National Academies Press: OpenBook
Page i
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
PageR1
Page ii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
PageR2
Page iii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
PageR3
Page iv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
PageR4
Page v
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
PageR5
Page vi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
PageR6
Page vii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
PageR7
Page viii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25618.
×
PageR8

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.

Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management A Synthesis of Highway Practice Rebecca L. Sanders ArizonA StAte UniverSity Tempe, AZ Belinda Judelman Sara Schooley toole DeSign groUp, llC Portland, OR 2019 Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration Subscriber Categories Highways • Pedestrians and Bicyclists • Safety and Human Factors N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP SYNTHESIS 535

Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP SYNTHESIS 535 Project 20-05, Topic 49-08 ISSN 0547-5570 ISBN 978-0-309-48064-2 Library of Congress Control Number 2019947018 © 2019 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. Cover photo credit: Courtesy www.pedbikeimages.org, Dan Burden. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta- tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high- way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the Federal Highway Administration. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 535 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer Deborah Irvin, Program Coordinator Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL Joyce N. Taylor, Maine DOT, Augusta, ME (Chair) Socorro “Coco” Briseno, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Anita Bush, Nevada DOT, Carson City, NV Joseph D. Crabtree, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY Mostafa “Moe” Jamshidi, Nebraska DOT, Lincoln, NE David M. Jared, Georgia DOT, Forest Park, GA Cynthia L. Jones, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Jessie Xu Jones, Arkansas DOT, Little Rock, AR Brenda Moore, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh, NC Ben Orsbon, South Dakota DOT, Pierre, SD Randall R. “Randy” Park, Avenue Consultants, Bluffdale, UT Jack Jernigan, FHWA Liaison Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison TOPIC 49-08 PANEL Patrick D. Adams, Maine DOT, Augusta, ME Rachel A. Carpenter, California DOT, Sacramento, CA DeWayne Carver, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, FL Ronald K. Faller, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, Lincoln, NE Robert E. Hull, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT Jonathan M. McCormick, Illinois DOT, Springfield, IL Tamara Redmon, FHWA Liaison Guan Xu, FHWA Liaison Bernardo Kleiner, TRB Liaison

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor- mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day- to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evalu ating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State High- way and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis of Highway Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. FOREWORD By Jo Allen Gause Staff Officer Transportation Research Board NCHRP Synthesis 535: Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management identifies proven strategies and effective practices related to improving pedestrian safety speed management and gaps in current knowledge and suggests research that could address those gaps. Information used in this study was gathered through a literature review and interviews with practi- tioners in state, regional, and local jurisdictions to learn more about their speed-management efforts and results. Eleven case examples illustrating various strategies and countermeasures are presented. Rebecca L. Sanders, Arizona State University, and Belinda Judelman and Sara Schooley, Toole Design Group, LLC, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable with the limita- tions of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added.

Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions. 1 Summary 4 Chapter 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Background 6 1.2 Objectives 7 1.3 Synthesis Scope and Approach 9 1.4 Terminology 12 1.5 Report Organization 13 Chapter 2 Literature Review 13 2.1 Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Speed 15 2.2 Countermeasures Review 44 Chapter 3 State of the Practice 44 3.1 Introduction 45 3.2 Catalyzing Events 49 3.3 Implementation Efforts 56 3.4 Partnerships 56 3.5 Garnering Support 60 3.6 Working with State DOTs 61 3.7 Measuring Impacts of Efforts 65 Chapter 4 Conclusions 65 4.1 Key Findings 66 4.2 Considerations 66 4.3 Suggestions for Future Research 69 References A-1 Appendix A Annotated Literature Review B-1 Appendix B Web/Screening Questionnaire C-1 Appendix C Semi-Structured Interview Script and Questionnaire D-1 Appendix D Interview Summaries C O N T E N T S

Next: Summary »
Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Measures that are effective at reducing speed, such as speed humps and mini traffic circles, are sometimes used in low-speed areas such as school zones. But they are often not recommended or allowed (via local policy) on the higher-speed streets typically associated with the highest injury severity for pedestrians.

For those higher-speed streets, redesigning them to communicate lower speed, such as through a roadway-reconfiguration effort, can effectively accomplish the goal of lowering speed. In the absence of street redesign, however, another effective current solution is enforcement, and particularly automated speed enforcement (ASE) that frees police to focus on other issues and that is free from implicit or explicit bias. It is important to carefully consider community context when selecting locations to employ ASE, to avoid disproportionately burdening any historically disadvantaged communities that surround the typically high-speed streets that need to be addressed.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 535: Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management aims to document what is known about strategies and countermeasures to address pedestrian safety via traffic-speed management in urban environments. For example, the City of San Francisco regularly uses curb extensions as traffic-calming devices on its streets. However, the political and land use context of each city heavily influences the types of treatments that are considered feasible for each city. Thus, the City of Los Angeles has had to find alternatives to both ASE and road diets, the latter of which have been the subject of intense public backlash in some cases.

These realities—that speed management can be fraught with difficulty—have spurred creative thinking about how to work within contextual confines, resulting in some particularly noteworthy and promising practices. For example, the City of Nashville anticipated potential backlash against speed-management efforts and thus chose to work with advocacy groups to identify areas of the city desiring walkability improvements. By installing walkability improvements in those areas first, city leaders created instant wins that could be used as leverage for future projects.

The authors of the synthesis found there may be a need for greater clarity about the speed-limit-setting process, as well as for greater collaboration between local and state agencies when state roads run through urban areas. In particular, it may be worth exploring whether there is a need for a framework that will foster collaboration between local and state staff on safety initiatives such as achieving flexibility in roadway design, changing laws or regulations that govern speed-limit setting, and finding a balance between local safety needs and regional mobility needs. Such a framework may support both local and state agencies attempting to address safety issues and reach larger goals as articulated through movements like Vision Zero.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!