EVALAUTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED COUNTERMEASURES ON PEDESTRIAN SAFETY (TRB Paper # )

Transcription

1 EVALAUTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED COUNTERMEASURES ON PEDESTRIAN SAFETY (TRB Paper # -) Srinivas S. Pulugurtha, Ph.D., P.E. (Corresponding Author) Associate Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering Assistant Director of Center for Transportation Policy Studies The University of North Carolina at Charlotte 0 University City Boulevard Charlotte, NC -000, USA Phone: ; sspulugurtha@uncc.edu Vinod Vasudevan, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Kanpur 00, India Phone: + --0; vinodv@iitk.ac.in Shashi S. Nambisan, Ph.D., P.E. Director, Institute for Transportation Professor of Civil Engineering Iowa State University South Loop Drive, Suite 00 Ames, IA 000-, USA Phone: + --0; shashi@iastate.edu Mukund R. Dangeti, Ph.D., E.I. Assistant Research Professor Transportation Research Center University of Nevada, Las Vegas 0 S. Maryland Parkway, Box 00 Las Vegas, NV -00, USA Phone: + 0--; mukund.dangeti@unlv.edu Total Word Count:,0 (Text) + (Figures/Tables) * 0 =, Submitted for Publication and Presentation at the Transportation Research Board st Annual Meeting January -, 0, Washington, D.C.

2 Pulugurtha et al Evaluating the Effectiveness of Infrastructure-based Countermeasures on Pedestrian Safety Srinivas S. Pulugurtha, Vinod Vasudevan, Shashi S. Nambisan, and Mukund R. Dangeti ABSTRACT This paper summarizes an evaluation of the effectiveness of selected infrastructure-based countermeasures to enhance pedestrian safety. These countermeasures are both pedestrianoriented and driver-oriented. The countermeasures evaluated in this paper are high-visibility crosswalk, median refuge, Danish offset, and pedestrian channelization. The selected countermeasures were deployed at eight locations in the Las Vegas metropolitan area in Nevada. The evaluations are based on field observations of pedestrian and driver behaviors before and after the installation of the countermeasures. Their effectiveness was evaluated using pedestrians trapped in the street, pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross, pedestrians who looked for vehicles before crossing nd half of the street, captured pedestrians, diverted pedestrians (those who had to go out of their way to use the crosswalk or changed their course of action), drivers yielding to pedestrians, distance driver yielded or stopped before the crosswalk, and driver blocking the crosswalk as the measures of effectiveness. Results obtained show that high-visibility crosswalk and median refuge help improve pedestrian as well as driver behavior, while Danish offset was observed to increase diverted pedestrians and reduce pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street. An increase in the distance at which drivers stopped/yielded for pedestrians was observed at sites with these countermeasures. Results obtained based on analysis of data at the site with pedestrian channelization are inconclusive. Keywords: pedestrian, safety, countermeasures, infrastructure, high-visibility crosswalk, median, Danish offset, channelization, traffic, behavior, evaluation INTRODUCTION Literature documents several efforts to evaluate and identify countermeasures that enhance safety of pedestrians on roads [-0]. These countermeasures could be broadly categorized into traffic signs/marking-, signals-, intelligent transportation systems- and infrastructure-based countermeasures. These countermeasures are aimed at enhancing safety by changing either motorist behavior or pedestrian behavior or both. This paper focuses on the effectiveness of infrastructure-based countermeasures to enhance pedestrian safety. The selected infrastructurebased countermeasures analyzed in this paper are: ) high-visibility crosswalk, ) median refuge, Associate Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 0 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC -000, USA; Phone: ; sspulugurtha@uncc.edu Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, 00, India; Phone: + --0; vinodv@iitk.ac.in Director, Institute for Transportation, Iowa State University, So Loop Drive, Suite 00, Ames, IA 000- USA; Phone: + --0; shashi@iastate.edu Assistant Research Professor, Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 0 S. Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV -00, USA; Phone: ; mukund.dangeti@unlv.edu

