IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS. Guidelines for Marked Crosswalks

Transcription

1 IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS Presented by Nazir Lalani P.E. Traffex Engineers Inc. Guidelines for Marked Crosswalks Source: FHWA, Safety Effects of Marked v. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations 1

2 An ITE Informational Report by the ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Council August

3 WHY IS TCRP/NCHRP RESEARCH BEING UNDERTAKEN? Need for Research ITE Informational Reported Revealed Many Treatments Limited Information on Effectiveness No Guidance on Treatment Applications Identify Best Treatments for Higher Volume/Higher Speed Streets Pedestrian Signal Warrant Very Difficult to Meet 3

4 Research Approach - I Review Current Practice for Crossing Treatments Conduct Surveys of Pedestrian Experience Assess Pedestrian Crossing Designs Evaluate Pedestrian Signal Warrant Adequacy Prepare Evaluation Research Plan 4

5 Research Approach - II Conduct Surveys of Pedestrian/Driver Behavior Walking Speed Driver Compliance Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflicts Identify Different Criteria for Selecting Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Develop and Test Guidelines Produce Recommendations on Changes to the MUTCD PEDESTRIAN CHARACTERISTICS FROM PRIOR RESEARCH 5

6 Source: Pedestrian Movement Characteristics at Signalized Intersections. (9) Pedestrians and Bicyclists Source: Human Factors in Traffic Safety (8) 6

7 Source: Pedestrian Movement Characteristics at Signalized Intersections (9) Spatial Dimensions for Pedestrians 8.7 ft (2.6 m) 4.7 ft (1.4 m) 12.7 ft (3.9 m) Source: Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook (4) 7

8 Spatial Dimensions for Pedestrians with Disabilities Source: Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook (4) REVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS 8

9 Desirable Characteristics Simpler crossing task Excellent visibility for pedestrians Vehicle speeds slowed near crossing Driver awareness increased Driver yielding behavior increased Improved use of crossings by pedestrians Treatments Advance Signing Advance Stop Limit Line and Sign Pedestrian Median Refuge Islands Raised Crosswalks Curb Extensions Look Legends In Roadway Pedestrian Crossing Signs 9

10 Treatments High Visibility Markings In Roadway Warning Lights Pedestrian Crossing Flags Overhead Flashing Yellow Beacons Entry Treatments Surface Treatments Advance Markings Curb Extensions Urban Design Treatments 10

11 Raised Crosswalks Entry Treatments 11

12 Curb Extensions Crosswalk Pavement Treatments 12

13 Crosswalk with Several Treatments (Treatment includes one-way operations, flashers, bike lane separation) Signs 13

14 Portable/Pole Mounted Sign (Legend States: State Law YIELD For Pedestrians in Crosswalk) Portable/Pole Mounted Sign (Legend States: State Law YIELD For Pedestrians in Crosswalk) 14

15 In-Roadway Sign Flags 15

16 Flags Flag detail from Salt Lake City 16

17 Crosswalk Pavement Marking Treatments High visibility markings 17

18 Pavement Legends Advance Crosswalk Markings 18

19 Refuge Islands Median Pedestrian Refuge Island 19

20 Offset Refuge Island with Railings 20

21 Offset Refuge Island with Bollards Beacons 21

22 Activated Flashing Beacons with Warning Signs Overhead Signing 22

23 In-Pavement Roadway Lights In-Pavement Roadway Lights (New studies available listed in references) 23

24 Mid-block Signals Mid-Block with Flashing Red 24

25 Half Signals Puffin Crossing 25

26 Toucan Crossing Toucan Crossing 26

27 HAWK HAWK Crossing 27

28 School-Related Crossings Portable Signs (Phoenix, Arizona) 28

29 Increased Fine Zones Part-time time Street Closure (Poli Street Closure in Ventura, California) 29

30 School Crossing Flags Australia 30

31 Scope of NCHRP 562 Literature review of pedestrian crossing treatments Pedestrian signal warrant review Surveys and Field Studies Pedestrian Walking Speeds Effectiveness of specific treatments Recommendations Review of Recent Research ITE Informational Report on Pedestrian Crossing Treatments (26) 2002 FHWA Report on Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide (27) 31

32 PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL WARRANT REVIEW Primary and Secondary Factors Vehicular Gap Pedestrian Volume Distance to nearest signal Reduction criteria based on walking speed 32

