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.
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-1 A CHAPTER 28 PEDESTRIANS Task Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing in a Multiple-Threat Scenario ....................................... 28-2 Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings ............................. 28-4 Speed-Calming Countermeasures at Crosswalks ....................................................................... 28-6 Improving Pedestrian Visibility and Conspicuity at Crosswalks .............................................. 28-8 Selecting Beacons to Improve Pedestrian Conspicuity at Crosswalks .................................... 28-10 Influence of the Built Environment on Pedestrian Crossing Safety ........................................ 28-12 Design Challenges for Older Pedestrians ................................................................................ 28-14 Pedestrian Rail Crossing Safety ............................................................................................... 28-16 Key References for Pedestrian Crossing Safety Countermeasures .......................................... 28-18
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-2 TASK ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN A MULTIPLE THREAT SCENARIO Introduction This guideline highlights a critical situation for pedestrian safety at crosswalks: the multiple threat scenario, in which a pedestrian crossing in front of a stopped vehicle is at risk of being struck by a second vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane. This task analysis of a pedestrian crossing on a 4-lane divided highway with a pedestrian island shows the interactions that can take place between pedestrians and drivers and the actions that each could take to avoid vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. In the following task analysis table, the behavior of pedestrians and drivers is idealized and presented in a somewhat abstracted manner that does not necessarily express modal behavior or regulatory obligations or requirements in specific jurisdictions. Design Guidelines Agencies may use advance yield/stop lines, signs, beacons, and/or other countermeasures to increase vehicle compliance and to improve visibility and conspicuity of the pedestrian. See Improving Pedestrian Visibility and Conspicuity at Crosswalks on page 28-8 for information about these countermeasures. TASK ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN A MULTIPLE THREAT SCENARIO. Scenario Segments Pedestrian Tasks Vehicle 1 (V1) Tasks Vehicle 2 (V2) Tasks S1. Driver Approach Scans roadway/listens for any approaching vehicles from the left Sees âyield to pedestriansâ sign, yield line, and crosswalk markings See Median pedestrian sign Leave enough time to react Approaches crosswalk and stops in the staging area of the crosswalk if vehicles present Begins decelerating and scans for any pedestrians crossing from the right Notices V1 is braking in the right lane ahead Waits for V1 to yield/come to a stop. Receives affirmation from V1 driver Identifies the pedestrian and stops before the yield line, affirming the pedestrian to cross Sees âyield to pedestriansâ sign (on the left) outside cone of vision. yield line, and crosswalk markings Based on previous knowledge, anticipates potential V2 approaching in the left lane Waits for the pedestrian to cross the road Begins decelerating and anticipates pedestrian(s) crossing from the right S2. Pedestrian-Driver Interaction Sees V2 approaching the yield line where V1 is already stopped Remains stopped Sees the pedestrian at the crosswalk Determines if V2 is slowing down Remains stopped Stops before yield line, affirming the pedestrian to cross Once V2 comes to a stop/yield, enters the crosswalk Remains stopped Waits for pedestrian to cross the road Maintains vigilance while crossing to the raised median island Resumes driving once right- of-way is obtained Resumes driving once right-of- way is obtained The figure below shows the multiple threat scenario with countermeasures to mitigate pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. In the Approach Segment (S1), the pedestrian and driver of V2 cannot see one another because sight lines are obscured by V1, which is stopping in the right lane. In the Pedestrian-Driver Interaction segment (S2), V1 has stopped at the yield line, and the proximity of the two vehicles relative to the pedestrian provides a clear sight triangle between V2 and the pedestrian. The placement of the advance yield line ensures the pedestrian is within the sight triangle. Without the advance yield line, the sight triangle would not include the pedestrian, putting the pedestrian at risk of conflict if V2 does not yield. Discussion Based Primarily on Expert Judgment Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Based Primarily on Empirical Data
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-3 The pedestrian crossing task analysis is derived from several reports that study pedestrian and driver actions at crosswalks and in multiple threat situations. These acts are important to understand in relation to one another, since both the driver and pedestrian make decisions based on the actions and status of the other (1). Because of this, the multi-threat pedestrian crossing scenario is split into two segments: Driver Approach and Pedestrian-Driver Interaction. Referring to the figure on page 28-2, in the Driver Approach segment, the drivers approach the yield markings ahead of the crosswalk. Both drivers and the pedestrian must individually recognize the potential multiple threat situation. For pedestrians, they must notice that V1 in the right lane could be blocking their view of a potentially unyielding V2 in the far lane. For drivers, they must recognize the crosswalk, yield markings, and/or pedestrian crossing signs ahead (2). The driver of V2 must also see that V1 in the right lane ahead is not only braking or stopped but could also be obscuring a pedestrian positioned in the right lane, waiting to cross or already crossing in front of V1. As V2 nears the yield markings, the driver and pedestrian are able to see each other, initiating the Pedestrian-Driver Interaction segment. In the Pedestrian-Driver Interaction segment, the pedestrian and drivers try to understand what the other will do based on different factors. For pedestrians, they will try to get a better view of the obscured lane and/or listen for an approaching vehicle. Before crossing, they must make sure that drivers have sufficient time to notice them and begin slowing down (3). Upon receiving acknowledgment from drivers and judging that the gap is sufficient, pedestrians may enter the crosswalk. For drivers, they must slow down enough to prepare for a situation where a pedestrian might step out from in front of the vehicle in the right lane ahead. As V2 gets closer to the crosswalk, it becomes easier for the driver to see past the obscuring vehicle (V1) and identify whether or not there is a pedestrian trying to cross. In the multiple threat scenario, the V2 driver would assume that V1 stopped on the right is stopped because he or she is yielding to a pedestrian. Design Issues Decisions made by the pedestrian and drivers for this task analysis only show an example of a best-case scenario. Some cases/countermeasures for non-ideal situations are as follows: ï· The driver of Vehicle 1 sees the pedestrian but chooses a response reflecting a lack of concern and maintains the same speed, in effect signaling to the pedestrian that they do not intend to yield. At the same time, a pedestrian is aggressive or inattentive and begins to cross without regard to the driverâs behavior. Eventually, the driver must brake to avoid a crash, but because the response is delayed, more aggressive braking is required (1). ï· The driver of Vehicle 1 becomes aware of the pedestrian late but does not have enough time to stop safely (2). The scenario described in the task analysis is designed with advance yield markings, a countermeasure used for improving driver behavior and limiting situations where drivers donât have enough time to brake safely (4). ï· As described in the task analysis, a pedestrian is crossing from the right, as seen from the driverâs perspective. There is evidence for a difference in driver behavior between a multiple threat with the obstructing vehicle 1 being in the left lane as opposed to the right. A study conducted in 2014 found statistical significance in more glances to the left in the presence of advance yield markings (5). ï· Crossings with no raised median island or advance yield/stop line and sign often fail to create adequate awareness of the crossing for drivers and even for pedestrians. Without the raised median island, the pedestrian must judge acceptable gaps in traffic from both directions and is unprotected mid-crossing. Without the yield line, drivers have limited time to see and react to emerging pedestrians, relying only on crosswalk markings and/or curb ramps as visual cues. See pages A-4 and A-8 for more information. The task analysis is tailored for a specific setting: a four-lane road with a mid-block crosswalk accompanied by yield lines, a pedestrian crossing sign, and a raised median island. Only one-half of the road was analyzed because the raised median island allows the pedestrian to cross in two separate operations. Cross References Sight Distance, Chapter 5; Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings, A-4; Improving Pedestrian Visibility and Conspicuity at Crosswalks, A-8; Selecting Beacons to Improve Pedestrian Conspicuity at Crosswalks, A-10 References 1. Bella, F., and Silvestri, M. (2015). Effects of safety measures on driver's speed behavior at pedestrian crossings. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 83, pp. 111-124. 2. Fisher, D., and Garay-Vega, L. (2012). Advance yield markings and drivers' performance in response to multiple threat scenarios at mid-block crosswalks. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 44(1), pp. 35-41. 3. Levi, S., De Leonardis, D. M., Antin, J., and Angel, L. (2013). Identifying countermeasure strategies to increase safety of older pedestrians (Report No. DOT HS 811 798). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 4. Hochmuth, J., and Houten, R. V. (2018). Influence of Advanced Placement of the In-Street Sign Gateway on Distance of Yielding from the Crosswalk. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2672, pp. 13-20. 5. Gómez, R. A., Samuel, S., Romoser, M. R. E., Knodler, M. A., Collura, J., and Fisher, D. L. (2014). Mitigation of PedestrianâVehicle Conflicts at Stop-Controlled T-Intersections. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2464, pp. 20â28.
