January 28, 2010 Hermanus Steyn, Pr.Eng., P.E., and Charles Radosta, P.E. Pedestrian Crossings Transportation Education Se...
Overview <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs...
National Practice and Local Laws <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </l...
Disclaimer… <ul><li>The following slides are based on the understanding of the law from two able-bodied professional civil...
Do crosswalks exist at all intersections? <ul><li>National Practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A crosswalk at an intersection i...
Do crosswalks exist at all intersections? <ul><li>Oregon Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Crosswalk” means any portion of a roa...
Can an Agency close a crosswalk? <ul><li>National Practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>After an engineering and traffic investig...
Can an Agency close a crosswalk? <ul><li>Oregon Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Road authorities may regulate the movement of pe...
When do vehicles have the right-of-way? <ul><li>Oregon Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A pedestrian commits the offense of pedes...
Is Jaywalking Illegal? <ul><li>National Practice and Washington Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Between adjacent intersections a...
Establishing Crosswalks at Midblock Locations <ul><li>2009 MUTCD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>At non-intersection locations, cros...
Establishing Crosswalks at Midblock Locations <ul><li>2009 MUTCD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Crosswalk lines should not be used ...
Establishing Crosswalks at Midblock Locations <ul><li>2009 MUTCD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New marked crosswalks  alone, witho...
Why Provide Marked Midblock Crossings? <ul><li>Provides a legal crossing where pedestrians want to travel </li></ul><ul><l...
Next Section – Pedestrian Characteristics <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteri...
Key Research Documents <ul><li>Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition  </li></ul><ul><li>Improvin...
Pedestrian Speed <ul><li>Observed walking speeds (NCHRP Report 562) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average walk speed: 4.75 ft/s </...
Pedestrian Characteristics - Distance <ul><li>Out-of-direction travel drastically reduces willingness to walk… </li></ul><...
Pedestrian Safety <ul><li>Many effective treatments are available: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Marked markings </li></ul></ul><u...
Designing for Pedestrians <ul><li>Three primary aspects to quality transportation environments: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Safe...
Designing for Pedestrians Understanding ADA Guidelines <ul><li>Americans with Disability Act (ADA) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A...
Next Section – Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws  </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Chara...
Unmarked Crosswalk <ul><li>Most common pedestrian crossing </li></ul><ul><li>Vehicles required to yield to peds in unmarke...
Marked Crosswalk <ul><li>Increase visibility of pedestrians </li></ul><ul><li>Alert motorists to the likely presence of pe...
Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks <ul><li>What is happening at marked crosswalks? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>False sense of securi...
Pedestrian Safety – Unsignalized Crossings Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswa...
Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks <ul><li>Research results in guidelines for where: “Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient...
Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks <ul><li>According to the 2009 MUTCD, marked crosswalks alone are insufficient when, either:...
Next Section – Basic Crossing Treatments <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws  </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteri...
Geometric Modifications Curb Extensions <ul><li>Reduce crossing distance and pedestrian exposure </li></ul><ul><li>Increas...
Geometric Modifications Curb Extensions <ul><li>Restriped parking aisles reduces visibility of original curb extension </l...
Geometric Modifications Tighten Curb Radii <ul><li>Reduce crossing distance and pedestrian exposure </li></ul><ul><li>Decr...
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Simple solution for roadways with two-way left-turn lanes </li></ul>
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Allows pedestrians to make 2-stage crossings </li></ul><ul><li>Impro...
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Can be used with or without marked crossings </li></ul>
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Offset crosswalks (2-stage crossings) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Position...
Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential false sense of securit...
Geometric Modifications Raised Crosswalk Platforms <ul><li>Reduces vehicular speeds across crosswalk </li></ul><ul><li>Pri...
Signing Enhancements Additional Warning Signs <ul><li>Overhead signs add extra emphasis to crossing </li></ul>
Signing Enhancements High-visibility Treatments <ul><li>Increase awareness of pedestrians </li></ul>
Signing Enhancements High-visibility Treatments <ul><li>After 1 month… </li></ul><ul><li>After 5-months… </li></ul>
Striping Enhancements Advance Stop Bars on Multilane Roadways <ul><li>2009 MUTCD Figure with Advance Stop Bars </li></ul>S...
Striping Enhancements High Visibility Lines <ul><li>Add diagonal markings to standard parallel crosswalk lines to improve ...
Electronic Enhancements Illumination at Crossings <ul><li>Addresses safety of pedestrians at night </li></ul>
Other Enhancements Crosswalk Flags <ul><li>Heavily used in municipalities such as Kirkland and Salt Lake City </li></ul>
Other Enhancements Crosswalk Flags <ul><li>Adds visibility for pedestrians using crosswalk </li></ul><ul><li>Low cost solu...