33 Condition Number of Lanes on Minor Road Approach Lower Threshold Volume (Pedestrian or Vehicle on Highest Volume Minor Road Approach) Warrant 3 b Vehicular (vph) Peak Hour Warrant 4 c Pedestrian (ped/h) Warrant 2 d Vehicular (vph) Four Hour Warrant 4 e Pedestrian (ped/h) Warrant 70% Factor a 2 or more 1 2 or more 1 a For communities less than 10,000 population or above 40 mph (64 km/h) on major street. Only applies to Warrants 2 and 3. b The minimum minor road volume occurs when the major street volume is approximately 1450 veh/h or at 1050 veh/h when the community is less than 10,000 or the speed on the major exceeds 40 mph (64 km/h). c Warrant 4 requires 190 ped/h crossing the major road in the peak hour. To compare with Warrant 3, this value was adjusted to a highest approach value by assuming a 75/25 directional distribution. d The minimum minor road volume occurs when the major street volume is approximately 1050 veh/h or more or at 750 veh/h when the community is less than 10,000 or the speed on the major exceeds 40 mph (64 km/h). e Warrant 4 requires 100 ped/h crossing the major road during 4 h. To compare with Warrant 2, this value was adjusted to a highest approach value by assuming a 75/25 directional distribution Potential Factors Pedestrian generators (Transit Stops) Schools Collision experienced Including pedestrians on the minor street approach with vehicular and bicycle volumes Vehicle speed Pedestrian delay 33

34 Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (23) 34

35 Observations from Signal Warrant Evaluation Workshop Consider roadway widths Vehicle and peds should be included in pedestrian warrant Consider posted/operating speeds Treat pedestrians and vehicles equally Sight distance should be a factor SURVEYS 35

36 Survey Techniques Focus groups of providers Phone meetings with providers On-site interviews of providers, Focus group of bus drivers On-street interviews of pedestrians Common Themes Steady or Flashing Red Signal Displays Flashing Beacons In-Roadway Warning Lights Median Refuge Islands Advance Stop/Yield Lines Crosswalk Markings In-Street Signs Flags 36

37 Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) Figure 11: Average Pedestrian Safety Ratings Average Rating, Scale 1=Very Safe and 5=Unsafe Site 1 Marked Crosswalk Site 2 Marked Crosswalk Site 3 In-Roadway Warning Lights Site 4 Hawk Site 5 Split Midblock Signal Data Collection Locations Site 6 Split Midblock Signal Site 7 Signalized/Countdown Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) 37

38 FIELD STUDIES Site Selection Forty sites States: TX, UT, WA, OR, CA, AZ, MD Proximity to transit stops Roadway type (Moderate to high volumes) Nominal interference from driveways Urban and suburban Wide range of pedestrian ages 38

39 Data Collection Approaches Video cameras: Permanent record of pedestrian and motorist behavior Palmtop Computers: Record certain aspects of pedestrian and motorist behavior Site Condition Sheets: Document geometric characteristics of each site (Note: Collision Data was not made available by agencies where sites were located) Conflict Categories Dart/dash Walking Along Roadway Other Multiple Threat 39

40 Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) 40

41 Treatments Included in Research Half Signals HAWK Beacon Mid-block Signal Smart Pedestrian Warning- Passively Activated Overhead Signs/Beacons Push Button Activated Overhead Flashing Beacons Pedestrian Crossing Flags High Visibility Markings and Signs In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign Pedestrian Median Refuge Island Mid-block Signal (MSig) 41

42 Half Signal (Half) Hawk 42

43 In-street Crossing Signs (InSt) Flags 43

44 PB Activated Overhead Beacons (OfPb) Pedestrian Refuge Islands (Refu) 44

45 High Visibility Markings (HiVi) (Includes fluorescent yellow green markings) Passive Activated Overhead Beacons (OfPa) 45

46 Abbreviations MSig = Mid block Signal Half = Half Signal Hawk = HAWK InSt = In Street Crossing Signs Flag = Pedestrian Crossing Flags OfPb = Button Activated Overhead Flashing Beacons Refu = Median Refuge Island HiVi = High Visibility Signs and Markings OfPa = Passive Activation Overhead Flashing Beacons FIELD STUDY FINDINGS 46

47 Walking Speeds Table 18: Walking Speed by Gender and Age Group Age Groups Walking Speed, ft/s (m/s) Sample Size 15 th Percentile Male 50 th Percentile Young Old (1.14) 3.11 (0.95) 4.78 (1.46) 4.19 (1.28) ALL (1.12) 4.75 (1.45) Female Young (1.16) 4.67 (1.42) Old (0.86) 4.41 (1.34) ALL (1.14) 4.67 (1.42) Both Genders Young (1.15) 4.74 (1.45) Old ALL (0.92) 3.70 (1.13) 4.25 (1.30) 4.72 (1.44) 47