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-4 COUNTERMEASURES TO REDUCE PEDESTRIAN EXPOSURE TO VEHICLES AT CROSSINGS Introduction Countermeasures to reduce pedestrian exposure to vehicles at crossings refers to road treatments that provide some level of physical protection from surrounding traffic and/or reduce the time required to cross the street. Grade-separated pedestrian crossings offer additional protection by removing pedestrians from vehicular traffic altogether in locations where pedestrian crossing would be too challenging without them. This guideline summarizes the conditions of use and the effects that can be expected when using these countermeasures. Design Guidelines Countermeasure Suggested Conditions for Use Expected Effects Curb Extension/Bulbout Intersections and mid-block crosswalk locations where shorter crossing distances are desired Reduced crossing time and pedestrian exposure Improved visibility and sight distance for both pedestrian and vehicles Reduced vehicle speeds Reduced crash rates and severity Improved driver yielding to pedestrians Improved drainage Raised Median and Pedestrian Crossing Island Signalized multilane crossings where a pedestrian may not be able to finish crossing in one cycle (e.g., crossing locations that are three or more lanes wide) Intersections or mid-block crossings where pedestrians are not likely to find sufficient gap in traffic to safely cross all lanes but where traffic controls are not justified Estimated 25 to 36 percent reduction in pedestrian crashes (1) Improved yielding, especially when combined with other countermeasures (1) Reduced vehicle speeds and speeding (2) Potential for motorists to strike the islands (1) Grade-Separated Crossings Connect land uses, buildings, facilities, etc., that are separated by a major roadway Where other less expensive countermeasures are not practical Estimated 86 to 90 percent reduction in pedestrian crashes at high-risk locations At-grade crossing attempts if pedestrians perceive the bridge or tunnel is too inconvenient, time consuming, inaccessible, or lacking personal security Pedestrian Crossing Island with Curb Extensions Curb extensions improve sight distance and reduce crossing distance Pedestrian crossing islands provide refuge so pedestrians can cross one side of the street at a time Angled cut-outs encourage pedestrians to look in the direction of oncoming traffic before crossing the second leg Entrances to cut-outs are perpendicular to the island edge to guide pedestrians with low vision Detectable warning surfaces at the ramp entering and exiting the crosswalk and in median islands inform pedestrians with low vision of a change in environment safety Source: Adapted from Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer (1). Based Primarily on Expert Judgment Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Based Primarily on Empirical Data
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-5 Discussion Curb extensions. Curb extensions narrow the road by extending the sidewalk or curb line into the street or parking lane, thus reducing pedestrian crossing time and exposure (1). In addition, this treatment can improve sight distance between pedestrians and vehicles by raising pedestrians above grade level and by preventing motorists from parking too close to the intersection. Further, they can reduce the effective turning radius, which can slow turning traffic. One simulator study found that driversâ yielding behavior increased due to increased pedestrian visibility at the curb extension (3). Similarly, a literature review cited studies that found that curb extensions improved yielding and speed reductions (2). It is recommended that curb extensions be used where there is on-street parking and on streets that are not too narrow by the practitioner (1, 4, 5). Unless the parking lane is integrated with the sidewalk, curb extensions should be 1 to 2 feet narrower than the parking lane (4). Curb extensions should not interfere with bike lanes (1), and landscaping or road furniture should not interfere with sight distance or impede visibility (5). Raised Median and Pedestrian Median Islands. Sometimes referred to as pedestrian refuge islands, safety islands, crossing islands, or center islands, these treatments provide pedestrians with a protective environment in the middle of an intersection or mid-block crosswalk, reducing pedestrian exposure to traffic and allowing them to focus on crossing one direction of travel at a time. Pedestrian crash reductions of 25 to 36 percent have been estimated using raised medians and pedestrian median islands at various locations and configurations (1). Pedestrian median islands are recommended at crossing locations that are three or more lanes wide (4). It is recommended that the island be at least 6 feet wide to accommodate the length of a bicycle, or a parent pushing a stroller, and the cut-through or ramp width be equal to the crosswalk width. Crosswalk islands that cut through the median are preferred to raised median crosswalks, unless the median is wider than 17 feet; in that case, raised medians are preferred (4). Grade-Separated Crossings. These treatmentsâalso known as overpasses, overcrossings, or bridges and underpasses, undercrossings, or tunnelsâcompletely separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic and can be extremely effective when used where grade-level crossings are dangerous and other countermeasures are inappropriate. Crash modification factors of between 0.1 and 0.14 (86 to 90 percent pedestrian crash reduction) have been estimated for these treatments (6). Nevertheless, pedestrians may elect to cross the street at grade rather than use the bridge/tunnel if access is perceived to be too inconvenient, time consuming, inaccessible, or unsafe. In particular, access can be a challenge for pedestrians with disabilities unless the bridge or tunnel is designed to accommodate them. Lighting, signing, fencing and other countermeasures have been used to discourage at-grade crossings at these locations (1). Design Issues Although raised medians and pedestrian median islands provide some level of protection for pedestrians, yielding rates have been mixed at locations with pedestrian median islands and marked crosswalks (1). Additional countermeasures may be needed to encourage motorist to yield to pedestrians, especially on roads with high speed, high traffic volumes, many lanes and/or wide widths. Recommendations for additional treatments include pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) with a red (stop) indication, advance yield/stop lines with advance âyield/stop here for pedestrianâ signs, and signs with flashing beacons, such as rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFBs) (1). Placement of pedestrian median islands within a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) should consider driveway locations and turnings to reduce the potential for left-turning vehicles entering the roadway to strike the island. Cross References 15-2: Methods to Increase Driver Yielding at Uncontrolled Crosswalks References 1. Thomas, L., Thirsk, N. J., and Zegeer, C. V. (2016). NCHRP Report 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 2. Mead, J., Zegeer, C., and Bushell, M. (2013). Evaluation of pedestrian-related roadway measures: A summary of available research. Chapel Hill, NC: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. 3. Bella, F., and Silvestri, M. (2015). Effects of safety measures on driver's speed behavior at pedestrian crossings. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 83, 111-124. 4. National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2013). Urban street design guide. New York, NY. 5. Zegeer, C. V., Stutts, J., Huang, H., Cynecki, M. J., Van Houten, R., Alberson, B., . . . Hardy, K. K. (2004). NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 6. Federal Highway Administration. (2018b). Toolbox of pedestrian countermeasures and their potential effectiveness. Washington, DC.