Other Basic Crossing Treatments <ul><li>Rumble strips in advance of crosswalk </li></ul><ul><li>Striping </li></ul><ul><ul...
Combining Treatments <ul><li>Raised median </li></ul><ul><li>Off-set marked crossing </li></ul><ul><li>Advance stop lines ...
Next Section – Enhanced Crossing Treatments <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characte...
Pedestrian Beacons <ul><li>Increase visibility of pedestrian crossings </li></ul><ul><li>Typical applications of Warning B...
Pedestrian Beacons Continuously-Flashing <ul><li>Low speed environment with heavy pedestrian usage </li></ul>
Pedestrian Beacons Continuously-Flashing <ul><li>May not be the best solution for all crossing locations </li></ul>
Pedestrian Beacon Comparison <ul><li>Advantages – Pedestrian-Actuated Beacons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher compliance rate...
Pedestrian Beacons Pedestrian Actuated <ul><li>Active Detection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pushbuttons </li></ul></ul>Photo: Da...
Pedestrian Beacons Pedestrian Actuated <ul><li>Advantages – Active Detection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User familiarity with d...
Electronic Enhancements In-Roadway Warning Lights <ul><li>Enhancement feature at marked crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>2003 ...
Electronic Enhancements In-Roadway Warning Lights <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Decreased wait times for pedest...
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>Interim approval from USDOT in July 2008 </li></ul><ul><...
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>High motorist yield rates </li></ul><ul><li>Consistent o...
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>An RRFB  shall  only be installed to function as a warni...
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>An RRFB  shall not  be used for crosswalks across approa...
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>Two pairs of signs required per approach </li></ul><ul><...
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>The RRFB shall rest in dark, shall initiate operation on...
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>Planned installation along US 20 (Greenwood) in Bend </l...
Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower cost option compa...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>Effective tool to allow pedestrian crossings </li>...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>Midblock crosswalks  shall  not be signalized if t...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>A midblock crosswalk location  should  not be cont...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>Required to meet MUTCD signal warrants </li></ul><...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If warranted, can...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Half Signal  <ul><li>Stop signs on low volume approach, traffic signal indications for m...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Half Signal <ul><li>Conflicts with the MUTCD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If this warrant [Warr...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>HAWK  =  H igh-Intensity  A ctivated Cross W al...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>97% motorist compliance recorded in Tucson </li...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>Vehicular displays rest in dark </li></ul><ul><...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>2009 MUTCD includes installation guidelines </l...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>2009 MUTCD includes installation guidelines </l...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>City of Tucson received approval for experiment...
High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduces delay ...
<ul><li>FHWA: Warrants for Pedestrian Over/Underpass </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Roadway vehicle speeds above 40 MPH </li></ul><...
What comes after Signals?  Grade Separation <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accommodates high volume pedestrian c...
Next Section – Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Ch...
Evaluating Crossings – 2010 HCM <ul><li>Highway Capacity Manual is currently being updated for the 2010 edition </li></ul>...
Pedestrian LOS at Unsignalized Locations <ul><li>New unsignalized pedestrian LOS estimation method </li></ul><ul><li>Estim...
Example Pedestrian LOS Calculation <ul><li>Existing Conditions: </li></ul><ul><li>2-lane arterial with marked crosswalk, b...
Pedestrian LOS at Unsignalized Locations <ul><li>Example (cont.): </li></ul><ul><li>Install rectangular rapid-flash beacon...
Selecting Treatments - NCHRP 562 <ul><li>NCHRP 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings </li></ul><ul><u...
NCHRP 562 – Effectiveness of Treatments  High-visibility Treatments Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings,...
NCHRP 562 – Effectiveness of Treatments  Active when Present Treatments Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossi...
NCHRP 562 – Selecting Treatments <ul><li>Based on estimated pedestrian delay using HCM methodology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>M...
NCHRP 562 – Selecting Treatments <ul><li>4 categories of treatments recommended: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No marked crosswalk...
NCHRP 562  Where are treatments appropriate? <ul><li>Delay-based method </li></ul>
Next Section – Liability – Risk Management <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Character...
Liability – Risk Management <ul><li>Thorough documentation of design and decision making process should include the follow...
Next Section – Update from TRB <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li>...
Update from Transportation Research Board <ul><li>Pedestrian Research Needs Statements in Four Categories </li></ul><ul><u...
Update from Transportation Research Board Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>Follow-up Research </li></ul><ul><ul><l...