3 Pulugurtha et al ) Danish offset, and ) pedestrian channelization. These devices were installed at eight different sites, some individually and others in combination with other countermeasures. To evaluate the effectiveness of these devices, pedestrian and driver behavior were recorded and analyzed. The paper is based on data collected as a part of a pilot project on identifying engineering countermeasures to enhance pedestrian safety. The countermeasures evaluated in this paper were deployed between the years 00 and 00. DESCRIPTION OF COUNTERMEASURES A description of each infrastructure-based countermeasure selected for evaluation and discussion in this paper is presented next. High-visibility Crosswalk Treatment High-visibility crosswalks are used to enhance visibility (Figure (a)) and minimize inappropriate perceptions between the pedestrians and the motorists. It is also expected to encourage more number of pedestrians to use crosswalks. The problems that this countermeasure typically addresses include: ) pedestrians not using the crosswalks, ) inconspicuous crosswalks, ) motorists failure to yield, and, ) pedestrians failure to yield. Median refuge Median refuges (Figure (b)) are raised barriers in the center portion of the street that serve as a place of refuge for pedestrians who cross a street at a mid-block location or an intersection. The median, in turn, also helps to reduce the speed of vehicles. They also have benefits for motorist safety when they replace center turn lanes. Desired turning movements need to be carefully provided so that motorists are not forced to travel on inappropriate routes, such as residential streets, or make unsafe U-turns []. The problems that this countermeasure typically addresses include: ) pedestrian trapped in the middle of street, and, ) motorists failure to yield. Danish offset Danish offset (Figure (c)) is the use of an offset at the middle of a multilane crossing to ensure that pedestrians are facing the next half of traffic before crossing the nd half of the street. In addition, it also provides a median refuge to pedestrians. The problems that this countermeasure typically addresses include: ) pedestrian trapped in the middle of street, ) pedestrians failure to yield, and, ) pedestrians not waiting for acceptable gaps. Pedestrian channelization Pedestrian channelization (Figure (d)) is commonly used where the safe direction of pedestrian traffic is required. It is also seen at construction sites and roadway works. This countermeasure can also be used as a safety barrier to separate vehicles and people. The problems that this countermeasure typically addresses include: ) pedestrians not using crosswalks, ) pedestrians trapped in the middle of street, ) pedestrians failure to yield, and, ) pedestrians not waiting for signals/acceptable gaps.

4 Pulugurtha et al. a. High-visibility Crosswalk. b. Median Refuge. 0 b. Danish Offset. d. Pedestrian Channelization. FIGURE Infrastructure-based Countermeasures.

5 Pulugurtha et al LITERATURE REVIEW A discussion on the existing studies on infrastructure-based countermeasures is presented in this section. To make crosswalks more visible and/or to increase motorist yielding, some local agencies use high-visibility crosswalks and various types of signs to supplement the crosswalk marking []. High-visibility crosswalk treatments such as ladder-style crosswalk were observed to have a positive effect on pedestrian and driver behavior at low-speed crossings [0]. A recent study on the efficacy of high-visibility school (yellow, continental-style) crosswalks in the city of San Francisco, California found a statistically significant reduction in the numbers of collisions at the intersections with high-visibility crosswalks. The estimated reduction is percent, with the percent confidence interval ranging from percent to 0 percent. However, their efficacy along wide high speed streets was not explored much in the past []. Providing raised medians or pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossings at marked crosswalks has demonstrated a percent reduction in pedestrian crashes. At unmarked crosswalk locations, pedestrian crashes have been reduced by percent. Installing raised pedestrian refuge islands on the approaches of unsignalized intersections has had the most impact in reducing pedestrian crashes. They are more suitable in areas with significant number of pedestrians, high volumes of traffic (more than,000 vehicles per day), and intermediate or high travel speeds []. This countermeasure provides pedestrians with a risk-free waiting area to complete two-step crossings []. Strong and Kumar [] analyzed motorist and pedestrian behavior to determine the effectiveness of yield-to-pedestrian channelizing devices (YTPCD) in improving pedestrian safety. Their analysis generally showed improvements in pedestrian safety. The effects were more evident at intersections than at mid-block crossings, and did not appear to be related to community type. Spillover effects were comparable at intersections, but less pronounced at midblock crossings. Overall, infrastructure-based countermeasures such as high-visibility crosswalks, median refuge and pedestrian channelization have existed for some time now. However, there is limited published literature on the evaluation of these treatments. No research documenting the effectiveness of Danish offset in influencing pedestrian and driver actions was found. There is a need to research and document the effect of these countermeasures on safety to make better and informed decisions for large-scale implementation in the future.

