Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 63-84
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 63... ...
61 CHAPTER FIVE EXAMPLES OF GUIDANCE TOOLS AND ORIGINAL CASE EXAMPLES ON PROVISION OF SAFER PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS EXAMPLES OF STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS CROSSING TREATMENT GUIDES A number of local jurisdictions as well as a few states have developed guidance to help practitioners standardize their approaches and considerations for determining appropriate actions in regard to pedestrian crossings. Boulder, Colorado, crossing treatment guidance was updated in 2011 to reflect current research including evaluations and experiences with treatments in that city (City of Boulder Transportation Division 2011)
|
From page 64... ...
62 Step 2 -- Physical Data Collection: This involves determining the existing roadway configuration, number of lanes, presence of a median, and presence of and distance to the nearest marked or protected crossing, and measuring the stopping sight distance on all vehicular approaches to the crossing. If the sight distance is less than eight times the posted speed limit, then removal of obstructions or lowering the speed limit or both would be considered.
|
From page 65... ...
63 5. Consider neck downs, median refuge, or additional signage to increase driver awareness 6.
|
From page 66... ...
64 Important data variables to be gathered at crossing locations are traffic volume, speed limit, operating speed, quantity and type of pedestrian activity, pedestrian crash history, roadside features and conditions, area factors, and signing or other traffic control device options. The flowchart is broken up into four steps (Figure 28)
|
From page 67... ...
65 In the process of moving through the flowchart in Step 1, possible outcomes could be no action required, to install pedestrian signal heads, to consider installing signal heads, or to move to Step 2 of the flowchart. When estimating pedestrian volume, choosing an appropriate low-volume threshold is required based on site characteristics.
|
From page 68... ...
66 delay is used in a decision matrix to decide whether only marking the crosswalk would be considered; if supplemental warning signs, actuated beacons, or RRFBs are to be considered in addition to markings; or moving to Step 4 of the flowchart should be initiated. Step 4 -- Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Assessment: The final step is used to determine if a PHB should be considered.
|
From page 69... ...
67 study guidance by Zegeer et al.
|
From page 70... ...
68 FIGURE 33 Tucson, Arizona, criteria and points scale for ranking sites for potential PHB application. Source: Diahn Swartz, Tucson Transportation Department.
|
From page 71... ...
69 problem can lead to new designs and applications of operational measures that can create safer and context-appropriate solutions. Seattle, Washington -- Pedestrian Crosswalk Inventory and Improvement Program Adapted from "The City of Seattle, WA, USA, Crosswalk Inventory and Improvement Plan" by Hefferan and Lagerwey (2004)
|
From page 72... ...
70 Existing policies and guidelines, leveraging improvements as part of other larger road projects (termed "piggy-backing") , and connecting improvements to existing neighborhood plans also helped determine project prioritization.
|
From page 73... ...
71 some traffic engineers and technicians as guidance and not necessarily as a strict decision matrix. Locations in need of pedestrian crossing treatments were identified in the District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan, including eight problematic corridors, one in each ward of the city.
|
From page 74... ...
72 In general, identifying locations in need of pedestrian crossing safety treatments is an ongoing and evolving process for DDOT, but the matrix is a good example of one proactive tool DDOT uses to guide uncontrolled crossing treatment decisions criteria. Eugene, Oregon -- Community-Based Identification of Needs and Solutions Information compiled from Eugene, Oregon, survey responses with supplemental information provided by Reed Dunbar, Bicycle & Pedestrian Planner, Eugene Eugene, Oregon (population about 160,000)
|
From page 75... ...
73 Although the city has had success using RRFBs in conjunction with pedestrian refuge islands at multilane locations, selected in part because of lower cost, it is now considering PHBs more often on multilane streets because of the recent move toward a Vision Zero framework. For the first PHB implemented on a multilane roadway that separated a school from a residential neighborhood, it was installed without a pedestrian refuge at a three-lane cross section, and is reportedly working quite well (Figure 36)
|
From page 76... ...
74 FIGURE 38 Traffic calming over past 20 years. Source: City of Cambridge, Community Development Department.
|
From page 77... ...
75 opinions on the overall look of the street, if enough community outreach was performed, and for opinions of the raised intersections. Overall, 69% of those surveyed believed the overall look of the street improved, traffic speeds were reduced, and pedestrian safety was improved.
|
From page 78... ...
76 Each intersection and corridor in the high-injury network needed to be matched with site-specific safety countermeasure recommendations. To this end, 14 separate collision profiles were created by analyzing common crash-related factors obtained from extensive review of local, national, and international crash studies, and confined to variables available in the combined data set.
|
From page 79... ...
77 2. Collision Profile Based: Focuses investments to the locations across the city with the most severe injury collision profiles.
|
From page 80... ...
78 trucks and large commercial vehicles are also a major problem in Manhattan's densely packed streets. Throughout NYC, dangerous driver choices such as failure to yield and speeding are primary and contributing causes to pedestrian fatalities and injuries.
|
From page 81... ...
79 In addition to these actions, NYC DOT will to commit to install 50 new safety projects per year and create other new safety initiatives. Because of the specific nature of problems within each borough, community outreach and boroughspecific crash data are vital in determining and implementing new projects and deciding on treatments.
|
From page 82... ...
80 In 2014 (Vision Zero Year One) , NYC DOT implemented numerous engineering projects, which included traffic-calming strategies such as arterial slow zones, neighborhood slow zones, and speed humps.
|
From page 83... ...
81 Unfortunately, many school crossings are at busy streets, and many of the sidewalks in Phoenix were built before the time when sidewalk buffer areas were required as a part of the design to separate pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic. It is important to provide a separation between moving vehicles and young children waiting to cross a busy street.
|
From page 84... ...
82 establishing the 15 mph school zone and the school must sign a written agreement with the local traffic authority to operate the zone. These special crosswalks are marked with yellow lines and the portable signs are typically allowed in the street 45 minutes before the start of school and 30 minutes after school dismissal.
|
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.