Conclusion - Numerous Research Documents <ul><li>THANK YOU! - Any Questions? </li></ul>
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

KAI - Pedestrian Mid Block Crossings Presentation

6,859 views

Published on

This is a Kittelson presentation that was given at the Portland, OR office by Charles Radosta and Hermanus Steyn on Jan 28, 2010. They discussed several aspects related to pedestrian crossings.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
6,859
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
358
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

KAI - Pedestrian Mid Block Crossings Presentation

  1. 1. January 28, 2010 Hermanus Steyn, Pr.Eng., P.E., and Charles Radosta, P.E. Pedestrian Crossings Transportation Education Series (TES) Portland, Oregon
  2. 2. Overview <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability – Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) </li></ul>
  3. 3. National Practice and Local Laws <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability – Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) </li></ul>
  4. 4. Disclaimer… <ul><li>The following slides are based on the understanding of the law from two able-bodied professional civil engineers and not from those with a legal background </li></ul>
  5. 5. Do crosswalks exist at all intersections? <ul><li>National Practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A crosswalk at an intersection is defined as the extension of the sidewalk or the shoulder across the intersection, regardless of whether it is marked or not. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The only way a crosswalk can exist at a midblock location is if it is marked. </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Do crosswalks exist at all intersections? <ul><li>Oregon Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Crosswalk” means any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere that is distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings .... </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where no marked crosswalk exists, a crosswalk is that portion of the roadway described … the prolongation of the lateral line of the roadway … [ORS 801.220] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Washington Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;Crosswalk&quot; means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line … except as modified by a marked crosswalk. [RCW 46.04.160] </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Can an Agency close a crosswalk? <ul><li>National Practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>After an engineering and traffic investigation, the (State highway commission) and local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may designate unmarked crosswalk locations where pedestrian crossing is prohibited or where pedestrians must yield the right of way to vehicles. Such restrictions shall be effective only when official traffic-control devices indicating the restrictions are in place . [UVC § 15-108] </li></ul></ul>Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, 1998
  8. 8. Can an Agency close a crosswalk? <ul><li>Oregon Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Road authorities may regulate the movement of pedestrians upon highways within their jurisdictions by … closing a marked or unmarked crosswalk and prohibiting pedestrians from crossing a roadway where a crosswalk has been closed by placing and maintaining signs giving notice of closure . [ORS 810.080] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Whenever marked crosswalks have been indicated, such crosswalks and no other shall be deemed lawful across such roadway at that intersection. [ORS 810.220] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NOTE: Other crossings at an intersection are still legal (but pedestrians must yield to traffic) unless signed otherwise </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Washington Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at an unmarked crosswalk where an official sign prohibits such crossing . [RCW 46.61.240] </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. When do vehicles have the right-of-way? <ul><li>Oregon Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A pedestrian commits the offense of pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle if the pedestrian … fails to yield the right of way to a vehicle upon a roadway when the pedestrian is crossing the roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. [ORS 814.040] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>National Practice and Washington Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. [UVC § 11- 503], [RCW 46.61.240] </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Is Jaywalking Illegal? <ul><li>National Practice and Washington Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. [UVC § 11- 503], [RCW 46.61.240] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Oregon Law does not include jaywalking statutes; however , some municipalities have laws prohibiting midblock crossings at unmarked locations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No pedestrian may cross a street other than within a crosswalk if within 150 feet of a crosswalk. [Portland City Code 16.70.210] </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Establishing Crosswalks at Midblock Locations <ul><li>2009 MUTCD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>At non-intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Because non-intersection pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the road user, warning signs should be installed for all marked crosswalks at non-intersection locations and adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions. [Section 3B.18] </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Establishing Crosswalks at Midblock Locations <ul><li>2009 MUTCD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An engineering study should be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The engineering study should consider the number of lanes, the presence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors. [Section 3B.18] </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Establishing Crosswalks at Midblock Locations <ul><li>2009 MUTCD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New marked crosswalks alone, without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence, should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and either: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A. 4+ travel lanes without a raised median island and ADT of 12,000+ vehicles; or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>B. 