6 Pulugurtha et al SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION The selected infrastructure-based were deployed individually or in combination with other countermeasures at different sites. The deployment sites are: Maryland Parkway/Sierra Vista Drive, Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street, Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash, Fremont Street/ th Street, Flamingo Road/Koval Lane, Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street, Lake Mead Boulevard/Las Vegas Boulevard, Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran Street, and Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to th Street. A summary of surrounding land use, on-network and crash characteristics, problems identified and countermeasures selected for each site is shown in Table. Table shows information regarding countermeasures, location, and implementation strategy at each of the sites. STUDY METHODOLOGY This study adopted a before and after study approach, with field observations of pedestrian and driver behaviors, and statistical analysis of the data to evaluate the selected infrastructure-based countermeasures. The evaluation focused on pedestrian behavior and driver compliance (yielding or stopping) at marked crosswalks. Field observations were conducted by trained observers who manually recorded data needed to quantify the desired measures of effectiveness (MOEs). Table summarizes deployment of countermeasures. Stage of deployment indicates at which stage that countermeasure was deployed at the particular site. For example, the countermeasure high-visibility crosswalk treatment was deployed at the site Maryland Parkway/Sierra Vista Drive on stage (of a total of stages) of deployment of all countermeasures. As shown in Table, high-visibility crosswalk was one of the countermeasures which were deployed at all of the sites. At two of the sites, median refuge was deployed along with high-visibility crosswalk as one of the additional countermeasure. At both the sites Danish offset was deployed, high-visibility crosswalk was also deployed along with it. Pedestrian channelization was deployed after deployment of high-visibility crosswalk. In terms of context, these efforts were part of a pedestrian safety program funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The goals of this program were to identify, develop, deploy, and evaluate pedestrian safety countermeasures to help improve pedestrian safety (minimize risk) and walkability. Therefore, the MOEs were designed from a broader perspective so as to permit comparisons with other efforts supported by FHWA, and to facilitate potential implementation of successful strategies at other locations.

7 Pulugurtha et al. Table : Details of sites selected Site # Traffic Operational Features (Street Analysis of Crash / Street ) Site Landuse Data (Pedestrain Issues Identified Functional Speed ADT # Involved Only) Class Limits (Major) Lanes Maryland Pkwy/ Sierra Vista Dr Maryland Pkwy/Dumont St Harmon Ave: Paradise Rd to Tropicana Wash Flamingo Rd/ Koval Ln Residential/ Commercial Commercial Residential / Commercial / Recreational Residential / Commercial Minor 0 mph / Arterial / mph Local Road Minor 0 mph / Arterial / mph Local Road Minor Arterial Major Arterial / Minor Arterial,000 /,000 / mph,00 mph / mph 0,00 / crashes; % PFY ; 0% MFY ; % in the age group of 0- yr; crashes; % PFY; % in the age group < yr; % in the age group > yr; crashes % PFY % in the age group < yr % at nonintersection crashes; % MFY; % in the age group < yr; % during daytime;. Pedestrians not using the crosswalk. Inconspicuous crosswalks. Pedestrians trapped in the middle of street. High proportion of elderly pedestrians involved in crashes. Inconspicuous pedestrian signals due to wide streets. Pedestrians not waiting for signal or acceptable gap before crossing the street. Drivers failing to yield. Pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street. Conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrians not waiting for signal or acceptable gap before crossing the street. Drivers failing to yield. Conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Drivers failing to yield. High proportion of nighttime crashes. Inconspicuous crosswalks. Hhigh proportion of elderly pedestrians involved in crashes. Pedestrians not waiting for signal or acceptable gap. High pedestrian/right turning vehicle conflicts Infratructurebased Countermeasures Selected HVCT HVCT, DO HVCT, MR HVCT Bonanza Rd: D St Commercial to F St Minor Arterial mph 0,00 crashes; % in the age group 0- yr; 0% at nonintersection;. Pedestrians not using the crosswalks. Inconspicuous crosswalks. Pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street while crossing. Motorists failing to yield. Pedestrians failing to yield. Pedestrians not waiting for signal or acceptable gap before crossing the street HVCT, PC Lake Mead Blvd/ Las Vegas Blvd Residential / Commercial Major Arterial / Major Arterial mph / mph,000 / crashes; % PFY; % MFY; % in the age group of - yr;. Pedestrians not using crosswalks. Inconspicuous crosswalks. High proportion of elderly pedestrians involved in crashes. Inconspicuous pedestrian signals due to wide streets HVCT Lake Mead Blvd: Belmont St to McCarran St Residential Major Arterial mph,000 crashes; % in the age group < yr; % in the age group 0- yr; % during daytime;. High proportion of elderly pedestrians involved in crashes. Motorists failing to yield. pedestrians not waiting for signal or acceptable gap before crossing the street. High proportion of nighttime crashes HVCT, DO Charleston Blvd: Spencer St to th St Residential / Commercial Major Arterial mph,00. Pedestrians not using the crosswalks.high proportion of elderly pedestrian involved in crashes. Motorists failing to yield. Pedestrians not waiting for signal or acceptable gap before crossing the street. High proportion of nighttime crashes HVCT - Pedestrians' Failure to Yield - Motorists' Failure to Yield - High-visibility Crosswalk Treatment - Danish Offset - Median Refuge - Pedestrian Channelization

