Establishing Procedures and Guidelines for Pedestrian Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations

Transcription

1 1 Establishing Procedures and Guidelines for Pedestrian Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations Yan Qi Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 66th Illinois Traffic Engineering and Safety Conference Champaign, Illinois October 18, 2017

2 2 Outline Project Introduction Guidelines Components Examples to illustrate how to use the guidelines

3 3 Project Introduction Problem Statement Pedestrian safety is a global issue, particularly pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossings No systematic guidelines are available Project Objective To identify the best practices and develop guideline for approving pedestrian crossings and selecting pedestrian treatments at uncontrolled locations (midblock locations and intersection approaches without traffic signals or stop/yield signs are considered as uncontrolled locations)

4 4 Project Introduction (Cont.) Research Approach Literature review Survey and interview Crash data analysis High Crash Corridors (HCC) field review Engineering judgement and local experience Project Outcome Guidelines for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Locations

5 Guidelines 5

6 6 Key Components Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Evaluation of candidate locations for installation of crossing treatments Section 3: Selection of at-grade pedestrian crossing treatments for uncontrolled locations Section 4: Other safety considerations Section 5: Additional treatments

7 7 Section 1: Introduction An informational resource to supplement, not to replace or supersede, existing standards and manuals Serve state and local agencies A large variety of treatments Quantities/thresholds and flexibility Can be used to Evaluate candidate sites Select appropriate treatments Assess existing treatments

8 Section 2: Evaluation of candidate locations for installation of crossing treatments Yes situations Crash record Two B or A- injury crashes in two years or one fatal crash Crosswalk usage Request from the local government or community On the path towards identified pedestrian generator/destinations No situations Speed limit Speed limit>40 mph Traffic volume ADT >35,000 vpd Crossing distance Undivided roadways > 4 lanes Divided roadways > 6 lane Crosswalk spacing An alternative crossing location, marked or unmarked, is within 300 feet (recommended) or 200 feet (minimum). <100 ft. away from the nearest side street or driveway Sight distance Inadequate stopping sight distance or pedestrian sight distance 8

9 9 Section 3: Selection of at-grade pedestrian crossing treatments for uncontrolled locations At-grade pedestrian treatment categories Basic Treatments Enhance Treatments Geometric Elements Warning Beacon Control Beacon Example Marked crosswalk with warning sign Advanced stop line and sign In-street crossing sign Overhead crossing sign Curb Extension Road diet Raised median Raised crosswalk FB (Flashing Beacon) RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon ) PHB (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon)

10 10 Basic Treatments Pedestrian Crossing and Warning Signs (FHWA, 2009)

11 11 Enhanced Treatments Uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk signs Advanced Stop Line and Sign (PEDSAFE, 2017)

12 12 Geometric Elements Curb extensions (Turner and Carlson, 2000) Road Diet (Knapp, et al., 2014) a) Raised median (Pulugurtha, et al., 2012); b) Split pedestrian crossover (VDOT, 2004) Raised Crossing (PEDSAFE, 2017)

13 13 a) Pole Mounted and b) Overhead Flashing Beacons (Fitzpatrick, et al., 2006) Warning Beacons RRFB system (Pecheux, et al., 2009)

14 14 Control Beacon PHB treatment at Arizona (Fitzpatrick, et al., 2014)

