Guidelines for Pedestrian Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations January 18, PDF Free Download

Est. Dec. 2014 Guidelines for Pedestrian Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations January 18, 2018 Presented by: Kyle Armstrong, Illinois DOT Yan Qi, Southern Illinois University

Webinar Logistics Duration is 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM Mountain Webinar recorded and archived on website. For quality of recording, phone will be muted during presentation If listening on the phone, please mute your computer To maximize the presentation on your screen click the 4 arrows in the top right of the presentation At the end of each section, there will be time for Q&A There is a handout pod at the bottom of the screen Please complete follow-up surveys; they are vital to assessing the webinar quality 2

Today s Presenters Yan Qi, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Kyle Armstrong, P.E., PTOE Acting Engineer of Traffic Operations, Bureau of Operations, Illinois Department of Transportation 3

Goals of this Webinar Once you have completed this webinar, you will be: able to implement pedestrian treatments appropriately at uncontrolled locations in rural and local settings for improved pedestrian safety.

Learning Outcomes To achieve the webinar goal, you will learn: Understand the characteristics of pedestrian safety in rural and local areas. Identify appropriate locations for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. Use the guidelines to select appropriate pedestrian treatment(s) at uncontrolled locations. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing pedestrian treatments at uncontrolled locations. List other non-treatment factors that affect pedestrian safety at uncontrolled locations. 5

Yan Qi, Assistant Prof. Southern Illinois Univ. Edwardsville Understand the characteristics of pedestrian safety in rural and local areas. Identify appropriate locations for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. Use the guidelines to select appropriate pedestrian treatment(s) at uncontrolled locations. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing pedestrian treatments at uncontrolled locations. List other non-treatment factors that affect pedestrian safety at uncontrolled locations. 6

Crash Statistics Compared to urban areas, higher percentage of severe crashes was found in rural areas Variable No/possible injury Minor injury Severe Injury + Fatality Urban 3551 28.82% 6091 49.43% 2681 21.76% Rural 148 15.46% 402 42.01% 407 42.53% Source: Illinois pedestrian crash data at uncontrolled locations (2010-2014)

Rural Areas Characteristics that Affect Pedestrian Safety Open surroundings Less traffic Wide lane width - Motorists are more likely to be speeding; High speed limits - Decrease motorists yielding rates - Increase the chances of severe crashes when crashes occur 8

Rural Areas Characteristics that Affect Pedestrian Safety (Cont.) Wide lane width Multiple lanes Absence of raised median - Increase pedestrians exposure to live traffic Low pedestrian volume - Motorists don t expect pedestrians to cross streets in rural areas as much as in urban areas 9

Other Key Findings Large number of severe crashes occurred at nondesignated pedestrian crossing locations - this indicates that Either there are pedestrian crossing needs, but no marked pedestrian crossings are provided Or the locations are not suitable for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. 10

Other Key Findings (cont.) High percentage of severe crashes occurred during dark conditions - Poor lighting conditions results in poor visibility 11

Directing Your Questions via the Chat Pod 1. Chat pod is on left side of screen between attendees pod & closed caption pod 3. Answers will appear here unless addressed verbally 2. Type your question or comment here

Poll Question #1 What are the possible reasons that higher percentage of severe crashes was found in rural areas than urban areas? A. Motorists are more likely to be speeding with open surroundings, wide lane width, and multiple lanes B. Wide lane width and multiple lanes increase pedestrian exposure to live traffic C. High speed limits decrease yielding rates and increase the chances of severe crashes D. With less pedestrian volume, motorists don t expect pedestrians to cross streets as much as in urban areas E. All of the above F. None of the above G. I don t know/i don t remember 13

Definition of Uncontrolled Locations Midblock locations and intersection approaches without traffic signals or stop/yield signs are considered as uncontrolled locations. 15

Yes Situations for a Marked Crosswalk Crosswalk usage Request from the local government or community Along a walking path towards identified pedestrian generator/destinations Crash record Two B or A- injury crashes in two years or one fatal crash A Incapacitating Injury: Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from walking, driving, or normally continuing the activities he/she was capable of performing before the injury occurred. B Non-incapacitating Injury: Any injury, other than a fatal or incapacitating injury, which is evident to observers at the scene of the crash.