48 Source of Figure: (NCHRP 562) Motorist Compliance 48

49 Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) 49

50 Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) Source of Data: (NCHRP 562) 50

51 Gap Acceptance Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) 51

52 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS Abbreviations MSig = Mid block Signal Half = Half Signal Hawk = HAWK InSt = In Street Crossing Signs Flag = Pedestrian Crossing Flags OfPb = Button Activated Overhead Flashing Beacons Refu = Median Refuge Island HiVi = High Visibility Signs and Markings OfPa = Passive Activation Overhead Flashing Beacons 52

53 Pedestrian Visual Search Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) 53

54 Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) Pedestrian Crossing Use 54

55 Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) 55

56 Pedestrian Activation Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) 56

57 Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) Pedestrian Delay 57

58 Pedestrian Delay Initial Delay: Stepping Off the Curb Next to Sidewalk Median Delay: Stepping off the median Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) 58

59 RECOMMENDATIONS Treatment Selection 59

60 Pedestrian Treatment Devices Crosswalk. This category encompasses standard crosswalk markings and pedestrian crossing signs, as opposed to unmarked crossings. Enhanced. This category includes those devices that enhance the visibility of the crossing location and pedestrians waiting to cross. Warning signs, markings, or beacons in this category are present or active at the crossing location at all times. Active. Also called active when present, this category includes those devices that are designed to display a warning only when pedestrians are present or crossing the street. Red. This category includes those devices that display a circular red indication (signal or beacon) to motorists at the pedestrian location. Signal. This category pertains to traffic control signals. Guidelines Plot, 72 ft (22 m) Pavement, 35 mph (55 km/h), 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) Walking Speed.(8) Pedestrian Volume Crossing Major Road (ped/h) Crosswalk E/A* E/A HC, Red LC* Signal (proposed for MUTCD) 0 No Treatment Major Road Volume - Total of Both Approaches (veh/h) Red *E/A = Enhanced/Active, HC = High Compliance, LC = Low Compliance 60

61 Pedestrian Signal Warrant Revisions Revisions to The MUTCD Pedestrian Signal Warrant For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing major roadway (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C

62 Proposed MUTCD Figure 4C Warrant 4, Four-Hour Volume Pedestrians Crossings Major Roadway- PPH Major Roadway - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Revisions to The MUTCD Pedestrian Signal Warrant For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing major roadway (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-6. 62

63 Proposed MUTCD Figure 4C-6. Warrant 4, Peak Hour Pedestrians Crossings Major Roadway- PPH Major Roadway - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 133 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Walking Speeds 63

64 Walking Speeds 15 th percentile for younger peds: 3.77 ft/s 15th percentile for older peds: ft/s Recommendation General Population: 3.5 ft/s Older and Less Able Population: 3.0 ft/s Adding Devices with High Driver Compliance 64

65 Motorist Compliance Red Signal or Beacon Compliance: 95% Compliance for Treatments Varied Widely Number of Lanes Influences Effectiveness 2-Lane Roads: 75% Compliance Rate 4-Lane Roads: 30%-100% Posted Speed Limit Influences Effectiveness Recommendation: Add Red Signal/Beacon Devices to Toolbox for Pedestrian Crossings (Hawk will be added to the new MUTCD) Source of Table: (NCHRP 562) 65

66 HAWK Crossing Recent Study on HAWKS by City of Tucson, AZ Published in APWA Reporter, June 2008 Study locations: 60 HAWK Crossings Collision Data: inclusive Annual pedestrian collision rate was 1.8 for all 60 locations No fatal pedestrian collisions 66

67 (Send an to for a pdf) Contents of NCHRP Report 562 Findings of new TCRP/NCHRP Report on Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossings: Pedestrian Characteristics Review of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Review of Current Pedestrian Signal Warrant Findings from Surveys Field Studies Findings from Field Study Conclusions and Recommendations of the TCRP/NCHRP Report 67

68 Supporting Appendices Appendix A Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Appendix B Proposed Changes to the MUTCD Appendix C Literature Review Appendix D ITE Report Summary Appendix E Studies on Treatments Appendix F Pedestrian Crossing Installation Criteria Supporting Appendices 68

69 QUESTIONS? 69