15 Recommended minimum treatments at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings *Lane Configuration 2 lanes or 3 lanes with raised median 3 lanes without raised median 4 lanes with raised median 6 lanes with raised median 4, 5, or 6 lanes without raised median 4 lanes, raised median not feasible BT BT 30 Instreet sign ADT 9,000 9,000<ADT<15,000 15,000<ADT 25,000 25,000< ADT 35,000 posted speed, mph 35 In-street sign In-street sign 4RRFB (or overhea d FB) + 40 RRFB (or FB) + RRFB (or FB) + 4RRFB (or overhead FB) + 4RRFB (or overhead FB) uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended 30 BT BT FB 35 RRFB (or FB) + (consider 4RRFB) 4RRFB (or overhead FB)+ 40 RRFB (or FB) + RRFB (or FB) + 4RRFB (or overhead FB) + PHB+ 45 Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended 30 In-street sign FB 4RRFB (or overhead FB) + 4RRFB (or overhead FB)+ FB 35 RRFB (or FB) + 4RRFB (or overhead FB) + 4RRFB (or overhea d FB) + 40 RRFB (or FB) + RRFB + **4 RRFB (consider PHB)+ **PHB+ 45 Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended 30 In-street sign RRFB (or FB) + 4 RRFB (or overhead FB)+ PHB+ CSOR 35 RRFB (or FB) + RRFB (or FB) + ** PHB + CSOR ** PHB + CSOR 40 RRFB (or FB) + **PHB+ CSOR **PHB+ CSOR **PHB+ CSOR 45 Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended ADT>35, to 45 Consider pedestrian refuge island or road diet, if feasible. If raised median, or road diet is feasible then follow the recommendations for the above lane configurations, other wise follow the recommendation below for 4-lane without raised median to decide pedestrian crossing treatments, providing uncontrolled crossings of more than four lanes without a raised median is not recommended PHB+ CSOR RRFB (or overhead FB)+ PHB +CSOR RRFB (or overhead FB)+ BT= Basic Treatment (W11-2 with W16-7P) In-street sign= In-street stop for pedestrian sign (R1-6a); Overhead sign= Overhead crossing sign (R1-9a) may be used based on engineering judgment = Advanced stop line and sign (R1-5b and R1-5c) FB= Pedestrian activated flashing beacon (pole mounted) RRFB= Non-median installation of RRFB; 4 RRFB= Median installation of RRFB PHB=Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon; CSOR=Crosswalk Stop on Red line and sign PHB +CSOR ** PHB+ CSOR PHB +CSOR ** PHB +CSOR **PHB +CSOR Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended 15

16 16 *= Lane configuration includes turn lanes, through lane, and bi-directional lanes. **= Check IL MUTCD signal warrants and consider the feasibility of a grade-separated crossings. Pedestrian hybrid beacons, when installed, create a controlled crossing. Check PHB warrants and comply with IL MUTCD. If PHB is not warranted then consider signal or grade separated crossing. Recommended minimum treatments at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings (cont.) Notes: 1. These treatments are recommended for existing uncontrolled crossings where enhancement is sought, and for new uncontrolled crossings where an engineering study indicates a clear warrant for a crossing. 2. Provision of lighting is recommended at midblock crossings. Refer to (Section 6.3.3) for guidance on lighting requirements for pedestrian crossings. 3. Ensure that adequate sight distance is provided for both drivers and pedestrians at uncontrolled crossings. Refer to (Section 6.1.4) for guidance. 4. At densely developed urban areas and on multi-lane roadway (4 or more lanes), curb extension should be considered when street parking is allowed and posted speed limit is 35 mph. 5. Uncontrolled crosswalk is not recommended if the speed limit is above 40 mph. 6. RRFB shouldn t be installed within 300 ft. of a traffic signal. 7. At places where motorists do not expect crossing (mid-blocks and crossings in rural areas) and in school zones, advanced warning signs with AHEAD/distance plaque (W16-9P or W16-2P) should be considered.

17 Recommended Crosswalk Patterns at Uncontrolled Locations (Zegeer, et al., 2005(b)) 17 Section 4: Other safety considerations Crosswalk Pattern

18 18 Section 4: Other safety considerations (cont.) Bus Stop Location Placement of bus stop on the far side of the crossing (PEDSAFE, 2017)

19 19 Section 4: Other safety considerations (cont.) Crosswalk Lighting Midblock crosswalk lighting layout (Gibbons, et al., 2008)

20 20 Section 4: Other safety considerations (cont.) Use of Highlighted Pole and Dual Back-to-Back Display Pedestrian Crossing Sign (Dual back-to-back Display) at North Clark St, Chicago Retroreflective Signpost along IL 23, Rochester, IL.

21 21 Section 4: Other safety considerations (cont.) Education Program Sequence for a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (FHWA, 2009)

22 Pedestrian signs used in Conjunction with Fencing (FHWA, 2009) Section 5: Additional Treatments Fencing is recommended at Locations that Meet the pedestrian crossing need requirement, especially with documented B or more severe pedestrian crashes; and Don t meet minimum crosswalk spacing requirement, and Don t meet minimum requirements of speed, or crossing distance, or sight distance. Corresponding pedestrian signs should be used in conjunction with the fencing to guide pedestrians to nearby crossings. 22

23 23 Section 5: Additional Treatments Grade Separated Crossing Locations with large pedestrian generators/attractions, high pedestrian and traffic conflicts, especially with documented B and more severe pedestrian crashes, but don t meet the minimum requirements for at-grade crossing of speed limit (speed limit>40 mph) or crossing distance (more than six lanes) or sight distance Pedestrian warrants for a traffic signal is met, but the decision is made not to have a traffic signal, and the location doesn t meet the minimum requirements for at-grade crossing because of speed limit (speed limit>40 mph) and/or crossing distance (more than six lanes) The proposed sites should be at least 600 feet from the nearest alternative safe crossing