4+ travel lanes with a raised median island and ADT of 15,000+ vehicles [Section 3B.18] </li></ul></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Why Provide Marked Midblock Crossings? <ul><li>Provides a legal crossing where pedestrians want to travel </li></ul><ul><li>Connects origins and destinations between intersections </li></ul><ul><li>Can be safer for pedestrians than crossings at intersections; traffic conflicts are constrained to only two directions </li></ul><ul><li>Marking the midblock crossing switches the “right-of-way” between motorists and pedestrians </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unmarked – Pedestrians yield to motorists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Marked – Motorists yield to pedestrians </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Next Section – Pedestrian Characteristics <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability – Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) </li></ul>
  16. 16. Key Research Documents <ul><li>Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition </li></ul><ul><li>Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, NCHRP Report 562 (TRB 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Highway Capacity Manual, 5th Edition (TRB 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (FHWA September 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks (FHWA April 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Accessible Public Rights-of-Way, Planning and Designing for Alterations (July 2007) </li></ul>
  17. 17. Pedestrian Speed <ul><li>Observed walking speeds (NCHRP Report 562) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average walk speed: 4.75 ft/s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>15 th percentile walk speed: 3.67 ft/s </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Older” pedestrian walking speeds </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average walk speed: 4.41 ft/s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>15 th percentile walk speed: 3.11 ft/s </li></ul></ul><ul><li>US population growing older… </li></ul><ul><li>MUTCD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Previous 2003 Version: 4.0 ft/s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Just Released 2009 Version: 3.5 ft/s </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Pedestrian Characteristics - Distance <ul><li>Out-of-direction travel drastically reduces willingness to walk… </li></ul><ul><li>Provide frequent crossings </li></ul><ul><li>Signals every 1/4 mile doesn’t work for pedestrians! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(2 x 660 ft.) ÷ 3.5 ft./sec. = 377 seconds of delay (halfway) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>> 80 seconds is LOS F for autos </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Want crosswalks as short as possible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Takes least amount of time from other traffic movements </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Pedestrian Safety <ul><li>Many effective treatments are available: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Marked markings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Curb extensions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Raised crossing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Raised median island </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Signage </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ped-Bike Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) is free software to identify mitigations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FHWA publication, July 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http:// www.walkinginfo.org/facts/pbcat/index.cfm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Suggests treatments based on prevalent crash types </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Designing for Pedestrians <ul><li>Three primary aspects to quality transportation environments: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Safe, Comfortable AND Convenient </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Intersection design should satisfy all three </li></ul>
  21. 21. Designing for Pedestrians Understanding ADA Guidelines <ul><li>Americans with Disability Act (ADA) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Horizontal clearance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Longitudinal grades </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cross slope </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Accessible Public Rights-of-Way, Planning and Designing for Alterations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Alterations to existing facilities and associated constraints </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Examples of numerous design solutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Curb ramp examples </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Next Section – Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability – Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) </li></ul>
  23. 23. Unmarked Crosswalk <ul><li>Most common pedestrian crossing </li></ul><ul><li>Vehicles required to yield to peds in unmarked crosswalks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Legally the same as marked crosswalks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Practically this is not the case </li></ul>
  24. 24. Marked Crosswalk <ul><li>Increase visibility of pedestrians </li></ul><ul><li>Alert motorists to the likely presence of pedestrians </li></ul><ul><li>Often accompanied by supplemental signs and markings </li></ul>
  25. 25. Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks <ul><li>What is happening at marked crosswalks? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>False sense of security? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Differences across populations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Most vulnerable are drawn to crosswalks </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>“Multiple threat” crashes higher at marked crosswalks </li></ul>Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Federal Highway Administration, 2005.
  26. 26. Pedestrian Safety – Unsignalized Crossings Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Federal Highway Administration, 2005.
  27. 27. Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks <ul><li>Research results in guidelines for where: “Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient” </li></ul>Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Federal Highway Administration, 2005.
