Safety assessment of pedestrian at intersection

1. A Presentation
On
Safety assessment of Pedestrians at an Intersections
Ratna Priya
Scholar Number: 222111521
M. Tech Transportation
Department Of Civil Engineering
Maulana Azad National Institute Of Technology, Bhopal
1

2. Presentation Outline
 Introduction
 Prompt Lists for pedestrian road safety at intersection
 Literature Review
 References
2

3. Introduction
• Walking is the oldest and fundamental form of
transportation.
• It is the mode that connects all other modes.
• PEDESTRIANS – An individual on foot, run, walk
Wheelchair Users(disabled persons)
• Pedestrian motor vehicle crash deaths have increased
59% since reaching their low point in 2009 and account
for 17% of crash fatalities. (U.S. Department of
Transportation’s FARS)
• The most hazardous section of road is always an
intersection. (PIARC,2003)
3
(D. Santhosh et al, 2020)
(Transport, 2020, 35(1): 48-56)

4. Prompt Lists (Pedestrian RSA Guidelines, FHWA, 2007)
Below are the prompts that help to identify pedestrian
safety problems at intersection:-
 Presence, Design and Placement
Do wide curb radii lengthen pedestrian crossing
distances and encourage high-speed right turns?
Wider radii may reduce the safety of the pedestrian
environment by:-
Encouraging high-speed right turns.
Increasing the crossing distance for pedestrians.
Reducing the pedestrian waiting area.
Creating an environment where pedestrians and
motorists find it difficult to see each other. 4
(FHWA, 2007)

5.  Do channelized right turn lanes minimize conflicts with
pedestrians?
Are pedestrian crossings located in areas where sight
distance may be a problem?
Are crosswalks sited along pedestrian desire lines?
 Do raised medians provide a safe waiting area (refuge)
for pedestrians ?
Are supervised crossings adequately staffed by qualified
crossing guards?
Are marked crosswalks wide enough?
Are corners and curb ramps appropriately planned and
designed at each approach to the crossing?
5
FHWA, 2007
FHWA, 2007
FHWA, 2007

6.  Quality, Condition & Construction
Is the crossing pavement adequate and well maintained?
Are crossings free from poor drainage/puddles, slippery
surfaces, and cracks or other discontinuities in the
pavement that could trip pedestrians or snag
wheelchairs?
Is non-slip material used for the pavement marking
associated with the pedestrian facilities?
Is the crossing pavement flush with the roadway
surface?
6
FHWA, 2007

7. Continuity and Connectivity
Does pedestrian network connectivity continue through
crossings by means of adequate waiting areas at corners,
curb ramps and marked crosswalks?
Lighting
Is the pedestrian crossing adequately lit?
Visibility
Can pedestrians see approaching vehicles at all legs of
the intersection/crossing
and vice versa?
Is the distance from the stop (or yield) line to a
crosswalk sufficient for drivers to
see pedestrians?
7
FHWA, 2007

8. Traffic Characteristics
Are there sufficient gaps in the traffic to allow
pedestrians to cross the road?
Signs and Pavement Markings
Are crossing points for pedestrians properly signed
and/or marked?
Is paint on stop bars and crosswalks worn, or are
signs worn, missing, or damaged?
Signals
Are pedestrian signal heads provided and adequate?
Are traffic and pedestrian signals timed so that wait
times and crossing times are
reasonable?
Are all pedestrian signals and push buttons
functioning correctly and safely?
8
FHWA, 2007

9. 9
Literature Review
Sl. No Authors and Year Paper Title Findings
1. D. Santhosh et al,
2020
Evaluation of pedestrian
safety in unsignalized T and
X – Intersections through
comparison of the frequency
and severity of pedestrian
conflicts
• Study Area- Oravackal(T) and
Ayarkunnam(X) junctions in Kottayam
district of Kerala, a south Indian state.
• This paper aims to compare the safety of T
& X-intersections using the Pedestrian
Vehicle Conflicts Analysis (PVCA) method
using data extracted from the videographic
survey.
• The larger share of volume in both
intersections constitutes two-wheelers and
male adults.

10. 10
Sl.
No
Author and Year Paper Title Findings
D. Santhosh et al,
2020
Evaluation of pedestrian
safety in unsignalized T
and X – Intersections
through comparison of
the frequency and
severity of pedestrian
conflicts
• The 15th percentile crossing speed of pedestrians
for the intersections was more than the design
speed (1.2 m/s). Thus, the pedestrians in both the
intersections show aggressive behavior.
• The simulation model results showed that the
restriction of many pedestrian crossings to two
pedestrian crossings per each approach is an
effective method for conflicts reduction in all the
sites.
• This method reduced conflicts in T- intersection
(Oravackal) and X-intersection (Ayarkunnam) by
24.11 and 31.46 percent respectively.
• A suggested measureto reduce conflicts in
Oravackal intersection is to make it a
controlledintersection.
Contd.

11. 11
References :
• Santhosh, D., Bindhu, B.K. and Koshy, B.I., 2020. Evaluation of pedestrian
safety in unsignalized T and X–Intersections through comparison of the
frequency and severity of pedestrian conflicts. Case studies on transport
policy, 8(4), pp.1352-1359.
• Nabors, D., Gibbs, M., Sandt, L., Rocchi, S., Wilson, E.M. and Lipinski, M.E.,
2007. Pedestrian road safety audit guidelines and prompt lists (No. FHWA-SA-
07-007). United States. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Safety.
• Asaithambi, G., Kuttan, M.O. and Chandra, S., 2016. Pedestrian road crossing
behavior under mixed traffic conditions: a comparative study of an intersection
before and after implementing control measures. Transportation in developing
economies, 2(2), p.14.
• IRC:103-2012:Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities

12. 12
THANK YOU!