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.
83 CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This synthesis identified overarching policies, current rec- ommended practice guides, and extensive safety research being considered by jurisdictions in application of pedes- trian crossing improvements. There remains a significant degree of flexibility and nonspecificity in many federal guid- ance documents, such as Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and AASHTO design guides, as well as federal sanctioning of use of alternate design guidance and innovative treatments for provision of pedestrian facilities. In addition, the body of pedestrian safety research contin- ues to grow, yet there remain many questions about the most appropriate treatments and treatment combinations in dif- ferent environments. Thus, there continues to be a variety of practices and decision approaches for applying pedestrian crossing improvements. In addition to policy requirements, a number of states and cities seeking to encourage more walking while improving safety are voluntarily adopting policies such as Complete Streets, and Toward Zero Deaths or Vision Zero frame- works. Cities have joined together to create an organization, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which has further developed Complete Streets principles and designs demonstrating their vision of how a safer, more accessible network might be provided for pedes- trians in urban areas. Vision Zero cities have embraced a vision based on an ethical responsibility of the transport system designers and operators, as well as the users of the system, to minimize the possibility of people dying or becoming seriously injured when walking, cycling, or trav- eling by motorized vehicles. These policies are also affecting how decisions are made and the types of countermeasures being prioritized to address problems. Some examples are mentioned here. On a more procedural level, a variety of problem identi- fication and prioritization practices are being used by both states and local jurisdictions to identify pedestrian safety issues and select improvements. Depending on the state, problem identification practices include strategic safety planning, statewide pedestrian and bicycle plans, network screening processes employing systemic (or proactive) risk assessments from research studies (infrequent), crash-based screening approaches, design-based assessments of facil- ity quality, and extensive reliance on local jurisdictions to identify pedestrian safety issues. These are in addition to widespread efforts to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, a few states still lack any specific policies, guidance, or procedures to identify and address pedestrian safety needs, whereas others expressed a desire to be more proactive in assessing and treating pedes- trian risks but require additional information on ways to effectively do so. Regarding resources being used to help select improve- ments, there is a growing body of safety evidence available to help decision makers prioritize among different treatments. Resources include limited number of crash modification fac- tors (CMFs) for about half the treatments included in this synthesis to expert guidance and tools such as PEDSAFE that incorporate safety research shaped by expert judgment and case examples. Although crash evidence is not avail- able for all designs, a number of design treatments also have evidence of effectiveness in reducing travel speeds. There are also some traffic control devices with evidence of crash- based effectiveness, but results are often mixed, depending on applications. A review of evidence for this synthesis finds that treatment effects, particularly yielding rates and other operational measures of effectiveness, have varied widely for certain treatments such as rectangular rapid flash bea- cons (RRFBs) and older warning types of devices; effects have varied by jurisdiction and by a variety of other applica- tion contexts that are not yet well understood. On the other hand, yielding effects for pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs), which are considered by FHWA to also be a crash-proven safety countermeasure, have appeared more consistent in the locations where applied and evaluated; as yet, however, much of the research evidence for PHBs comes from relatively few cities with extensive use of the devices. In addition, needs for data on pedestrian use or demand, including warrants for traffic control stop devices, also affect and sometimes act as barriers to selecting certain treatments. Because treatments and applications appear to vary by jurisdiction, it is not surprising that practitioners appear to use locally produced design and other guidance, including CMF-based guidance, more often than the national expert tools. However, expert guides do offer practical informa- tion with respect to safety evidence as well as considerations and examples of applications. A number of state and local jurisdictions are incorporating other national study results and guidance into their locally tailored guides. These guides