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-6 SPEED-CALMING COUNTERMEASURES AT CROSSWALKS Introduction Speed-calming countermeasures at crosswalks refer to treatments that encourage drivers to slow their speeds in areas with crosswalks. Excessive vehicle speed makes it more difficult for drivers to perceive, react, and stop for pedestrians. A driverâs useful field of vision decreases as travel speed increases, making it more difficult to detect and react to pedestrians in peripheral vision at higher speeds (1, 2). In addition, braking distance increases with speed, requiring more time to stop the vehicle. The combination of less/later pedestrian detection and longer braking times means more crashes with increased severity at higher speeds (1). This guideline provides information about common countermeasures for reducing speeds when approaching crosswalks. Design Guidelines Countermeasure Suggested Conditions for Use Expected Effects Raised Crosswalk or Speed Table Mid-block crosswalk on low-speed local streets (3) Reduced speeds Increased pedestrian visibility Improved search behavior and yielding by drivers Reduced pedestrian crashes Estimated 30 percent reduction in crashes following the installation of raised pedestrian crossings (9) Raised Intersection Intersections with substantial pedestrian traffic where other speed calming treatments are unacceptable (e.g., loss of on-street parking) Reduce Corner Radius/Crossing Distance Urban intersections with heavy pedestrian use, particularly where vehicles frequently turn across pedestrian paths Reduced turning speeds Reduced pedestrian crossing times/distances Larger pedestrian waiting areas Improved visibility/sight lines Increased potential for drivers to cut the corner and strike the curb while aggressively rounding corners (unintended side effect) Road Diet Four-lane, undivided roadways with high expected crash rates and/or where left lane is shared by high-speed and left-turning vehicles Reduced speed Estimated 19 to 47 percent fewer pedestrian crashes in urban and suburban areas, respectively Reduced pedestrian crossing times/distances Area-Wide Traffic Calming Areas with widely scattered crashes Estimated total crash reductions of 10 percent on main roads and 25 percent on residential or local streets (7) The following table from National Association of City Transportation Officials (2) illustrates how pedestrian crash and fatality potential increase substantially with speed. Speed calming measures can reduce crash potential by encouraging vehicle speeds that are consistent with the intended design. See https://nacto.org/publication/city-limits/the-need/how- speed-kills/ and https://nacto.org/publication/city-limits/the-need/speed-kills/ for more information about the exponential change in risk and safety relative to vehicle speed. EFFECTS OF SPEED ON STOPPING DISTANCE, CRASH RISK, AND FATALITY RISK Speed (mph) Stopping Distance* (ft) Crash Risk (%) Fatality Risk (%) 10-15 25 5 2 20-25 40 15 5 30-35 75 55 45 40+ 118 90 85 * Stopping distance includes perception, reaction, and braking times. Source: NACTO (2013 (2)) Based Primarily on Expert Judgment Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Based Primarily on Empirical Data
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-7 Discussion Raised Crosswalk/Speed Table/Raised Intersection. These treatments elevate the crosswalk to the level of the sidewalk and are used to reduce vehicle speeds as they approach the crosswalks (4). Furthermore, they increase visibility of pedestrians and improve driver yielding (1). Typically, these treatments are used at mid-block locations and intersections on low-speed local streets, collector roads, and specialty use locations, such as airport drop-off/pick-up zones, and access points to parks, waterfronts, campuses, and shopping centers (1, 4). Reduce Corner Radius/Crossing Distance. The corner radius at intersections can affect vehicle turning speed. Slower speeds are required to maneuver a turn with a smaller radius. Where possible, a curb radius of 5 to 10 feet. is recommended for urban streets (4). An effective turning radius (i.e., path of a turning vehicle) of 15 to 20 feet is recommended on urban streets with high pedestrian traffic, and an effective curb radius of 25 to 30 feet may be needed for arterials with buses and trucks (4). One source, however, recommends using stop bar setbacks and parking restrictions rather than large curb radii to facilitate large vehicle turns (2). Reference (1) recommends that corner radii should rarely exceed 15 feet. Although a small curb radius can reduce traffic speed, drivers might drive over the curb if the radius is too small in areas with high traffic volume. In addition to speed calming, a smaller curb radius enhances pedestrian safety by expanding the pedestrian area in the corner and providing better pedestrian ramp alignment, shorter pedestrian crossing distances, and better sight distance for both motorists and pedestrians (5). Road Diet. A road diet entails redesigning a roadway to reduce the number of vehicle lanes in a street. Road diets often allow improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as pedestrian buffer zones, curb extensions for crosswalks, and pedestrian median islands. Road diets have been demonstrated to reduce 85th percentile and average speed by 3 to 7 mph, with greater speed reductions occurring in high traffic areas (6). Furthermore, road diets have been shown to reduce speed variability (6), improve speed limit compliance, and eliminate the multiple threat scenario at crosswalks (7). Crash modification factors for road diets have been estimated at 0.81 for urban areas and 0.53 in rural areas (8). Area-Wide Traffic Calming. Area-wide traffic calming uses a comprehensive approach to reducing traffic speed, density, or both using a variety of countermeasures (4). Overall reduction of area speeds encourages lower speeds at intersection approaches and at mid-block crosswalks, encourages more walking, and is associated with less pedestrian injury (7). Area-wide traffic calming measures designed to reduce speeds in urban areas include raised medians, pinch points, chicanes, lane shifts, lane narrowing, speed humps, 2-way streets, traffic circles, signal timing, traffic diverters, roadside furniture, and on-street parking (1, 4). When designing speed limits for urban streets, NACTO (2013) recommends using target speed rather than operating speed to maximize road user safety while facilitating traffic movement (2). Design Issues When designing curb radius for speed calming, the effective curb radius must be large enough to accommodate emergency vehicles. (1). Speed tables and speed humps can be constructed with gaps wide enough for emergency vehicles wheels to pass through (4); however, on streets with bicycle lanes, these gaps could result in motorists swerving into the bicycle lane to avoid the gap (5). It is recommended that the speed hump go through the bike lane, and only leave a gap at the curb for drainage. Cross References Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings, A-4 Speed Perception, Speed Choice, and Speed Control, 17-1 References 1. Zegeer, C. (2010, August 17) Treatments at unsignalized pedestrian crossings. [Webinar]. In PBIC Designing for Pedestrians Safety Webinar Series: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. 3. National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2013). Urban street design guide. New York, NY. 4. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. (2004). Guide for the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian facilities. Washington, DC. 5. Thomas, L., Thirsk, N. J., and Zegeer, C. V. (2016). NCHRP Report 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 6. Zegeer, C. V., Stutts, J., Huang, H., Cynecki, M. J., Van Houten, R., Alberson, B., . . . Hardy, K. K. (2004). Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 7. Knapp, K., Chandler, B., Atkinson, J., Welch, T., Rigdon, H., Retting, R., . . . Porter, R. J. (2014). Road diet informational guide. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 8. Mead, J., Zegeer, C., and Bushell, M. (2013). Evaluation of pedestrian-related roadway measures: A summary of available research. Chapel Hill, NC: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. 9. Federal Highway Administration. (2018b). Toolbox of pedestrian countermeasures and their potential effectiveness. Washington, DC.