  28. 28. Marked vs. Unmarked crosswalks <ul><li>According to the 2009 MUTCD, marked crosswalks alone are insufficient when, either: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Speed > 40mph </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multilane roads without medians where, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ADT >12,000 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multilane roads with medians where, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ADT >15,000 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  29. 29. Next Section – Basic Crossing Treatments <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability – Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) </li></ul>
  30. 30. Geometric Modifications Curb Extensions <ul><li>Reduce crossing distance and pedestrian exposure </li></ul><ul><li>Increases ability of pedestrians to see oncoming traffic </li></ul><ul><li>Can introduce drainage issues if designed improperly </li></ul><ul><li>Decreases vehicular delay </li></ul><ul><li>Can reduce travel speeds </li></ul><ul><li>Increases visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Moves pedestrians out from behind parked cars </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Geometric Modifications Curb Extensions <ul><li>Restriped parking aisles reduces visibility of original curb extension </li></ul>
  32. 32. Geometric Modifications Tighten Curb Radii <ul><li>Reduce crossing distance and pedestrian exposure </li></ul><ul><li>Decreases speeds for right-turning traffic </li></ul><ul><li>Decreases vehicular delay </li></ul><ul><li>Increases visibility of pedestrians </li></ul><ul><li>Challenging at intersections with large design vehicles </li></ul>Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, 1998
  33. 33. Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Simple solution for roadways with two-way left-turn lanes </li></ul>
  34. 34. Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Allows pedestrians to make 2-stage crossings </li></ul><ul><li>Improve safety and comfort </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced crossing delay </li></ul><ul><li>Refuge area for slower pedestrians </li></ul>
  35. 35. Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Can be used with or without marked crossings </li></ul>
  36. 36. Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Offset crosswalks (2-stage crossings) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Position pedestrians to face oncoming traffic </li></ul></ul>
  37. 37. Geometric Modifications Raised Median Islands <ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential false sense of security for pedestrians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Street sweeping and snow plow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fixed object in roadway for vehicles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Could require right-of-way to widen roadway for installation </li></ul></ul>
  38. 38. Geometric Modifications Raised Crosswalk Platforms <ul><li>Reduces vehicular speeds across crosswalk </li></ul><ul><li>Primarily works for low speed roadways </li></ul><ul><li>Brings vehicles to sidewalk elevation (rather than pedestrians to street elevation) </li></ul><ul><li>Can introduce drainage challenges </li></ul>
  39. 39. Signing Enhancements Additional Warning Signs <ul><li>Overhead signs add extra emphasis to crossing </li></ul>
  40. 40. Signing Enhancements High-visibility Treatments <ul><li>Increase awareness of pedestrians </li></ul>
  41. 41. Signing Enhancements High-visibility Treatments <ul><li>After 1 month… </li></ul><ul><li>After 5-months… </li></ul>
  42. 42. Striping Enhancements Advance Stop Bars on Multilane Roadways <ul><li>2009 MUTCD Figure with Advance Stop Bars </li></ul>Stop
  43. 43. Striping Enhancements High Visibility Lines <ul><li>Add diagonal markings to standard parallel crosswalk lines to improve visibility of crossing </li></ul><ul><li>Studies show improved visibility with continental crosswalk markings over parallel lines </li></ul>2009 MUTCD, Figure 3B.19
  44. 44. Electronic Enhancements Illumination at Crossings <ul><li>Addresses safety of pedestrians at night </li></ul>
  45. 45. Other Enhancements Crosswalk Flags <ul><li>Heavily used in municipalities such as Kirkland and Salt Lake City </li></ul>
  46. 46. Other Enhancements Crosswalk Flags <ul><li>Adds visibility for pedestrians using crosswalk </li></ul><ul><li>Low cost solution </li></ul><ul><li>Potential for confusion to other flagging equipment (school crossing guards, flaggers) </li></ul><ul><li>Theft and replacement considerations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some agencies have implemented “adopt a crosswalk” programs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Visually-disabled pedestrians are not likely to use device </li></ul><ul><li>Device not currently approved in the MUTCD </li></ul>
  47. 47. Other Basic Crossing Treatments <ul><li>Rumble strips in advance of crosswalk </li></ul><ul><li>Striping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pavement legends in advance of crosswalk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-reflective colored pavement within or along crosswalk </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian barriers to discourage unwanted crossings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Landscape buffers, fencing, railings, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Removal of on-street parking </li></ul>
  48. 48. Combining Treatments <ul><li>Raised median </li></ul><ul><li>Off-set marked crossing </li></ul><ul><li>Advance stop lines </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian warning signs (black on yellow) </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory pedestrian signs (black on white) </li></ul>
  49. 49. Next Section – Enhanced Crossing Treatments <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability – Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) </li></ul>
  50. 50. Pedestrian Beacons <ul><li>Increase visibility of pedestrian crossings </li></ul><ul><li>Typical applications of Warning Beacons include </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Supplemental emphasis to warning signs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emphasis for midblock crosswalks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Warning Beacons that are actuated by pedestrians, bicyclists, or other road users may be used as appropriate to provide additional warning to vehicles approaching a crossing or other location [2009 MUTCD, Section 4L.03] </li></ul>Photo: ITE Pedestrian-Bicycle Council
  51. 51. Pedestrian Beacons Continuously-Flashing <ul><li>Low speed environment with heavy pedestrian usage </li></ul>
  52. 52. Pedestrian Beacons Continuously-Flashing <ul><li>May not be the best solution for all crossing locations </li></ul>
  53. 53. Pedestrian Beacon Comparison <ul><li>Advantages – Pedestrian-Actuated Beacons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher compliance rate with beacons that are only active when needed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More consistent with the MUTCD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Warning Beacons should be operated only during those periods or times when the condition or regulation exists [2009 MUTCD, Section 4L.03] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Advantages – Continuously-Flashing Beacons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires a pedestrian to actively engage the beacons (pushbutton) to be effective unless passive detection (radar/microwave) is present </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Removes possible confusion for users to enter crosswalk prior to confirming stopped vehicles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul>
