Effect of Pedestrian Countdown Timer on Safety and Efficiency of Operations at Signalized Intersections Anuj Sharma, Ph.D. Department of Civil Engineering University of Nebraska-Lincoln

  • 324 views
Uploaded on

Nebraska Department of Roads Conference 2012 …

Nebraska Department of Roads Conference 2012
Presented by Dr. Anuj Sharma, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
324
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Effect of Pedestrian Countdown Timer on Safety and Efficiency of Operations at Signalized Intersections Anuj Sharma, Ph.D. Department of Civil Engineering University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  • 2. Objective of Research• Evaluate the effects a countdown timer has on safety and efficiency of operations at an intersection and public view.
  • 3. Past Literature: Pedestrians
  • 4. Intersection Selection• Two intersections chosen: – S 17th St & G St (Pedestrian and Drivers) • Northbound Approach • Speed Limit 35 mph – N 27th St & Cornhusker Highway (Drivers) • Eastbound Approach • Speed Limit 40 mph
  • 5. Pedestrian Data
  • 6. Driver Data
  • 7. Performance Measures• Pedestrian Compliance• Pedestrian Walking Speed• Probability of Stopping• Speed Gain at Stopbar during Yellow Phase• Change in Queue Discharge
  • 8. Pedestrian Analysis (Only for17th and G)• 861 pedestrians before installation (April-March) (Mean temp 56 F)• 495 pedestrians after installation (Oct-end) (Mean temp 56 F)• Clear weather conditions
  • 9. Compliance Results
  • 10. Performance Measures• Pedestrian Compliance• Pedestrian Walking Speed• Probability of Stopping• Speed Gain at Stopbar during Yellow Phase• Change in Queue Discharge
  • 11. Performance Measures• Pedestrian Compliance• Pedestrian Walking Speed• Probability of Stopping• Speed Gain at Stopbar during Yellow Phase• Change in Queue Discharge
  • 12. Performance Measures• Pedestrian Compliance• Pedestrian Walking Speed (4.7 ft/s 4.9 ft/s)• Probability of Stopping• Speed Gain at Stopbar during Yellow Phase• Change in Queue Discharge
  • 13. Probability of Stopping at27th and Cornhusker
  • 14. Important Results• RLR (17 & G): – Before 10 of 429 vehicles ran the red light (2.3%) – After 3 of 422 vehicles ran the red light (0.7%)• RLR (27 & Cornhusker): – Before 7 of 525 vehicles ran the red light (1.3%) – After 8 of 482 vehicles ran the red light (1.6%)
  • 15. Performance Measures• Pedestrian Compliance• Pedestrian Walking Speed (4.7 ft/s 4.9 ft/s)• Probability of Stopping: 17th and G• Speed Gain at Stopbar during Yellow Phase• Change in Queue Discharge
  • 16. Performance Measures• Pedestrian Compliance• Pedestrian Walking Speed (4.7 ft/s 4.9 ft/s)• Probability of Stopping: 17th and G 27th and Cornhusker• Speed Gain at Stopbar during Yellow Phase• Change in Queue Discharge
  • 17. 17th and G
  • 18. 27th and Cornhusker
  • 19. Performance Measures• Pedestrian Compliance• Pedestrian Walking Speed (4.7 ft/s 4.9 ft/s)• Probability of Stopping: 17th and G 27th and Cornhusker• Speed Gain at Stopbar during Yellow Phase• Change in Queue Discharge
  • 20. Performance Measures• Pedestrian Compliance• Pedestrian Walking Speed (4.7 ft/s 4.9 ft/s)• Probability of Stopping: 17th and G 27th and Cornhusker• Speed Gain at Stopbar during Yellow Phase• Change in Queue Discharge
  • 21. Queue Discharge: 27th andCornhusker
  • 22. Performance Measures• Pedestrian Compliance• Pedestrian Walking Speed (4.7 ft/s 4.9 ft/s)• Probability of Stopping: 17th and G 27th and Cornhusker• Speed Gain at Stopbar during Yellow Phase• Change in Queue Discharge
  • 23. Survey: NASIS• 2,032 responses collected
  • 24. Pedestrian Impact (2032)
  • 25. Driver Impact (2018)
  • 26. Conclusions• The empirical evidence in this study support the use of PCT and have found no negative impact at the two sites.• The impact of PCT on the two sites were different implying the interaction of site-specific parameter can influence the results.
  • 27. CREDITS Dr. Anuj Sharma, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering University of Nebraska-LincolnSlide design © 2009, Mid-America Transportation Center. All rights reserved.