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-8 IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY AND CONSPICUITY AT CROSSWALKS Introduction Improving pedestrian visibility and conspicuity at crosswalks refers to countermeasures that increase driver awareness of the crosswalk, draw attention to pedestrians, and make pedestrians easier to detect. Other countermeasures that also increase pedestrian visibility and conspicuity by raising them above grade level and/or improving sight lines are curb extensions and raised medians. These countermeasures are discussed in Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings. Lighting countermeasures for improving pedestrian visibility are found in Characteristics of Lighting that Enhance Pedestrian Visibility, on page 21-10. Design Guidelines Design or Treatment Suggested Conditions for Use Expected Effects Advance Stop/Yield Lines and Signs Crosswalks at uncontrolled, multilane approaches with parking restrictions Improved visibility of pedestrians (1, 2) Improved motorist scanning for pedestrians (1) Improved motorist stopping/yielding, especially when used in combination with other treatments, such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (2) 25 percent fewer multiple threat crashes when used alone and 57 percent when combined with pedestrian hybrid beacons (3) Parking Restrictions Crosswalks where sight distance is insufficient for proper driver response Improved visibility of pedestrians (1) 30 percent fewer pedestrian crashes (4) Gateways Unsignalized crosswalks on low-speed roads with high pedestrian traffic/traffic generators; trail crossings Increase in driver yielding (5) Yielding further from the crosswalk (5) Reduced speeds, even when pedestrians are not present or detected (5) In Figure (a) below, the pedestrian is not visible to the driver of the approaching vehicle because the leading parked vehicle is blocking the line of sight to the pedestrian. In Figure (b), parking has been set back from the crosswalk, which widens the sight triangle for improved visibility to the pedestrian. Also, the advance yield line in Figure (b) provides additional time and stopping distance for the driver to perceive and react to the pedestrian by requiring earlier yielding. Based Primarily on Expert Judgment Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Based Primarily on Empirical Data
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-9 Discussion Advance Stop/Yield Lines and Signs. Advance stop and yield lines increase the distance ahead of a crosswalk at which drivers are required to stop or yield to allow pedestrians to cross. Requiring vehicles to stop or yield further from the crosswalk increases the stopping sight distance to the pedestrian, which can reduce risk in multi-threat situations, where visibility of the pedestrian is occluded by a vehicle in the adjacent lane (1, 2, 6). âYield Here to Pedestriansâ signs combined with advance yield lines have been demonstrated to improve motorist yielding distance, increase pedestrian crosswalk use, and reduced conflicts (7, 8). Advance stop/yield lines should be set back from the crosswalk 20-50 feet to ensure that a clear sight triangle exists between drivers and pedestrians (6). Also, parking should be restricted between the stop/yield line and the crosswalk to prevent parked vehicles from obscuring visibility (6, 9). In a field study of advance yield lines, adding one empty parking space between an occluding vehicle parked at the yield line and the crosswalk increased yielding from 8 percent to 27 percent (1). The MUTCD requires that R1-5 series signs (âStop Here For Pedestriansâ or âYield Here To Pedestriansâ) be used in conjunction with stop and yield lines, respectively (6). Parking Restrictions. Parking restrictions that prohibit vehicles from parking near the intersection can reduce pedestrian crashes by increasing sight distance. The further from the crosswalk that parking is prohibited, the wider the sight triangle becomes, allowing both driver and pedestrian to see each other and react sooner. The minimum recommended setback is 20 feet when speeds are 25 mph or less, and 30 feet for speeds between 26 and 35 mph. Blackburn, Zegeer, and Brookshire (10) recommend considering using parking restrictions on both crosswalk approaches at all established pedestrian crossings to ensure adequate sight distance for both pedestrians and motorists. Curb extensions can enhance the effect of parking restrictions by offering a larger area for pedestrians to congregate and be seen by drivers. Gateways. A gateway configuration consists of R1-6 street signs (6) installed in the street on the centerline or pedestrian median island, edges, and lane markers at an intersection or mid-block crosswalk. These signs are highly conspicuous because they are placed near driversâ central vision, regardless of which lane motorists are traveling in. Consequently, the signs increase driver awareness of the crosswalk and remind drivers to watch for and yield to pedestrians. In one study, driver yielding increased from 15 percent before installation of the gateways to 70 percent after treatment, and the effects were consistent long term (5). Design Issues Although improvements in driver yielding rates and distances can be achieved using advance stop/yield lines and âStop Here for Pedestriansâ or âYield Here to Pedestriansâ signs, the effectiveness of these countermeasures are often enhanced by combining them with additional countermeasures. For example, one study (8) found that median refuge islands, refuge islands with Danish offsets (a type of crosswalk design that incorporates an S-shaped median that orients the pedestrianâs line of sight toward oncoming traffic), high-visibility crosswalk markings, and advance yield lines each individually improved driver yielding and pedestrian use of the crosswalk, but additional crash reduction benefits were found when countermeasures were combined. Cross References Stopping Sight Distance, 5-4; Methods to Increase Driver Yielding at Uncontrolled Crosswalks, 15-2; Task Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing in a Multiple Threat Scenario References 1. Samuel, S., Romoser, M. R. E., Gerardino, L. R., Hamid, M., Gómez, R. A., Knodler, M. A., ⦠Fisher, D. L. (2013). Effect of Advance Yield Markings and Symbolic Signs on VehicleâPedestrian Conflicts: Field Evaluation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2393, pp. 139â146. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2393-16 2. Thomas, L., Thirsk, N. J., and Zegeer, C. V. (2016). NCHRP Report 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 3. Zegeer, C., Srinivasan, R., Lan, B., Carter, D., Smith, S., Sundstrom, C. ⦠Van Houten, R. (2017). NCHRP Research Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 4. Federal Highway Administration. (2018b). Toolbox of Pedestrian Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness. Washington, DC. 5. Van Houten, R., Hochmuth, J., Western Michigan University, K., and Transportation, M. D. of. (2016). Comparison of Alternative Pedestrian Crossing Treatments: Follow-Up Report. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/SPR-1643_552737_7.pdf 6. Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways. 2009 edition with revision numbers 1 and 2 incorporated. Washington, DC. 7. Huybers, S., Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J. E. L. (2004). Reducing conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians: the separate and combined effects of pavement markings and a sign prompt. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(4), 445â456. Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view/750238 8. Nambisan, S. S., Vasudevan, V., Dangeti, M., Virupaksha, V., and Board, T. R. (2008). Advanced Yield Markings and Pedestrian Safety: Analyses of Use with Danish Offsets and Median Refuge Islands. TRB 87th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view/848875 9. National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2013). Urban street design guide. New York, NY. 10. Blackburn, L., Zegeer, C., and Brookshire, K. (2017). Guide for improving pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossing locations. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-10 SELECTING BEACONS TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN CONSPICUITY AT CROSSWALKS Introduction Selecting beacons for improving pedestrian conspicuity at crosswalks refers to a heuristic for determining whether to use a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) or a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) at an uncontrolled, marked crosswalk (1). These pedestrian-activated treatments are used to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians in the crosswalk. As such, PHBs should be considered for every road with a speed limit greater than 40 mph. Because the MUTCD (1) does not provide warrants for RRFBs, it may be unclear which treatment offers the best solution in terms of the cost-benefits for a particular location. This guideline provides information for assisting in the choice between using PHBs or RRFBs at locations where engineering studies, traffic warrants, and engineering judgement do not support installation of full signalization. Design Guidelines The decision matrix below, from Hunter-Zaworski and Mueller (2), provides a framework for determining when to implement Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons or Rectangular Flashing Beacons at uncontrolled marked crosswalks. The decision matrix is intended as a suggested starting point for design and should not supersede results of engineering studies, crash history analyses, traffic engineering warrants, and expert engineering judgment when determining which beacon to use. * Note: Only applies to roads for which a median is feasible but not present. FHWA requires the 4 RRFB configuration when a median is present (3). LEGEND PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon RRFB RRFBs mounted per FHWA specifications for roads with no median (3) 4 RRFB RRFBs mounted per FHWA specifications for divided roads with median (3) XW Marked cross walk, but does not include any beacons or flashing warning devices High-Risk Environments Near-side transit stop, visual clutter, schools, senior/recreation center, shopping, etc. Adapted from Hunter-Zaworski and Meuller (2012 (2))ï Based Primarily on Expert Judgment Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Based Primarily on Empirical Data
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-11 Discussion Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) and RRFB have been shown to improve pedestrian safety at crosswalks by alerting drivers to the presence of pedestrians in the crosswalks. These treatments are inactive (dark) until activated by the pedestrian via pushbutton or by automated pedestrian-detection technology (passive activation). The MUTCD provides warrants and requirements for the use of PHBs, but RRFBs are not yet formally codified in the MUTCD because they are a newer device. At this time, the FHWA has granted interim approval to implement RRFBs in crosswalk designs because they have been shown to be highly effective at improving driver yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks (3). Whether to install PHBs or RRFBs at some locations may not be clear because a variety of factors can influence the suitability for using the lower-cost RRFBs (2). Among these factors are traffic volume, number of lanes, speed limit, presence of a median, presence of advance yield or stop signs, high visual clutter, schools, shopping, crossing distance, crossing approach, and one- or two-way direction of travel (2, 4). PHBs are less expensive than traditional mid-block signalization with green-yellow-red indication, but they provide similar information and requirements for drivers to stop during the walk interval (solid red). They also minimize delays to vehicular traffic by allowing drivers to continue during the pedestrian clearance interval (flashing red) if the pedestrian is no longer in the driverâs lane (5). PHBs have been found to consistently produce high yielding rates of 90 percent or greater and fewer pedestrian conflicts (6). Expected crash reductions of 55 percent are associated with PHBs alone and 57 percent when implemented at a location with advance YIELD and STOP markings and signs (7). When used in appropriate locations, RRFBs have been shown to compare favorably with PHBs and exceed other types of beacons in terms of effectiveness. In one study (8), the installation of RRFBs increased yielding to 88 percent, and yielding distance also increased compared to yield signs alone. RRFBs were also significantly more effective than both overhead and sign-mounted circular beacons. In another study, average yielding compliance was also 88 percent (9). By comparison, standard overhead beacons resulted in 15 percent yielding and no signal resulted in 10.9 percent yielding. An evaluation of RRFBs, conducted for the Oregon DOT, recommends that âRRFBs be installed on medians when side- mounted devices are considered and at locations with posted speeds of 40 mph or less unless additional features such as striping, signing, and advance warning RRFBs are usedâ (2). In addition, they recommend using overhead PHBs in areas that require high compliance and where a side-mounted device is not possible. Design Issues One concern regarding PHBs is that drivers might not fully understand the meaning of the flashing red signal. Surveys of drivers (2, 5) and empirical observations (10) at mid-block crosswalks found that most drivers understood the dark and steady red indications, moderately understood the flashing and steady yellow indications, but poorly understood the flashing red indication. Driver education campaigns can help inform drivers about the meaning of the signal indications. The MUTCD (1) provides specific warrants and guidance for the use of PHBs. FHWA (2018 (3)) provides specific requirements and characteristics for implementing RRFBs. To prevent displays from being misunderstood by users, designers should act as âvirtual usersâ before implementation. Cross References Countermeasures for Improving Pedestrian Conspicuity at Crosswalks, 21-8 Methods to Increase Driver Yielding at Uncontrolled Crosswalks, 15-2 Methods to Increase Driver Compliance at Uncontrolled Crosswalks, 15-4 Key References 1. Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways. 2009 edition with revision numbers 1 and 2 incorporated. Washington, DC. 2. Hunter-Zaworski, K., and Mueller, J. (2012). Evaluation of alternative pedestrian control devices. Final Report. 3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2018a). Interim Approval for the Optional Use of Pedestrian-Actuated Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons at Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks (IA-21). 4. Fitzpatrick, K., Brewer, M. A., Avelar, R., and Lindheimer, T. (2017). Will you stop for me? An exploration of characteristics associated with a driverâs decision to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk with a rectangular rapid-flashing beacon. ITE Journal, 87(3), pp 36-41. 5. Godavarthy, R. P., and Russell, E. R. (2016). Study of Pedestrian Hybrid Beaconâs Effectiveness for Motorists at Midblock Pedestrian Crossings. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 3(6), pp 531-539. 6. Thomas, L., Thirsk, N. J., and Zegeer, C. V. (2016). NCHRP Report 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 7. Zegeer, C., Srinivasan, R., Lan, B., Carter, D., Smith, S., Sundstrom, C. ⦠Van Houten, R. (2017). NCHRP Research Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 8. Shurbutt, J., Van Houten, R., Western Michigan University, K., & Administration, F. H. (2010). Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks. 9. Van Houten, R., and Malenfant, L. (2008). An Analysis of Rectangular-shaped Rapid-Flashing LED Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians Using Crosswalks on Multilane Roadways in the City of St. Petersburg, FL. 10. Anderson, I., Vermont Agency of Transportation. (2019). Assessment of the HAWK Crosswalk Traffic Signal.
