ...
50 that they use these at midblock or uncontrolled crossings; several indicated at all such crossings. Other locations mentioned were near bus stops; where there are high pedestrian volumes; near schools; or where sight distance issues, documented crashes, or conflicts exist.
|
From page 53... ...
51 al. 2000, and Van Houten et al.
|
From page 54... ...
52 and 83% of pedestrians at two sites in Portland, Oregon, activated the devices. Yielding may also increase over time as drivers become more familiar with the devices.
|
From page 55... ...
53 have also been used at midblock crosswalks, and although there are pedestrian volume warrants outlined by the MUTCD, they are significantly lower than for traffic signals [Zegeer et al. 2013, PEDSAFE, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
|
From page 56... ...
54 Also, as mentioned by a few agencies, PHBs are considered when warrants for regular traffic signals are not met. Two jurisdictions, Washington State and Oakland County, Michigan, have used PHBs at pedestrian crossings at roundabouts.
|
From page 57... ...
55 Install Traffic Signal with Pedestrian Countdown Signal Description and Purpose of Treatment Countdown signals are indications designed to begin counting down at the beginning of the clearance interval (flashing "WALK"/"DON'T WALK") and can be on fixed-time or pushbutton operation (Figure 23)
|
From page 58... ...
56 Summary of Effects LPIs, which have been studied predominantly at highpedestrian sites, are another countermeasure that has some crash-based evidence of effectiveness. A CMF of 0.95 (5% reduction)
|
From page 59... ...
57 restrictions may be more effective than ones that call on the motorist to notice pedestrian presence (no RTOR when pedestrians present) , but more evidence is needed regarding safety and mobility outcomes for pedestrians.
|
From page 60... ...
58 TABLE 9 OVERVIEW OF STUDIES AND FINDINGS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE TREATMENTS Design or Treatment Area Types Studied Key Measured Effects High-visibility crosswalks General urban crossings, urban school zone crossings; behavioral effects also studied at university campus midblock locations • CMF 0.52 pedestrian crashes • CMF 0.73 pedestrian crashes in school zones • High-visibility markings have also proved to be more readily detected by drivers and to increase yielding. Advance stop/yield bars plus signs Mostly multilane uncontrolled crossings in urban areas.
|
From page 61... ...
59 Design or Treatment Area Types Studied Key Measured Effects Pedestrian hybrid beacon (formerly called HAWK signal) Urban/suburban midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections • 0.31 CMF pedestrian crashes • 0.71 CMF all crashes • Increase to high rate of motorist yielding/compliance at crosswalks -- generally 90% and higher • Wider crossing distance was positively associated with driver yielding in a Texas study of 32 sites in four cities.
|
From page 62... ...
60 such as motorist yielding, speed, or pedestrian delay or compliance with crosswalks, because as mentioned previously, crash-based estimates of pedestrian safety effectiveness require many study locations and robust analysis methods. See Appendix B for tables with summaries of each study reviewed for each treatment, including crash-based and behavioral effects of the treatments studied.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.