8 Pulugurtha et al. Countermeasure High-visibility crosswalk treatment Median refuge TABLE Summary of Countermeasure Deployment Location(s) Stage of deployment Deployed along with Deployed after Maryland Parkway/Sierra Vista Drive / RLEPS, RPM -- Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street / RPM, DO, MR -- Harmon Avenue: Paradise Road to Tropicana Wash / MR -- Flamingo Road/Koval Lane / Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street / -- IRKS Lake Mead Boulevard/Las Vegas Boulevard / Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran Street / RBSLC, MR, DO, -- AYM Charleston Boulevard: Spencer Street to th Street / WSMP, AYM -- Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street / RPM, DO, HVCT Flamingo Road/Koval Lane / HVCT -- RBSLC, HVCT, Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran Street / -- DO, AYM Maryland Parkway/Dumont Street / RPM, MR, HVCT -- Danish Offset Lake Mead Boulevard: Belmont Street to McCarran Street / RBSLC, HVCT, Pedestrian Channelization Bonanza Road: D Street to F Street / MR, -- AYM IRKS, HVCT RLEPS RPM DO MR IRKS RBSLC AYM WSMP HVCT Relocate existing pedestrian sign RPM 00 ft along upstream (longitudinal approaching the crosswalk) Danish Offset Median refuge In-roadway knockdown signs Relocated bus stop locations and crosswalks Advance yield markings & yield to pedestrian sign Warning signs for motorists/pedestrians High-visibility crosswalk treatment 0 0 DATA COLLECTION AND EXPERIMENT DESIGN Trained observers collected data for both before and after scenario on weekdays during morning and evening peak hours between :00 to :00 a.m. and :00 to :00 p.m., respectively. For the after condition, data were collected no earlier than three weeks after the installation of the countermeasures. This was to minimize any novelty effects. The observers were located close to the crosswalk in order to have a good view of the pedestrians and drivers but were stationed such that their presence would not influence the behaviors. Observations were made to record data which were used to quantify the corresponding MOEs. A. Pedestrians trapped in the street B. Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross C. Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before crossing the nd half of the street D. Percent of captured pedestrians E. Percent of diverted pedestrians (those who had to go out of their way to use the crosswalk or changed their course of action) F. Drivers yielding to pedestrians G. Distance driver yielded or stopped before the crosswalk H. Drivers blocking the crosswalk A description of each of the above listed MOE follows. A. Pedestrians Trapped in the Street Pedestrians are scored as trapped in the middle at the centerline or between lanes if they have to wait to finish crossing. The number of pedestrians who are trapped for at least seconds in the

9 Pulugurtha et al middle of uncontrolled locations is counted. The observers used stopwatch during observation. These observations were verified in the lab using video recorded data. This is generally the result of pedestrians selecting a gap that is too small for them to completely cross the road before encountering approaching traffic. These data are converted into the percentage of total observed pedestrians. B. Percent of Pedestrians Who Looked for Vehicles before Beginning to Cross Pedestrians who visually looked in the direction of a potential threat before stepping off the curb into the street are scored for this MOE. A noticeable scan to their left must be observed before starting to cross for a look to be scored. The data are evaluated in terms of percent of pedestrians who crossed the street. Possible bias that could arise if pedestrians use eye movement rather than turning their head were ignored as anecdotal evidence indicated that most pedestrians in the study area turned their head instead of relying on eye movement. C. Percent of Pedestrians Who Looked for Vehicles before Crossing the nd Half of the Street This MOE is the percent of pedestrians who, at the centerline/center of the street, visibly scanned for vehicles before continuing to cross the nd half of the street. Like in the previous case, a noticeable scan must be observed for a look to be scored. To look for a vehicle, the pedestrian must noticeably look to the right before beginning to cross the nd half of the street. D. Percent of Captured Pedestrians This MOE is the percent of pedestrians who modified their paths to use a safety countermeasure, but who do not go out of their way to do so. Here, the pedestrians within 00 ft away from the intersections were observed. E. Percent of Diverted Pedestrians This MOE is the percent of pedestrians who modified their paths or changed their course of action to use a safety countermeasure, and who walk out of their way to do so. These pedestrians would have had to walk some additional distance to reach their destination, since the subject crossing would not in their shortest path. F. Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians This MOE is the percent of drivers who stopped or slowed to allow pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk to proceed in front of the driver before the driver proceeded to travel across the crosswalk. To evaluate this MOE, only the percent of individual vehicles (or lead vehicles in platoons) that yield to pedestrians were observed and considered. G. Distance Driver Yielded or Stopped Before the Crosswalk The distance a driver stopped upstream of a crosswalk at an intersection is the distance between the front bumper of the stopped vehicle and the painted crosswalk. The distance a driver yielded at a mid-block crosswalk is the distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk when the driver first begins to brake in advance of the mid-block crossing. To score the distance a driver yielded to a pedestrian, a crossing pedestrian must be present (either on the curb about to cross or already crossing in the crosswalk) as should a vehicle with the opportunity to cross the pedestrian s path.