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-12 INFLUENCE OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ON PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SAFETY Introduction Influence of the built environment on pedestrian crossing safety refers to factors within the built environment that contribute to the likelihood of a pedestrian-vehicle crash. This guideline highlights factors in the surrounding environment that have the largest influence on crash potential and provides recommended countermeasures. Design Guidelines The table identifies specific environmental factors, how they affect pedestrian crash potential, and available countermeasures for reducing the potential of pedestrian crashes. The final column provides the page number of related guidelines that provide further information about the countermeasure. Environmental Factor Effect on Pedestrian Crash Potential Potential Countermeasure Relevant Guideline Pedestrian Volume Higher pedestrian volume increases pedestrian exposure to traffic. Provide sidewalks (1) Right Turn on Red restrictions (2,3) p. 11-4 Number of Pedestrian Crossings More crossings reduce the crash potential for any individual pedestrian, but increase the overall crash rate. Leading pedestrian interval (4) Curb extensions (3) p. A-4 Pedestrian over/underpass (3) p. A-4 Mainline traffic volume Pedestrian exposure to traffic increases with traffic volume. Corridor-wide traffic calming (3) p. A-6 Road diet (3) p. A-6 Right-Turn Only Lanes More right-turn only lanes increases pedestrian exposure to turning traffic, where line of sight may be blocked or where driversâ attention is divided. Right Turn on Red restrictions (2,3) p. 11-4 Non-Residential Driveways Near Intersection Higher density of driveways increases pedestrian exposure to vehicles, where line of sight may be blocked. Provide raised medians to prohibit left turns to and from driveways (5) Small driveway entrance radius (5) p. A-6 Channelized island between in- and out-bound movements (5) p. A-4 Commercial Properties Near Intersection Higher density of commercial properties increases pedestrian exposure to vehicles, where pedestrians may be unexpected. Minimize driveway width (5) Sidewalks with clear sight lines (5) Access management Bus Stops Higher density of bus stops means increases in pedestrians waiting in proximity to traffic. Occluded visibility of crossing pedestrians. Relocate bus stops (6) p. 15-1 Curb extensions (6) p. A-4 Provide adequate sight distance to bus stops and shelters (6) Provide sidewalks to bus stops (6) Neighborhood Residents under 18 Children are more inexperienced as road users and are more prone to lack caution and be inattentive. Furthermore, small children can be more difficult for drivers to see. Corridor-wide traffic calming (3) p. A-6 Dynamic speed feedback signs (7) p. A-6 Provide sidewalks (1) Presence of Median Medians provide a refuge for crossing pedestrians, reducing traffic exposure. Provide raised median (5, 3) p. A-4 Presence of Sidewalks Sidewalks separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic, reducing exposure. Provide sidewalks (1) Wider sidewalks where justified Based Primarily on Expert Judgment Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Based Primarily on Empirical Data
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-13 Discussion The density of pedestrians, vehicular traffic, or both in an area has been positively associated with pedestrian crashes (2, 4). One study found that the likelihood of any one pedestrian being involved in a crash decreased with increased pedestrian density, but the overall number of pedestrian crashes is likely to increase with increased pedestrian density (2). An examination of pedestrian crash data in Seattle, WA found that areas with high density of intersections having four or more legs had more pedestrian crashes and greater crash risk (1). Pedestrian crashes at intersections have also been associated with the number of non-residential driveways near the intersections (2). Each driveway represents a potential point of exposure to pedestrian conflict, and driver attention may be concentrated on interactions with other vehicles rather than looking for pedestrians while entering or exiting the driveway. Raised medians that prevent left turns to and from the driveway can reduce pedestrian exposure to conflict with these vehicles (5). The presence of right-turn lanes is also associated with higher pedestrian crash rates, particularly when a pedestrian island is not present (2, 3). This could be because the additional lane requires longer pedestrian crossing distances and creates a more complex set of interactions between drivers and pedestrians. The potential for crashes resulting in fatal injury is higher in urban areas with retail, food, entertainment, and accommodation services, where pedestrian activity is likely to be higher. Furthermore, these areas may be associated with risky behaviors, such as driving or walking while intoxicated, or speeding (8). Similarly, increased pedestrian crashes have been associated with intersections near commercial properties (2). A driverâs attention may be centered on searching for stores or restaurants, maneuvering into parking spaces, or other driving tasks with elevated cognitive load, rather than on scanning for pedestrians. Also, pedestrians may be crossing outside of crosswalks or between cars to take the most direct route to their destinations (2). Chen and Zhou (1) found that areas with a higher bus stop density were likely to have more pedestrian crashes than areas with fewer bus stops. Stopped buses may occlude other drivers' visibility of crossing pedestrians. Furthermore, areas with transit service are likely to encourage more pedestrian use as they walk to and from the bus stop, increasing exposure to pedestrian crashes. An analysis of pedestrian crashes near bus stops found that pedestrians near the bus stop often crossed the street outside of the crosswalk or against the signal, sometimes to avoid missing the bus (9). Pedestrian demographics also influence pedestrian crash rates at intersections. Pedestrian crash rates were greater at intersections near neighborhoods with higher concentrations of children, who lack the experience and maturity to exercise caution when crossing (2). Treatments such as signs and radar-based dynamic speed feedback signs can increase driver awareness of and attention to pedestrians and reduce motor vehicle speeds with this vulnerable population (3, 7). Areas with a higher density of sidewalks have lower crash risk and fewer crashes (1). Sidewalks provide separation from vehicular traffic while facilitating pedestrian travel along the same routes as vehicles. Similarly, the presence of medians is associated with fewer pedestrian crashes (2). Medians, especially those with cut-outs for pedestrian refuge, allow pedestrians to focus on crossing each direction of traffic separately, reducing the complexity of timing their crossing. Design Issues Some of the recommended countermeasures, such as corridor-wide speed calming and road diet, are not individual countermeasures but holistic approaches to design and combinations of multiple countermeasures. Strategic combinations of countermeasures can be more effective than single countermeasures. Cross References Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings, A-4 Speed-Calming Countermeasures at Crosswalks, A-6 References 1. Chen, P., and Zhou, J. (2016). Effects of the Built Environment on Automobile-Involved Pedestrian Crash Frequency and Risk. Journal of Transport & Health, 3(4), pp. 448-456. Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view/1439954 2. Schneider, R. J., Diogenes, M. C., Arnold, L. S., Attaset, V., Griswold, J., and Ragland, D. R. (2010). Association Between Roadway Intersection Characteristics and Pedestrian Crash Risk in Alameda County, California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2198, pp. 41-51. 3. Thomas, L., Thirsk, N. J., and Zegeer, C. V. (2016). NCHRP Report 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 4. Strauss, J., Miranda-Moreno, L. F., and Morency, P. (2014). Multimodal injury risk analysis of road users at signalized and non-signalized intersections. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 71, pp. 201-209. 5. Federal Highway Administration. (2010). Access management in the vicinity of intersections. Washington, DC. 6. Nabors, D., Schneider, R. J., Leven, D., Lieberman, K., and Mitchell, C. (2008). Pedestrian safety guide for transit agencies. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 7. Hallmark, S. L., Hawkins, N., and Knickerbocker, S. (2015, September 15-18). Use of DSFS as a speed transition zone countermeasure in small, rural communities. Paper presented at the 18th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). 