24 24 Examples 1. Evaluate candidate sites for uncontrolled pedestrian crossing 2. Selection of appropriate treatments at uncontrolled locations 3. Evaluate existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations and treatments

25 1. Evaluate Candidate Sites Example 1-Peoria SW Jefferson St. with Harrison St. Crash History A- Injury =1 C-Injury =2 Established pedestrian generator/attractor Traffic Speed, mph 30 Adequate sight distance & lighting Proposed crosswalk location 300 ft. away from the nearest crosswalk** Number of lanes 25 Bus hub, bank, Peoria civic center Yes Distance between two adjacent intersections are 770 ft. Undivided three lanes (one way ) Traffic Volume 9200 (2012) Conclusion Crosswalk is recommended

26 26 Example 2-Champaign Springfield Ave.with S. Fair St. Crash History Fatal =1 B-Injury =1 Established pedestrian generator/attractor Speed Limit, mph 35 Adequate sight distance Proposed crosswalk location 300 ft. away from the nearest crosswalk Number of lanes Restaurant, grocery stores, bus stop, ATM, residential units Yes Yes Undivided Five lanes (one BDLT) Traffic Volume 13,800(2015) Conclusion Crosswalk is recommended if installation of Raised median/road diet is possible

27 27 Example 3- Chicago N. Clark St. with W. Buckingham Pl. Traffic Volume 9600(2014) Established pedestrian generator/attractor Speed Limit, mph 25 Adequate sight distance Proposed crosswalk location 300 ft. away from the nearest crosswalk Number of lanes Restaurant, grocery shop, residential area Yes 290 ft, (but in urban environment) Undivided two lanes Traffic Volume 9600(2014) Conclusion Crosswalk is recommended

28 2. Selection of Appropriate Treatments Example 1-Peoria 28 SW Jefferson St. with Harrison St. ADT 9200 (2012) Speed Limit, 30 mph Number of lanes Conclusion Undivided three lanes (one way ) Marked crosswalk with warning sign is recommended

29 Example 2-Champaign 29 Springfield Ave.with S. fair St ADT 13,800(2015) Traffic Speed, mph Number of lanes Conclusion 35 Undivided Four lanes RM+ or RRFB+ If median is feasible If median is not feasible

30 Example 3- Chicago 30 N. Clark St. with W. Buckingham Pl. ADT 9600(2014) Speed Limit, mph Number of lanes Conclusion 25 Undivided two lanes Marked crosswalk with warning sign is recommended

31 31 Example 1 3. Assessment of Existing Treatments NE Monroe Street with Mary St. Peoria ADT= 1900, speed= 30 mph, Lane= 2 Existing Treatment= BT+ FB Recommended = BT Current treatment is more than the suggested Continental pattern is recommended On-street parking restriction in front of crosswalk is recommended

32 32 Example 2 US Business 51 (Main St.), Champaign ADT= (2015), speed= 30 mph, Lane = 4 (with Raised median) Existing Treatment= BT with Raised Median Recommended = RRFB + Current treatment is less than the suggested

33 33 Example 3 N Clark St. with W. Roslyn Pl. Chicago ADT= 19200(2014), speed= 25 mph, Lane = 2 Existing Treatment= BT+ In-street crossing sign Recommended = BT+ In-street crossing sign Consistent with the guidelines

34 34 Example 4 N Pulaski Rd. with W Van Buren St. Chicago ADT= 17,900 (2014), speed= 20 mph, Lane = 2 Existing Treatment= MC alone Recommended = BT+ In-street crossing sign Current treatment is less than the suggested

35 35 Example 5 W Lawrence Ave. with Olcott Ave. Cook County ADT= 17,600 (2014), speed= 35 mph, Lane = 5 (Undivided, one left turn lane) Existing Treatment= MC (brick paver) alone Recommended = Raised Median +RRFB + Current treatment is less than the suggested

36 36 Example 6 Illinois Rte. 29 with Taft Dr. Rochester ADT= 13,000 (2015), speed= 45 mph, Lane = 4 (Divided) Speed limit is over 40 mph Uncontrolled crosswalk is not recommended

37 Thank You! 37