10 Pulugurtha et al Only the yielding distance of the first vehicle in a platoon of vehicles was recorded (the distances of any vehicles queued behind the yielding vehicle were not scored nor were they counted as a vehicle present in the percent calculation). To measure the distance a driver yields upstream of a mid-block crosswalk, marks were placed on the curb or in the street at 0-foot intervals upstream of the crosswalk. The distance of the furthest mark behind which the driver begins stopped was recorded. H. Drivers Blocking the Crosswalk The number of drivers blocking the crosswalk at the intersections and mid-block locations was noted. A vehicle is scored as blocking the crosswalk when it encroaches the crosswalk. These data are expressed as a percent of all the observed motor vehicles. Since all the countermeasures are expected to address similar behaviors of pedestrians and motorists, all these MOEs are applicable to all the selected countermeasures. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The z-test for two proportions, a statistical analysis technique, was used to determine if the proportions obtained during the two study periods are significantly different. As an example, the null hypothesis (H 0 ) is that the difference between the percent of drivers yielding during the after period (P A ) and before period (P B ) is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis (H a ) is that the difference between the percent of drivers yielding during the after period (P A ) and before period (P B ) is greater than zero. They are expressed as follows: H 0 : P A - P B = 0 H a : P A - P B > 0 where, P B = proportion (percent as a fraction) of vehicles yielding during the before period, and, P A = proportion (percent as a fraction) of vehicles yielding during the after period. A one-tailed test was used to test the null hypothesis at a percent confidence level (P < 0.0). So, the null hypothesis is rejected if the P-value < 0.0. It is expected that the null hypothesis would be rejected in case of all the MOEs except pedestrians trapped in the street and drivers blocking the crosswalk. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A discussion based on results from analysis of field data and the statistical tests are reported in this section. The analyses are based on pedestrian and driver behavior related MOEs. Tables to summarize results obtained for high-visibility crosswalk, median refuge, Danish offset and pedestrian channelization, respectively. In the tables, observations pertaining to an MOE are represented as X B and X A for before and after periods, while the total number of observations is represented as N B and N A. P B and P A represent the proportion of observations for before and after periods, while P-value and Ho represent level of significance (probability value) and null hypothesis.

11 Pulugurtha et al High-visibility Crosswalk Treatment As discussed previously, high-visibility crosswalk was deployed individually and in combination with other countermeasures (infrastructure-based). It was, generally, deployed in stage (Table ) in case of individual treatments, while along with others in case of combined deployments. Both the scenarios were evaluated separately to test its relative effectiveness. Results from evaluations are shown in Table. Pedestrian MOEs Individual deployment of high-visibility crosswalk produced a statistically significant improvement in the proportion of pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross. The results obtained from analyzing the effectiveness of high-visibility crosswalk, in combination with other infrastructure-based countermeasures, indicate significant increase in the proportion of pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross. There was no significant improvement in the proportion of captured or diverted pedestrians. However, it could be seen that the proportional values of these data were already higher to start with, hence making significant improvements harder to achieve. The proportion of pedestrians trapped in the street also showed statistically significant improvement. However, the proportion of pedestrian trapped in the middle of the street was observed to be lower than expected at the study locations. Driver MOEs A significant improvement in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians was observed after the installation high-visibility crosswalks along with other infrastructure-based countermeasures than when they are installed on its own. Data show a significant increase in the distance at which drivers stopped/yielded to pedestrians in case of both individual and combined deployments. No significant improvement in drivers blocking crosswalk was observed. Median refuge Median refuge was typically deployed in combination with high-visibility crosswalk. Results from evaluations are shown in Table. Pedestrian MOEs The results obtained from analyzing the effectiveness of median refuge indicate a significant increase in the proportion of pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross the street. There was no significant improvement in the proportion of captured or diverted pedestrians. The proportion of pedestrians trapped in the street also did not show any significant improvement. In general, the percent of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street were observed to be very low. Driver MOEs A significant increase in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians was observed at sites with median refuge. In addition, observations showed a significant increase in the distance at which drivers stopped/yielded to pedestrians. No significant improvement in drivers blocking crosswalk was observed.