8. Mansfield, T. J., Peck, D., Morgan, D., McCann, B., and Teicher, P. (2018). The effects of roadway and built environment characteristics on pedestrian fatality risk: A national assessment at the neighborhood scale. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 121, pp. 166-176. 9. Pessaro, B., Catalá, M., Wang, Z., and Spicer, M. (2017). Impact of transit stop location on pedestrian safety. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-14 DESIGN CHALLENGES FOR OLDER PEDESTRIANS Introduction Design challenges for older pedestrians refers to roadway designs that accommodate older pedestrians who have physiological and/or cognitive, age-related impairments. These pedestrians face a diverse set of challenges, in terms of roadway safety, that may not be addressed by standard design practices. Thus, older pedestrians have a higher potential than most younger pedestrians of being involved in crashes and of suffering more severe injury during crashes because of fragile skeletal and tissue systems (1). This guideline contains special considerations for designing pedestrian crossings that help older pedestrians to cross the street in a timely manner. Design Guidelines Age-Related Consideration Associated Issue Potential Countermeasure Longer Start- up/Reaction Time Older pedestrians may have slower reaction times, causing them to take longer to begin crossing and respond more slowly to potential threats. Adjust design walking speed to include older pedestrian capabilities when determining pedestrian crossing intervals. Use a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) to give older pedestrians a head start, increasing their visibility and compensating for longer walking start-up times. Lane width reduction using lane narrowing, curb extensions, and/or road diet to reduce crossing distance. Use pedestrian hybrid beacons, which require vehicles to stop at mid-block or unsignalized crosswalks when pedestrians activate the signal. Provide medians and refuge islands for older pedestrians to focus on one direction of traffic at a time. Slower Walking Speeds Older pedestrians may have a substantially slower walking speed than is accounted for in standard signal timing. This is also true for pedestrians with mobility impairments/disabilities. Cognitive/Behav ioral Considerations Older pedestrians may not be as aware of their surroundings or be cognizant of the increased time it takes them to cross the street. The figures below compare a potential danger that older pedestrians face when crossing the road as opposed to younger pedestrians who can cross within the crossing signal time. Figure 1. The older pedestrian takes longer to start crossing at the pedestrian signal change. Figure 2. The younger pedestrian has ample time to cross with standard signal timing, but the older pedestrian cannot complete crossing before the end of the clearance interval. Figure 3. The signal for cross traffic turns green before the older pedestrian finishes crossing, exposing him/her to a potential conflict with cross traffic. Based Primarily on Expert Judgment Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Based Primarily on Empirical Data
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-15 Discussion Longer Start-Up/Reaction Times and Slower Walking Speeds. Older pedestrians have physical and cognitive challenges that increase crash potential when compared to younger pedestrians because they not only have significantly slower walking speeds, but they also take longer to begin crossing, particularly when slowed by the use of walkers and canes or by medical issues such as arthritis (1). Designers in the U.S. use 1.22 m/s (4.00 ft/s) as the standard for pedestrian crossing speed in their algorithms for crossing signal timing (2). Although this speed may accommodate younger pedestrians who average a walking speed of 1.32 m/s (4.33 ft/s), the average walking speed for older pedestrians is 1.07 m/s (3.5 ft/s), well below the standard crossing speed used for signal timing (3). Average start-up times for pedestrians under 65 years old were 1.82 seconds compared with 2.39 seconds for pedestrians over 65 years old (2). Reducing crossing distances through lane width reduction can increase their safety by shortening travel lengths and times, while adjusting pedestrian crossing signal times can provide more time for crossing (4). Another proven countermeasure is a leading pedestrian interval (LPI). LPIs give pedestrians a 3-7 second head start to better establish their presence in crosswalks before vehicles get priority to turn left (5). LPIs also increase visibility of crossing pedestrians, increase the likelihood of vehicles yielding to pedestrians, reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, and enhance safety for older pedestrians who are slower to start walking into the intersection (5). Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB), are traffic control devices that help pedestrians cross busy or high-speed roads at mid-block crossings and uncontrolled intersections (5). PHBs are activated when the pedestrian pushes the call button, requiring vehicles to stop when the signal is red. Design of the pedestrian walk and clearance intervals should consider older pedestrian walking speeds to provide sufficient time for older pedestrians to cross (5). PHBs implemented at locations with a median refuge can further accommodate older pedestrian needs by providing at two-stage crossing with individual PHBs at each stage (5). Cognitive/Behavioral Considerations. A study simulating pedestrian road crossing found that a majority of older pedestrians judged their time to cross a single-lane road to be the same as young pedestrians, suggesting that most older pedestrians donât recognize the decline in their walking ability (6). Their crossing decisions were the same as younger subjects, giving them a relatively smaller margin of error in decision-making to cross with increased likelihood that the crossing conditions are less than ideal. Pedestrians, in general, are not sensitive or perceptive to changes in oncoming vehicle speeds. In addition to this, crash potential is elevated for older pedestrians because of their lack of recognition of their mobile decline (6). In another simulated road crossing, older pedestrians showed that when their attention was divided, they were more susceptible to making inappropriate or risky decisions that could lead to unsafe crossings (7). Reducing the complexity of crossing the road by installing pedestrian refuges allows for a crossing movement to occur in two stages, thus allowing older pedestrians to focus on and cross one direction of traffic at a time (4, 5). Design Issues While it may be desirable to allow enough time for older pedestrians to easily finish a crossing, this must be balanced by maintaining appropriate signal timing for reasonable flow of traffic. At locations where longer signal timings are not feasible, it may be worthwhile to consider other countermeasure ideas that would not impact traffic, such as pedestrian over/under passes (when justified) or pedestrian refuges. Longer crossing signal periods may lead to more frequent crossings wherein pedestrians ârace againstâ the signal or begin crossing during the âdonât walk phase,â (2). In such a situation, longer cycle times for vehicles would be necessary to offset the increase in lost time. . Cross References A-4: Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings 11-8: Countermeasures for Improving Accessibility for Vision-Impaired Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections References 2. Levi, S., De Leonardis, D. M., Antin, J., and Angel, L. (2013). Identifying countermeasure strategies to increase safety of older pedestrians (Report No. DOT HS 811 798). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2. Crabtree, M., Lodge, C., and Emmerson, P. (2015). A review of pedestrian walking speeds and time needed to cross the road (Report No. PPR700). Wokingham, Berkshire United Kingdom: Transportation Research Laboratory. 3. Naveteur, J., Delzenne, J., Sockeel, P., Watelain, E., and Dupuy, M. A. (2013). Crosswalk time estimation and time perception: An experimental study among older female pedestrians. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 60, pp. 42-49. 4. Mantilla, J., and Burtt, D. (2016). Safer road design for older pedestrians. Victoria Walks, Melbourne. Version 1.1. August 2016. 5. Federal Highway Administration. (2017). Making our roads safer one countermeasure at a time. 20 proven safety countermeasures that offer significant and measurable impacts to improving safety. Washington, DC. 6. Liu, Y.-C., and Tung, Y.-C. (2014). Risk analysis of pedestriansâ road-crossing decisions: Effects of age, time gap, time of day, and vehicle speed. Safety Science, 63, pp. 77-82. 7. Butler, A. A., Lord, S. R., and Fitzpatrick, R. C. (2016). Perceptions of speed and risk: Experimental studies of road crossing by older people. PLoS One, 11(4), 16p.