No Situations for a Marked Crosswalk Speed limit Speed limit>40 mph Traffic volume ADT >35,000 vpd Crossing distance Undivided roadways > 4 lanes Divided roadways > 6 lane 17

No Situations (Cont.) 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 18

Poll Question #2 Is it appropriate to have a crosswalk through Jefferson St.? SW Jefferson St. with Harrison St. Peoria, IL C Reported/Not evident: Any injury reported or claimed which is not fatal, A, or B injury. 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 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 20

Poll Question #2 Answer SW Jefferson St. with Harrison St. Peoria, IL 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 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 21

Poll Question #3 Is it appropriate to have a crosswalk through Illinois Rte.29.? Crash History Fatal =1 Illinois Rte. 29 with Taft Dr. Rochester, IL Established pedestrian generator/attractor Speed Limit, mph 45 Adequate sight distance Proposed crosswalk location 300 ft. away from the nearest crosswalk Number of lanes Trail, hospital, and residential units Yes Yes divided Five lanes (one LT lane) Traffic Volume 13,000(2015) Conclusion 22

Poll Question #3 Answer Illinois Rte. 29 with Taft Dr. Rochester, IL Solutions: Conduct a study to check if a controlled pedestrian crossing (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon/Traffic signal) or separate grade crossing is possible. Review appropriate speed limit. Crash History Fatal =1 Established pedestrian generator/attractor Speed Limit, mph 45 Adequate sight distance Proposed crosswalk location 300 ft. away from the nearest crosswalk Number of lanes Trail, hospital, and residential units Yes Yes divided Five lanes (one LT lane) Traffic Volume 13,000(2015) Conclusion Speed limit is over 40 mph Uncontrolled crosswalk is not recommended 23

Kyle Armstrong, Acting Engineer of Traffic Ops. at Illinois DOT Understand the characteristics of pedestrian safety in rural and local areas. Identify appropriate locations for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. Use the guidelines to select appropriate pedestrian treatment(s) at uncontrolled locations. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing pedestrian treatments at uncontrolled locations. List other non-treatment factors that affect pedestrian safety at uncontrolled locations. 24

At-grade Pedestrian Crossing Treatments For Uncontrolled Locations At-grade pedestrian treatment categories Basic Treatments Example Marked crosswalk with warning sign Enhance Treatments Geometric Elements Warning Beacon Control Beacon Advanced stop line and sign In-street crossing sign Overhead crossing sign Curb Extension Road diet Raised median Raised crosswalk (Flashing Beacon) FS (Flashing Pedestrian Crossing sign) PHB (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon) 25

Basic Treatments Marked crosswalk + pedestrian sign Pedestrian Crossing and Warning Signs (FHWA, 2009) 26

Enhanced Treatments Uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk signs Advanced Stop Line and Sign (PEDSAFE, 2017) 27

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) 28

Warning Beacons a) Pole Mounted and b) Overhead Flashing Beacons (Fitzpatrick, et al., 2006) Flashing Pedestrian Crossing Sign (lightguardsystems.com, last accessed Jan 3, 2018) 29

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon PHB treatment at Arizona (Fitzpatrick, et al., 2014) 30

In-Roadway Warning Lights (IRWL) IRWL is included in MUTCD. May be considered as a safety countermeasure. May also have high maintenance costs particularly for high-volume roadways. Source: siliconconstellations.com 31

Recommended Minimum Treatments at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings ADT 9,000 9,000<ADT<15,000 15,000<ADT 25,000 25,000< ADT 35,000 ADT>35,000 posted speed, mph 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 to 45 2 lanes or 3 lanes with raised median 3 lanes without raised median 4 lanes with raised median 5 or 6 lanes with raised median BT BT Instreet sign Instreet sign Instreet sign (or FS) + (or FS) + (or FS) + (or FS) + (or ) + uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended BT BT (or FS) + (consider or FS) (or FS)+ (or FS) + (or FS) + (or FS) + PHB+ CSOR Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended Instreet sign (or FS) + overhead or FS + (or FS) + (or FS) + overhead or FS + (or FS) + (or FS) + ** or FS (consider PHB)+ **PHB+ CSOR Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended Instreet sign (or FS) + (or FS)+ PHB+ CSOR (or FS) + (or FS) + ** PHB + CSOR ** PHB + CSOR (or FS) + **PHB + CSOR **PHB + CSOR **PHB + CSOR Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended 4, 5, or 6 lanes without raised median 4 lanes, raised median not feasible 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 overhead or FS + PHB +CSOR overhead or FS+ PHB +CSOR ** PHB+ CSOR PHB +CSOR ** PHB+ CSOR **PHB +CSOR 32

Recommended Minimum Treatments at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings (cont.) 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) = Pedestrian activated flashing beacon (pole mounted) FS= Flashing Pedestrian Crossing Sign PHB=Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon; CSOR=Crosswalk Stop on Red line and sign *= 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. 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. 3. Ensure that adequate sight distance is provided for both drivers and pedestrians at uncontrolled crossings. 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. 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. 33

Example #1 SW Jefferson St. with Harrison St. Peoria, IL ADT 9200 (2012) Speed Limit, mph Number of lanes Conclusion 30 Undivided three lanes (one way ) 34