12 Pulugurtha et al. TABLE MOEs and Results Summary - High-visibility Crosswalk Before After Statistical Results Measures of Effectiveness N B X B N A X A P A P B P-value H 0 Pedestrians Individual Evaluation Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross Motorists Drivers yielding to pedestrians Distance driver yielded or stopped before the crosswalk Drivers blocking the crosswalk Pedestrians <0.00 Reject -0.0 >0.0 Do not Reject < ft -0. >0.0 Do not Reject -0 ft 0 0. <0.00 Reject >0 ft 0.0 <0.0 Reject 0. <0.00 Reject Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross 0 0. <0.00 Reject Combined Evaluation Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before crossing the nd half of the street Captured pedestrians Diverted pedestrians Pedestrians trapped in the street Motorists Measures of Effectiveness Drivers yielding to pedestrians Distance driver yielded or stopped before the crosswalk Drivers blocking the crosswalk <0.00 Reject >0.0 Do not Reject 0.0 >0.0 Do not Reject 0.0 <0.0 Reject 0. <0.00 Reject < 0 feet 0. <0.00 Reject 0-0 feet 0.0 <0.00 Reject >0 feet 0.0 <0.00 Reject 0 -

13 Pulugurtha et al. TABLE MOEs and Results Summary - Median Refuge Before After Statistical Results Measures of Effectiveness N B X B N A X A P A P B P-value H 0 Pedestrians Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross <0.00 Reject 0 Combined Evaluation Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before crossing the nd half of the street Captured pedestrians Diverted pedestrians Pedestrians trapped in the street Motorists Drivers yielding to pedestrians Distance driver yielded or stopped before the crosswalk Drivers blocking crosswalk 0.0 <0.00 Reject -0.0 >0.0 Do not Reject 0.0 >0.0 Do not Reject 0.0 >0.0 Do not Reject 0 0. <0.00 Reject < 0 feet 0 0. <0.00 Reject 0-0 feet 0. <0.00 Reject >0 feet 0 0. <0.00 Reject <0.00 Reject Danish offset Danish offset was deployed in combination with high-visibility crosswalk at two study sites. Results from evaluations are shown in Table. Pedestrian MOEs The results obtained from analyzing the effectiveness of Danish offset, in combination with highvisibility crosswalk and advanced yield markings, indicate no significant changes in the proportion of pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross the street. However, there was a significant improvement in the proportion of diverted pedestrians. The proportion of pedestrians trapped in the street also did not show significant improvement. Driver MOEs There was a significant improvement in the proportion of drivers who yielded to pedestrians at sites with Danish offset. Observations also showed a significant increase in the distance at which drivers stopped/yielded to pedestrians.

14 Pulugurtha et al. TABLE MOEs and Results Summary - Danish Offset Before After Statistical Results Measures of Effectiveness N B X B N A X A P A P B P-value H 0 Pedestrians Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross >0.0 Do not Reject 0 0 Combined Evaluation Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before crossing the nd half of the street Captured pedestrians Diverted pedestrians Pedestrians trapped in the street Motorists Drivers yielding to pedestrians Distance driver yielded or stopped before the crosswalk -0.0 >0.0 Do not Reject -0. >0.0 Do not Reject 0 0. <0.00 Reject -0.0 >0.0 Do not Reject 0. <0.00 Reject < 0 feet 0.0 <0.00 Reject 0-0 feet 0. <0.00 Reject >0 feet 0 0. <0.00 Reject Pedestrian Channelization Pedestrian channelization was deployed in combination with other countermeasures (infrastructure-based) at one study site. Results from evaluations are shown in Table. Pedestrian MOEs All the observed pedestrians looked for vehicles before crossing the street at this site (both before and after). The results obtained showed no significant improvement in the proportion of capture or diverted pedestrians. Likewise, no significant improvement was observed in the proportion of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street as well. Prior to evaluation of this countermeasure, immediately after its deployment, a portion of the fence used as channelization was removed without the approval of agency by a parcel owner. This opening was sufficient for pedestrians to use as an access point, which defeated the whole purpose of implementing this countermeasure. Therefore, the data collected and analyzed on this countermeasure may not indicate meaningful interpretation of its effectiveness. Driver MOEs No improvement in the proportion of drivers yielding to pedestrians was observed after the installation of pedestrian channelization.