  54. 54. Pedestrian Beacons Pedestrian Actuated <ul><li>Active Detection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pushbuttons </li></ul></ul>Photo: Dan Burden Photo: ITE Pedestrian-Bicycle Council <ul><li>Passive Detection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pressure pads </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Video </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Microwave </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Infrared </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Radar </li></ul></ul>
  55. 55. Pedestrian Beacons Pedestrian Actuated <ul><li>Advantages – Active Detection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User familiarity with device (pushbutton) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Typically more reliable and less expensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ease of maintenance for the owner </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Advantages – Passive Detection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Passive detection (should) detect all users; not all users will elect to use a pushbutton </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be used to extend the activation for slower pedestrians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Visually-disabled pedestrians may not be able to locate pushbuttons (that do not include audible devices) </li></ul></ul>
  56. 56. Electronic Enhancements In-Roadway Warning Lights <ul><li>Enhancement feature at marked crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>2003 and 2009 MUTCD provide standard and guidance statements regarding use </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shall only be used at marked crosswalks accompanied with warning signs </li></ul></ul>
  57. 57. Electronic Enhancements In-Roadway Warning Lights <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Decreased wait times for pedestrians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased visibility of crosswalk to motorists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased utilization of marked crosswalk vs. other adjacent unmarked crossing locations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can operate with active (pushbuttons) or passive (sensor) detection </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pedestrians misinterpreting flashing lights and/or not waiting for traffic to stop prior to entering crosswalk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintenance costs and pavement impacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Motorist compliance rates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decreased illuminance of lights due to dirt, glare, standing water, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decreased visibility for vehicles in a queue vs. overhead beacons </li></ul></ul>
  58. 58. Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>Interim approval from USDOT in July 2008 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/ia11_rrfb_iapmemo.pdf </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on testing showed very high yield rates </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Used to supplement marked crosswalks with crossing warning signs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not a supplement to regulatory signs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Must have activation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Passive detection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pedestrian push-buttons </li></ul></ul>
  59. 59. Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>High motorist yield rates </li></ul><ul><li>Consistent over 1-year period </li></ul>Van Houten, R., J. Shurbutt, and S. Turner, Analysis of Effects of Stutter Flash LED Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians Using Multilane Crosswalks, Transportation Research Board, 2008.
  60. 60. Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>An RRFB shall only be installed to function as a warning beacon. </li></ul><ul><li>An RRFB shall only be used to supplement a W11-2 (Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning sign with a diagonal downward arrow (W16-7p) plaque, located at or immediately adjacent to a marked crosswalk. </li></ul>
  61. 61. Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>An RRFB shall not be used for crosswalks across approaches controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic control signals (except for at roundabouts). </li></ul><ul><li>An additional RRFB may be installed on an approach in advance of the crosswalk, as a warning beacon to supplement a W11-2 (Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing warning sign with an AHEAD: (W16-9p) plaque. This additional RRFB shall be supplemental to and not a replacement for RRFBs at the crosswalk itself. </li></ul>
  62. 62. Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>Two pairs of signs required per approach </li></ul><ul><li>Installed on the same post as the warning sign and plaque. </li></ul><ul><li>2 horizontally-aligned yellow indications located between the two warning signs. </li></ul><ul><li>The indications flash in a rapidly alternating &quot;wig-wag&quot; pattern. </li></ul>
  63. 63. Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>The RRFB shall rest in dark, shall initiate operation only upon pedestrian actuation, and shall cease operation after use. </li></ul><ul><li>If pedestrian pushbuttons (rather than passive detection) are used to actuate the RRFBs, a pedestrian instruction sign with the legend PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON WARNING LIGHTS should be mounted adjacent to or integral with each pedestrian pushbutton. </li></ul><ul><li>Can install a small light visible to pedestrians to provide confirmation that the RRFB is in operation. </li></ul>
  64. 64. Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>Planned installation along US 20 (Greenwood) in Bend </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Solar panel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Signage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rectangular flashers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pedestrian push button </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Post with foundation </li></ul></ul>Excerpts from design plans for the City of Bend by DevTech Engineering, LLC NE Greenwood Ave NE 12 th St
  65. 65. Pedestrian Beacons Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFB) <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower cost option compared to other devices that produce similar vehicular yield rates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research shows a higher yield rate than a regular round beacon </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research shows highest yielding rate of all devices that do not feature a red display </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pedestrians misinterpreting flashing lights and/or not waiting for traffic to stop prior to entering crosswalk </li></ul></ul>
  66. 66. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>Effective tool to allow pedestrian crossings </li></ul>