Example #1 Answer SW Jefferson St. with Harrison St. Peoria, IL ADT 9,000 9,000<ADT<15,000 15,000<ADT 25,000 25,000< ADT 35,000 ADT>35,000 posted speed, mph 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 to 45 2 lanes or 3 lanes with raised median 3 lanes without raised median 4 lanes with raised median 5 or 6 lanes with raised median BT BT Instreet sign Instreet sign Instreet sign (or FS) + (or FS) + (or FS) + (or FS) + (or ) + uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended BT BT (or FS) + (consider or FS) (or FS)+ (or FS) + (or FS) + (or FS) + PHB+ CSOR Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended Instreet sign (or FS) + overhead or FS + (or FS) + (or FS) + overhead or FS + (or FS) + (or FS) + ** or FS (consider PHB)+ **PHB+ CSOR Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended Instreet sign (or FS) + (or FS)+ PHB+ CSOR (or FS) + (or FS) + ** PHB + CSOR ** PHB + CSOR (or FS) + **PHB + CSOR **PHB + CSOR **PHB + CSOR Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not recommended 4, 5, or 6 lanes without raised median 4 lanes, raised median not feasible 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 overhead or FS + PHB +CSOR overhead or FS+ PHB +CSOR ** PHB+ CSOR PHB +CSOR ** PHB+ CSOR **PHB +CSOR 35

Example #2 Illinois Rte. 29 with Taft Dr. Rochester, IL ADT 13,000(2015) Traffic Speed, mph Number of lanes Conclusion 40 Divided Four lanes (one LT lane) 36

Example #2 Answer Illinois Rte. 29 with Taft Dr. Rochester, IL 37

Example #3 Wiswall St. with S Griswold St. Peoria, IL ADT= 3900, speed= 30 mph, Lane= 2 Existing Treatment= MC alone Recommended = BT Current treatment is less than the suggested Pedestrian warning sign (school crossing) needed Curb extension to parking lane might be considered 40

Example #4 Chestnut crosswalk, IL Route 54, District 6, IL ADT= 1,250 (to the south of the crosswalk)/ 950 (to the north), Speed= 40 mph, Lane = 2 (undivided) Existing Treatment= MC + Pedestrian Actuated Flashing Pedestrian Crossing Sign 41

Example #4 Answer Existing Treatment= MC + FS Recommended= MC + FS + Chestnut crosswalk, IL Route 54, District 6, IL ADT= 1,250 (to the south of the crosswalk)/ 950 (to the north), Speed= 40 mph, Lane = 2 (undivided) 42

Example #5 IL 4, Auburn, District 6, IL ADT= 6,250, speed= 40 mph, Lane = 2; On approximately 1400 ft radius curve; School zone 43

Example #5 Answer IL 4, Auburn, District 6, IL Recommended= BT+ /FS+ after sidewalks are added ADT= 6,250, speed= 40 mph, Lane = 2; On approximately 1400 ft radius curve; School zone 44

Crosswalk Pattern Recommended Crosswalk Patterns at Uncontrolled Locations (Zegeer, et al., 2005(b)) 47

Bus Stop Location Placement of bus stop on the far side of the crossing (PEDSAFE, 2017) 48

Crosswalk Lighting Midblock crosswalk lighting layout (Gibbons, et al., 2008) 49

Use of Retroreflective Sign Posts and Dual Back-to-Back Display Pedestrian Crossing Sign (Dual back-toback Display) at North Clark St, Chicago Retroreflective Signpost along IL 29, Rochester, IL. 50

Education Program Sequence for a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (FHWA, 2009) 51

Poll Question #4 Is the location of the bus stop appropriate? Yes No I don t know 53

Resource Establishing Procedures and Guidelines for Pedestrian Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations https://apps.ict.illinois.edu/projects/getfile.asp?id =5292

Learning Outcomes In this webinar, you have learned: 55

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RR) FHWA MUTCD Team has terminated Interim Approval 11 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/mutcd_news.htm 56

SAFE TRANSPORTATION FOR EVERY PEDESTRIAN (STEP) Improving pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossings locations by promoting cost-effective countermeasures with known safety benefits Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements Raised Crosswalk Pedestrian Refuge Island Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Road Diet 72% of pedestrian fatalities occur at nonintersection locations (2016 FARS Data) FHWA EVERY DAY COUNTS 4 - STEP https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_4/step.cfm 57

FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations Follows a 6-step process Tables to assist with selecting countermeasures based on data analysis, roadway characteristics, and safety issues Webinar on Jan. 30 th check the FHWA website for details 58

Upcoming 2018 Webinars Primer on the Joint Use of the HSM and HFG for Roadway Systems Tues. Feb. 13, 11:00 AM 12:30 PM Mountain Archived Webinars Access the webinar archives 59

Contact Information If you have any questions related to this presentation, please contact: Kyle Armstrong Kyle.Armstrong@illinois.gov Yan Qi yqi@siue.edu Or contact the National Center for Rural Road Safety Help Desk at: (844) 330-2200 or info@ruralsafetycenter.org http://ruralsafetycenter.org/ 60