Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments (2017)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

53 C H A P T E R 6 Research results from NCHRP Project 17-56 could be integrated into the following resources to facilitate implementation of the findings in practice: • AASHTO’s Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (67); • AASHTO’s Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (69); • FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE) website; • FHWA’s CMF Clearinghouse; • FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures website; • NCHRP Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Second Edition (68); • MUTCD (62); and • Design guidance for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. Each of these opportunities is discussed in greater detail below. Highway Safety Manual The HSM is organized into four parts—Part A: Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamen- tals; Part B: Roadway Safety Management Process; Part C: Predictive Method; and Part D: Crash Modification Factors. Findings from NCHRP Project 17-56 could inform each part of the HSM. Part A: Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals Information and observations from NCHRP Project 17-56 could be integrated into the HSM’s Chapter 2: Human Factors and Chapter 3: Fundamentals. This information could include topics such as trends or patterns in crashes involving pedestrians at uncontrolled crossings and key considerations in identifying the appropriate supplemental treatments to reduce crashes at such locations (e.g., posted speed, prevailing speed, and number of vehicle lanes). Part B: Roadway Safety Management Process Chapter 6 within Part B of the HSM discusses how to select countermeasures based on crash trends and patterns. A section within Chapter 6 focuses on crashes involving pedes- trians and bicyclists. The content of this section could be updated with the findings from NCHRP Project 17-56. Part C: Predictive Method Chapter 12 within Part C of the HSM provides crash prediction methodology for urban and suburban arterials. There is a possibility that the CMFs produced in NCHRP Project 17-56 could Incorporation of Study Results into National Guidelines

54 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments be incorporated into the Chapter 12 methodology to enable practitioners to consider the poten- tial impact of incorporating these treatments. The limited ability of the Chapter 12 methodology to account for pedestrian crashes is a current gap; it may be feasible to help close this gap with NCHRP Project 17-56 findings. Part D: Crash Modification Factors Chapter 13 and 14 within Part D of the HSM include CMFs applicable to roadway segments and intersections, respectively. The CMFs developed for uncontrolled pedestrian crossing treat- ments from NCHRP Project 17-56 could be directly integrated into these two chapters. Research results from NCHRP Project 17-56 will be considered by researchers assembling the next edition of the HSM, as part of NCHRP Project 17-71. Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse The FHWA’s CMF Clearinghouse is an online (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org), searchable database of CMFs produced in safety research literature. It is updated approximately quarterly with the most recent research findings. Users can search the database based on the type of treat- ment in which they are interested. The potentially applicable CMFs appear with information about the quality of the CMF, source of the CMF, and context in which it was developed and therefore most applicable to apply. The quality of CMFs are rated using a five star scale with five stars representing the highest quality CMF. Quality is based on study design, sample size, standard error, potential bias, and data source. Members of the NCHRP Project 17-56 research team help to review and maintain the database. They will be able to work with others at FHWA to incorpo- rate the findings from NCHRP Project 17-56 into the database, enabling practitioners searching for information related to the treatments at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings to find the results. Proven Safety Countermeasures Website FHWA maintains and periodically updates a website focused on highlighting counter- measures to improve safety on roadway networks (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencounter measures). It currently highlights two countermeasures directly related to the NCHRP Proj- ect 17-56 research: (1) medians and pedestrian crossing islands in urban and suburban areas and (2) PHBs. The research results from NCHRP Project 17-56 could be integrated into the treatment-specific information available on the FHWA website for these two countermeasures. FHWA could also choose to highlight other treatments evaluated in NCHRP Project 17-56 (e.g., use of RRFBs and/or advanced YIELD or STOP lines) as proven safety countermeasures on the FHWA website. NCHRP Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Second Edition Chapter 15 of NCHRP Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Second Edition is focused on special considerations for urban environments. Two of the special considerations discussed within Chapter 15 are related to human behavior at uncontrolled pedestrian cross- ings and methods to improve behavior and thereby improve safety. Findings from NCHRP Project 17-56 could be integrated into the next edition of NCHRP Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems and specifically used to supplement or update the discussion regard- ing uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.

Incorporation of Study Results into National Guidelines 55 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Research results from NCHRP Project 17-56 are unlikely to be directly incorporated into the MUTCD simply because the content of the MUTCD is focused on communicating the standardization of the use of traffic control devices (e.g., signs, signals, pavement markings, and beacons). The results of the research may inform discussions that occur at the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD). This could, in turn, result in changes to the MUTCD to include increased guidance on when and which specific supple- mental treatments at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings should be required or implemented by local or state agencies. Design Guidance for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings State and local agencies frequently establish their own guidelines and/or procedures for when to mark an uncontrolled crosswalk and if or what additional supplemental treatments will be installed at a marked crosswalk across an uncontrolled approach. To develop these local or state level guide- lines or decision-making trees, agencies frequently use research findings from the FHWA study, Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines (66). State and local agencies with such guidelines would be able to use the findings from NCHRP Project 17-56 to supplement, update, or revise the guidelines they cur- rently have in place. To facilitate this process, FHWA could create a synthesis report focused on uncontrolled pedestrian crossings that integrated the previous research in Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines with findings from NCHRP Project 17-56 to create a single, consistent source for practitioners to use as a reference on the subject.