15 Pulugurtha et al TABLE MOEs and Results Summary Pedestrian Channelization Combined Evaluation Measures of Effectiveness Pedestrians Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before beginning to cross Pedestrians who looked for vehicles before crossing the nd half of the street Captured pedestrians Diverted pedestrians Pedestrians trapped in the street Motorists Drivers yielding to pedestrians Before After N B X B N A X A P A P B P-value H No Change No Change Statistical Results >0.0 Do not Reject >0.0 Do not Reject >0.0 Do not Reject >0.0 Do not Reject CONCLUSIONS Pedestrian and driver behavior at eight sites with four infrastructure-based countermeasures (high-visibility crosswalk, median refuge, Danish offset and pedestrian channelization) are evaluated and discussed in this paper. Due to the nature of countermeasures, median refuge and Danish offset could not be evaluated individually since the crosswalk needs to be marked to make it conspicuous. Therefore, only their combined effects are evaluated in this paper. The results from field observations and statistical analyses show that the implementation of high-visibility crosswalk treatments improved behavior of both pedestrians and motorists. This shows that simple solutions such as making the crosswalk visible to both motorists and pedestrians could improve the safety of users significantly. It is one of the most economical treatments. The evaluation of median refuge showed significant improvements in pedestrian yielding and driver yielding behavior. Installation of Danish offset resulted in a significant reduction in proportion of pedestrians trapped in the street. An increase in the proportion of pedestrians who went out of their way to use the crosswalk or changed their course of action was observed at the sites with Danish offset. This could be attributed to Danish offsets ability to assist pedestrians in making informative decisions. Danish offset has all the advantages as that of median refuge. In addition, it helps make face-to-face visual contact between motorists and pedestrians. An increase in the distance at which drivers stopped/yielded to pedestrians was observed at sites with median refuge and Danish offset. Pedestrian channelization failed to provide any improvements in either pedestrian or motorist behavior. This could be partly attributed to the removal of a portion of the fence prior to its evaluation. Therefore, the results from this countermeasure are inconclusive. The observations and data analysis show that infrastructure-based countermeasures such as high-visibility crosswalk, median refuge and Danish offset are very effective in improving both pedestrian and motorist behavior. Improving visibility of crosswalks is a cost effective solution with significant potential to enhance safety. By providing a space for pedestrians to safely wait in the middle of the street enables motorists to spot the presence of pedestrians, hence, improving their yielding behavior. It also helps reduce pedestrians from getting trapped in