  67. 67. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>Midblock crosswalks shall not be signalized if they are located within 300 feet from the nearest traffic control signal, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. [2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.01] </li></ul>
  68. 68. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>A midblock crosswalk location should not be controlled by a traffic control signal if the crosswalk is located within 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP signs or YIELD signs. [2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.01] </li></ul><ul><li>Pelican Signalized Crossing </li></ul>
  69. 69. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>Required to meet MUTCD signal warrants </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Few locations can satisfy this warrant </li></ul></ul>2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4C
  70. 70. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Traditional Pedestrian Signal <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If warranted, can adequately handle large volumes of pedestrians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be designed as a “two-step” signal that only impacts one direction of vehicular traffic at a time (if a wide median exists) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential for misuse if not operating efficiently </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May force mainline traffic to stop for pedestrians when adequate gaps in traffic exist (off-peak conditions) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul>
  71. 71. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Half Signal <ul><li>Stop signs on low volume approach, traffic signal indications for major street </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian push buttons for activating signal </li></ul>
  72. 72. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Half Signal <ul><li>Conflicts with the MUTCD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If this warrant [Warrant 4 or Warrant 5] is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then … if it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection. </li></ul></ul>
  73. 73. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>HAWK = H igh-Intensity A ctivated Cross W al K </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Approximately 50 in Tucson; 2 in Portland; 1 in Klamath Falls </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Included in 2009 MUTCD as “Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon” </li></ul></ul>
  74. 74. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>97% motorist compliance recorded in Tucson </li></ul><ul><li>Not statistically different than a full pedestrian signal </li></ul>
  75. 75. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>Vehicular displays rest in dark </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian displays rest in DON’T WALK </li></ul>2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4F
  76. 76. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>2009 MUTCD includes installation guidelines </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can use at locations that do not meet traffic signal warrants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can also be placed at a location that meets traffic signal warrants while a decision is made to not install a traffic control signal. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires a “CROSSWALK STOP ON RED” sign </li></ul></ul>2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4F
  77. 77. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>2009 MUTCD includes installation guidelines </li></ul>2009 MUTCD, Chapter 4F
  78. 78. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>City of Tucson received approval for experimentation in 2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Request documented need at midblock and intersection locations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accommodates areas where traditional signal warrants are not met </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2009 MUTCD restricted the used of the HAWK to only midblock locations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>When an engineering study finds that installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon is justified, then the pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs… </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NOTE: Above phrase not included in original draft version of the 2009 MUTCD </li></ul></ul>
  79. 79. High-Cost Electronic Enhancements Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduces delay on major street by allowing motorists to proceed during the pedestrian clear out interval </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At intersections, side street vehicular traffic demand does not impede through traffic on major street </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compliance rates equivalent to a standard and a “half” signal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Documented safety results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be coordinated with other traffic signals along a corridor </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential for motorist confusion with dark signal displays (i.e. is there a power outage = all-way stop?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At intersections, motorist confusion potential along side-streets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul>
  80. 80. <ul><li>FHWA: Warrants for Pedestrian Over/Underpass </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Roadway vehicle speeds above 40 MPH </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At least 300 pedestrians per hour for the 4 highest continuous hours in urban areas (not freeways) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vehicular volumes over 10,000 during same 4-hour period (or ADT over 35,000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At least 600 feet from nearest “safe” crossing location </li></ul></ul>What comes after Signals? Grade Separation
  81. 81. What comes after Signals? Grade Separation <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accommodates high volume pedestrian crossings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoids vehicular/pedestrian conflicts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pedestrian safety </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be designed around topography </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Out-of-direction travel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Safety/Crime/Security (undercrossings) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Drainage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Visibility of crossing to unfamiliar users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be difficult to meet ADA requirements for grade </li></ul></ul>
  82. 82. Next Section – Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability – Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) </li></ul>
  83. 83. Evaluating Crossings – 2010 HCM <ul><li>Highway Capacity Manual is currently being updated for the 2010 edition </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on “Quality of Service” and multimodal LOS throughout new Manual </li></ul>