84 are often intended to be used to assess uncontrolled cross- ing locations or in some cases, locations with signals but no pedestrian amenities. Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines and associated reports by Zegeer et al. (2005) and TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006a) are both used or incorporated, often with warrant information and other locally derived inputs or modifications, into decision tools and guides to assess suit- ability for crosswalks and other improvements. These guides are intended to help streamline decision processes and reduce the variation in practices that can result from engineering judgment applied alone or on a case-by-case basis. Examples of jurisdictions that have produced or used such guidance include Boulder, Colorado; Seattle, Washington; Washing- ton, D.C.; and North Carolina. As mentioned previously, in addition to varying degrees of success with the same treatments, jurisdictions also report varying considerations for approaches to providing safer pedestrian crossings and selecting among treatments. As mentioned, Complete Streets and Vision Zero frameworks appear to be among the policies that are most affecting and changing how decisions are being made among states and cities that have embraced these policies. Countermeasures and designs deemed to improve pedestrian safety and mobil- ity are being favored over those that may prioritize motor- ized mobility, at least in highly urban environments. Some examples, which are described in more depth in chapter five of this report, include the following: ⢠Cambridge, Massachusetts, traffic-calming efforts focus on redesigning streets in such a way as to encour- age people to drive more slowly and increase the comfort and safety of walking and bicycling, without relying extensively on traffic control devices such as signs and signals or on speed enforcement. The imple- mentation of traffic-calming projects, including such treatments as raised crosswalks and intersections, curb extensions, chicanes, and pedestrian refuge crossing islands, is largely done in conjunction with streets that are being reconstructed through a continually updated 5-year street and sidewalk reconstruction plan. ⢠San Francisco, California, conducted a thorough analysis of 5 years of network crash data to identify high-injury and -fatality locations and identified and described a limited number of pedestrian collision profiles that most characterized each location. The project team then matched countermeasures to col- lision profiles, assigned costs to potentially effective countermeasures, and developed a fiscally constrained prioritization plan for implementation. ⢠New York City analyzes crashes and gathers public input for each individual borough to identify the spe- cific types and characteristics of predominant safety issues. The city then prioritizes corridors, intersec- tions, and other areas that account for disproportionate numbers of pedestrian fatalities and injuries for safety interventions as part of their Vision Zero plans for each borough. Speed limit reductions and automated enforcement complement design and engineering mea- sures. The city also uses a comprehensive multidepart- ment and multi-agency vetting of planned treatments. ⢠Eugene, Oregon, uses the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, a series of Transportation Improvement Policies, NACTO design guidelines, and 8 80 Cities vision, along with a variety of methods of engaging the public to iden- tify ways to create a more environmentally sustainable and equitable street network that fits with the cityâs goal to make it easier for people to walk. The city frequently uses crash analysis to identify problems, as well as a complaint hotline, going out into neighborhoods, and consistently reviewing pedestrian needs within the pro- cesses for all types of transportation projects developed. FURTHER RESEARCH NEEDS Future studies, including an anticipated report from NCHRP Project 17-56, are expected to provide additional information regarding the crash effects of several traffic control devices and one design; these include pedestrian hybrid beacons, rectangular rapid flash beacons, advance stop/yield bars and signs, and median crossing islands. Even among those treat- ments with crash-based estimates of safety effects, there will be a continuing need to study the treatments locally as applications, and safety effects and other outcomes may vary among land use, enforcement, and other contexts. Other research needs include development of more infor- mation and easy-to-apply tools for systemic risk assess- ment to help jurisdictions prioritize appropriate treatments to locations where they are most needed, without waiting for crashes to occur. In addition, methods other than count- based warrants, such as demand estimators and other types of threshold or application guidance, are desired to overcome limitations where safety barriers currently limit pedestrian movement (and numbers), as exemplified in several cases mentioned in this synthesis. FINAL CONCLUSIONS As this synthesis reports, there is a wide array of policies, application practices, and treatment outcomes across jurisdictions and studies, and there will continue to be a need to study treatments in the particular contexts where applied. Diverse state and local policies and priorities such as presence or absence of Vision Zero and Complete Streets policies, as well as local laws, enforcement prac- tices, geographies, and other conditions likely affect deci-
85 sion processes and treatment outcomes. Thus, there is no one-size-fits-all prioritization or decision matrix that can be universally applied. Engineering judgment remains an important part of the decision process, and will likely remain so for some time based on philosophical differ- ences and policy prioritiesâ effects on practices, as well as because of gaps in data and other needs for flexibility. This finding can have both positive and negative impacts according to practitioners. One impact mentioned is that designs that do not fully meet pedestrian needsâsuch as arterial streets with few controlled pedestrian cross- ingsâcontinue to be implemented because guidelines are nonspecific and flexible. Thus, ongoing retrofit efforts continue to be needed to address the pedestrian crossing deficiencies. However, a number of state and local juris- dictions are incorporating existing evidence into their own decision and design guides or are making use of national guidance based on most-effective available evi- dence in hopes of providing more consistent and effec- tive outcomes when locations are determined to need improvements. At the same time, a few states have yet to significantly integrate pedestrian safety analysis and crossing improvement prioritization processes into their safety practices.