16 Pulugurtha et al the middle of the street. Danish offset sounds more appropriate at locations with sight distance issues (for pedestrians or drivers). Overall, the results indicate that, in general, the infrastructure-based countermeasures evaluated were successful in addressing safety issues discussed in this paper. The results from this study could be used in other cities of similar traffic and demographics to improve safety. Since some of the results from this study were inconclusive because of data related issues, a before and after crash data analysis would provide a better understanding of the effectiveness. REFERENCES. Brilon, W., and H. Blanke. Extensive Traffic Calming: Results of the Accident Analysis in Model Towns. ITE Compendium of Technical Papers. Washington DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers,, pp. -.. Huang, H.F., and M. J. Cynecki. Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 0, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 000, pp. -.. Huang, H., C. Zegeer, and R. Nassi. Effects of Innovative Pedestrian Signs at Unsignalized Locations: Three Treatments. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 0, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 000, pp. -.. Lalani, N. Alternative Treatments for At-grade Pedestrian Crossings. ITE Journal, Vol., No., 00, pp Eccles, A.K., R. Tao, and B. C. Mangum. Evaluation of Pedestrian Countdown Signals in Montgomery County, Maryland. rd Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 00.. Botha, J. L., A. A. Zabyshny, and J. E. Day. Pedestrian Countdown Signals: An Experimental Evaluation Volume. Accessed August 0, 00.. Farraher, B.A.B. Pedestrian Countdown Indication-market Research and Evaluation. compendium.pdf. Accessed August 0, 00.. Turner, S., K. Fitzpatrick, M. Brewer, and E. S. Park. Motorist Yielding to Pedestrians at Unsignalized Intersections. Findings from a National Study on Improving Pedestrian Safety. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No., Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 00, pp. -.. Dangeti, M. R., S. S. Pulugurtha, V. Vasudevan, S. S. Nambisan, and O. C. White Jr. Evaluating ITS-Based Countermeasures: How Effective Are They in Enhancing Pedestrian Safety? th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD-ROM, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Pulugurtha, S. S., S. S. Nambisan, M. Dangeti and V. Vasudevan. Evaluation of Effectiveness of Traffic Signs to Enhance Pedestrian Safety. th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD-ROM, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 00.. Vasudevan, V., S. S. Pulugurtha, S. S. Nambisan and M. Dangeti. Effectiveness of Signalbased Countermeasures on Pedestrian Safety: Findings from a Pilot Study. In Transportation

17 Pulugurtha et al Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. (in press), Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 0.. Ellis, R. and R. Van Houten. Reduction of Pedestrian Fatalities, Injuries, Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures in Miami-Dade, Florida: Results of Large-Scale FHWA Project. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 0, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 00, pp. -.. Hua, J. N. Gutierrez, I. Banerjee, F. Markowitz, and D. R. Ragland. San Francisco PedSafe II Project Outcomes and Lessons Learned. th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD- ROM, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 00.. Miami-Dade Pedestrian Safety Project: Phase II Final Implementation Report and Executive Summary. Accessed July, 00.. Zegeer, C. V., R. D. Blomberg, D. Henderson, S. V. Masten, L. Marchetti, M. M. Levy, Y. Fan, L. S. Sandt, A. Brown, J. Stutts, and L. J. Thomas. Evaluation of Miami-Dade Pedestrian Safety Demonstration Project. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 0, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 00, pp Van Houten, R., R. A. Retting, J. Van Houten, C. M. Farmer, and J. Malenfant. Use of Animation in LED Pedestrian Signals to Improve Pedestrian Safety. ITE Journal,, pp... Van Houten, R., R. D. Ellis Jr, J. Sanda, and J. L. Kim. Pedestrian Push-Button Confirmation Increases Call Button Usage and Compliance. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No., Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 00, pp -0.. Van Houten, R. G., R. D. Ellis Jr, and E. Marmolejo. Stutter-Flash Light-Emitting-Diode Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians at Crosswalks. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 0, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 00, pp. -.. Huang, H., C. Zegeer and R. Nassi. Innovative Treatments at Unsignalized Pedestrian Crossing Locations. ITE 000 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, 000, CD-ROM. 0. Nitzburg, M., & Knoblauch, R. L. (00). An Evaluation of High-visibility Crosswalk Treatments - Clearwater, Florida (Report No. FHWA-RD-00-0). Available Online at: (Accessed July, 0).. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Raised Medians. Webpage: (accessed July, 0).. Feldman, M., J. G. Manzi and F. M. Mitman. Empirical Bayesian Evaluation of Safety Effects of High Visibility School (Yellow) Crosswalks in San Francisco, California. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No., Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 00, pp. -.. Lindley, J. A. Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures. Available Online at: (Accessed November, 0).. Li, L., X. Yang and L. Yin. Exploration of Pedestrian Refuge Effect on Safety Crossing at Signalized Intersection. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No., Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 00, pp. -0.

18 Pulugurtha et al. 0. Strong, C. and M. Kumar. Safety Evaluation of Yield-to-Pedestrian Channelizing Devices: Final Report. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Report # FHWA-PA ), 00. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper was prepared based on information developed from a research project funded by the FHWA under Cooperative Agreement Number DTFH-0-X-00, with matching funds provided by several transportation agencies in Nevada. The support and assistance by these program managers and their consultants in providing comments on the methodology are greatly appreciated. The contributions from other individuals at University of Nevada, Las Vegas who assisted with field observations are also gratefully acknowledged. The authors also thank anonymous reviewers for their comments which helped improve the manuscript. DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of FHWA, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Iowa State University, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, or the any of the other agencies that provided financial or material support.