  84. 84. Pedestrian LOS at Unsignalized Locations <ul><li>New unsignalized pedestrian LOS estimation method </li></ul><ul><li>Estimates pedestrian delay based on 4 factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Traffic volume - # of lanes crossed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crossing distance - Motorist yield rate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Allows consideration of different crossing treatments </li></ul>Delay noticeable and irritating, increased likelihood of risk-taking 20 – 30 D Delay approaches tolerance level, risk-taking behavior likely 30 – 45 E Delay exceeds tolerance level, high likelihood of pedestrian risk-taking > 45 F Delay noticeable to pedestrians, but not inconveniencing 10 – 20 C Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic 5 – 10 B Usually no conflicting traffic 0 – 5 A Comments Control Delay (s/ped) LOS
  85. 85. Example Pedestrian LOS Calculation <ul><li>Existing Conditions: </li></ul><ul><li>2-lane arterial with marked crosswalk, but nobody is yielding… </li></ul><ul><li>Inputs: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>2 lanes crossed </li></ul><ul><li>30 feet crossing distance </li></ul><ul><li>10% yield rate </li></ul><ul><li>Output: Average delay = 44 seconds </li></ul><ul><li>Ped LOS = E </li></ul>
  86. 86. Pedestrian LOS at Unsignalized Locations <ul><li>Example (cont.): </li></ul><ul><li>Install rectangular rapid-flash beacons (RRFB) to improve driver compliance… </li></ul><ul><li>Inputs: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>2 lanes crossed </li></ul><ul><li>30 feet crossing distance </li></ul><ul><li>80% yield rate </li></ul><ul><li>Output: Average delay = 6 seconds </li></ul><ul><li>Ped LOS = B </li></ul>
  87. 87. Selecting Treatments - NCHRP 562 <ul><li>NCHRP 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Field study of motorist yielding for multiple crossing treatments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delay-based method to select appropriate crossing treatments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generally consistent with FHWA marked vs. unmarked crosswalk study </li></ul></ul>
  88. 88. NCHRP 562 – Effectiveness of Treatments High-visibility Treatments Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, NCHRP Report 562 , TRB, 2006.
  89. 89. NCHRP 562 – Effectiveness of Treatments Active when Present Treatments Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, NCHRP Report 562 , TRB, 2006.
  90. 90. NCHRP 562 – Selecting Treatments <ul><li>Based on estimated pedestrian delay using HCM methodology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More delay = more aggressive treatment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Delay Calculation Methodology: </li></ul><ul><li>Inputs Outputs </li></ul><ul><li>Worksheet examples in Appendix A (Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments) </li></ul>Walk speed, Crossing distance Critical gap Critical gap, Traffic volume Delay per pedestrian Delay/ped., Pedestrian Volume Total pedestrian delay
  91. 91. NCHRP 562 – Selecting Treatments <ul><li>4 categories of treatments recommended: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No marked crosswalks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crosswalk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High-visibility/active when present </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) was not included in NCHRP 562, but will likely fall between these two treatments. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Red beacon/signal </li></ul></ul>
  92. 92. NCHRP 562 Where are treatments appropriate? <ul><li>Delay-based method </li></ul>
  93. 93. Next Section – Liability – Risk Management <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability – Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) </li></ul>
  94. 94. Liability – Risk Management <ul><li>Thorough documentation of design and decision making process should include the following actions (typical CSD/CSS process): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consider multiple alternatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate and document design decisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Document stakeholder engagement and involvement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrate a commitment to mitigate safety concerns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Special care should be exercised with new and creative ideas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitor installation to improve future decision making </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Agency has control over basic design features and elements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintain a relatively consistent, non-politicized pedestrian crossing practice </li></ul></ul>
  95. 95. Next Section – Update from TRB <ul><li>National Practice and Local Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Crossing Treatments </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation / Selecting a Treatment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCHRP Report 562 and HCM 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability – Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Transportation Research Board (TRB) </li></ul>
  96. 96. Update from Transportation Research Board <ul><li>Pedestrian Research Needs Statements in Four Categories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning and Policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional issues blocking pedestrian improvements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design, Operations, and Safety Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improving the service for all users at a signalized intersection through developing a detection-based traffic signal system </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Human Capacity & Sensitivity to Environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improvements for pedestrians with low vision </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Society, Culture & Behavior </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Effect of hand-held communication device use on pedestrian safety </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Any ideas/thoughts are welcome – we will pass them on! </li></ul>
  97. 97. Update from Transportation Research Board Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) <ul><li>Follow-up Research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Safety Effectiveness of HAWK Pedestrian Treatment” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Presented at Transportation Research Board (TRB) in January 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transportation Research Record ( TRR) 2140 to be published in Summer 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Paper Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation used data for 21 HAWK sites and 71 reference sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All HAWK sites at locations where minor street/driveway was STOP controlled </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>28% reduction in total crashes (statistically significant at 95%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>58% reduction in pedestrian crashes (statistically significant at 95%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Changes in severe, rear-end, and angle crashes (not statistically significant at 95%) </li></ul></ul>
  98. 98. Conclusion - Numerous Research Documents <ul><li>THANK YOU! - Any Questions? </li></ul>

×