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-16 PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING SAFETY Introduction Though rare, pedestrian-rail crashes are generally caused by pedestrians ignoring warnings, possibly due to inattentiveness, lack of situational awareness, or direct disobedience in order to catch a train (1). The safety of any individual crossing depends on the ability of the crossing design to: adequately provide warnings, force the pedestrian to look for trains, or prevent crossings entirely. Although this is a challenge for designers, there are a large number of potential countermeasures for many different crossing situations. Design Guidelines Category Treatment Appropriate Location Type of Rail Service Passive / Active Channelization All All Passive Barriers General All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Passive Offset Pedestrian Crossing All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Passive Maze Fencing All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Passive Pedestrian Fencing All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Passive Between-Car Barriers 2, 3 Light Rail, Commuter Rail Passive Temporary All All Passive Design Defined Pedestrian Crossing All All Passive Smooth and Level Surface All All Passive Sight Distance Improvements All All Passive Stops and Terminal Design All All Passive Illumination All All Passive Pedestrian Refuge All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Passive Sidewalk Relocation All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Passive On-Road Bollards 1, 2 All Passive Infrastructure Audible crossing warning devices All All Active Pedestrian automatic gates 1, 2, 4 Light Rail, Commuter Rail Active Pedestrian automatic gates w/ horizontal hanging bar 1, 2, 4 Light Rail, Commuter Rail Active Pedestrian swing gates All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Active Signs Passive All All Passive Unique Warning Messages All All Passive Enforcement All All Passive Blank-Out Warning All All Active Signals Timing considerations near railroad crossings 1, 2 All Active Flashing-light signal assembly All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Active In-pavement flashing lights All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Active Pavement Markings Pedestrian Stop Lines All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Passive Detectable warning All All Passive Words or symbol All All Passive Dynamic envelope marking All All Passive Operations Required stop All Light Rail, Commuter Rail Active Reduce train speed All All Active Rail safety ambassador 2, 3 All Active Appropriate Location 1 = Pedestrian-rail grade crossings adjacent to a motor vehicle crossing. 2 = Pedestrian-rail grade crossings at stations adjacent to motor vehicle crossings. 3 = Pedestrian-rail grade crossings at stations. 4 = Pedestrian-rail only crossings. Adapted from TCRP Report 175 (1) Based Primarily on Expert Judgment Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Based Primarily on Empirical Data
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-17 Discussion There are several ways to improve pedestrian safety around rail crossings. Among the most common countermeasures are implementations of effective barriers and infrastructure. Barriers. These devices are used to control or restrict the lateral movement of pedestrians, keeping them separate from passing trains at rail crossings. Fencing, in particular, has shown to be an effective barrier tool in keeping a safe guard between trains and pedestrians. One compilation (2) describes some safety devices being used across the United States for pedestrians at grade crossings. California, for example, uses several channelization strategies to improve pedestriansâ observations of any approaching trains by creating z-crossings and fencing around rail crossings. In a review of pedestrian crossing safety countermeasures used in practice (3), Z-crossings, oversized ballasts, bedstead barriers, and fencing were among the tools identified as key safety measures. Z-crossings are designed to channel pedestrians in a way that forces them to look down the tracks while approaching the crossing and they have a low to moderate cost of installation. Oversized ballasts along ramps and rail corridors discourages pedestrians from taking shortcuts around approved pedestrian crossings and are low cost treatments. Bedstead barriers can be used in tight urban spaces to create a maze-like passageway that cause pedestrians to face the direction of approaching rail vehicles and have a low installation cost. Fencing is used to separate the railroad right-of-way from highways and pedestrian walkways and has a low installation cost but could have high maintenance costs in the long run. Infrastructure. Similar to barriers, infrastructure countermeasures are used to block pedestrians from entering into the rail crossing when a train is approaching. However, while barriers control the lateral movement of pedestrians through channelization, infrastructure treatments restrict movement along the direct path of pedestrians using pedestrian swing gates, pedestrian automatic gates, and gate skirts. Swing gates have been shown to draw the attention of pedestrians toward the direction of approaching trains (2). These swing gates have led to reduced incidents of inattention by passengers waiting to board trains in rail station areas. Pedestrian automatic gates are found to be more effective when a secondary horizontal gate arm is installed, called a gate skirt, to further block pedestrians from crossing railroads when a train is approaching (4). After installation, pedestrian rail crossing violations, such as maneuvering underneath or around the gates, dropped from 80 percent to 45 percent. Audible crossing warning devices can be a helpful supplement to gate treatments when considering pedestrians with visual impairments and rail crossings where transit vehicles are quiet and ambient noise levels are high (1). Design Issues When implementing any active countermeasure, the countermeasure should communicate with the train and other countermeasures properly so that activation occurs at the appropriate time and does not result in the âstorage,â or unintentional entrapment of pedestrians or vehicles (5). Furthermore, some of the countermeasures mentioned here may be difficult for elderly pedestrians or pedestrians with disabilities to operate. Any installed countermeasures should be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant and thoroughly tested, with any necessary adjustments made. The primary cause of pedestrian-rail crashes is pedestrians âgate-dashingâ or trying to cross against countermeasures. While more countermeasures may prevent this, one solution is to remove the crossing entirely: over/underpasses can provide secure and convenient crossings, and other crossings can be rerouted to a safer crossing. Cross References Chapter 14: Rail-Highway Grade Crossings ï· References 1. Fitzpatrick, K., Warner, J., Brewer, M. A., Bentzen, B. L., Barlow, J. M., and Sperry, B. (2015). TCRP Report 175: Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings Of Public Transit Rail Services. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/172320.aspx 2. Federal Railroad Administration. A Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings. Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety; 2008. 3. Thompson, A., and Kennedy, B. J. (2016). Engineering design for pedestrian safety at highway-rail grade crossings (Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD- 16/24). Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration. 4. Chase, S., Gabree, S. H., and daSilva, M. (2013). Effect of gate skirts on pedestrian behavior at a highway-rail grade crossing (Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD-13/51). Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration. 5. Jeng, O.-J. (2005). Human factors evaluation of design ideas for prevention of vehicle entrapment on railroad tracks due to improper left turns. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology.
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-18 KEY REFERENCES FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES Introduction There are numerous resources available to aid in the selection of countermeasures at pedestrian crossing locations that experience an unacceptable number of crashes. This guideline summarizes key resources available for finding information about countermeasures that improve pedestrian safety. Design Guidelines The list below summarizes source and chapter for pedestrian crossing countermeasures information from key reference sources. Toolbox of Pedestrian Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness (2018) Three tables provide crash modification factors that estimate crash reductions associated with 33 pedestrian crash countermeasures. Countermeasures include: Table 1 (Signalized Countermeasures), Table 2 (Geometric Countermeasures), and Table 3 (Signs, Markings, and Operational Countermeasures). NCHRP Report 498 Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2016) ⢠The NCHRP Report 498 compiles existing practices and resources for improving pedestrian crossing safety. The main chapters include Chapter 2 (Policies Guiding Selection of Pedestrian Crossing Improvements), Chapter 3 (Guidance and Current Practices Regarding Selecting and Prioritizing Pedestrian Improvements), Chapter 4 (Recommended Applications, Effectiveness, and Current Use of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments), and Chapter 5 (Examples of Guidance Tools and Original Case Examples on Provision of Safer Pedestrian Crossings). NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) The Streets section describes different designs for streets and accompanied crosswalks given the road setting (downtown 2-way street, neighborhood main street, etc.). The Interaction Design Elements section includes details on the design features of different crosswalks and intersection signalization for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (2009) The MUTCD contains various sections associated with pedestrian crossing safety countermeasures. These include Chapter 2B (Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates), Chapter 3B (Pavement and Curb Markings), Chapter 3I (Islands), Chapter 4D (Traffic Control Signal Features), Chapter 4E (Pedestrian Control Features), Chapter 4F (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons), and Chapter 6D (Pedestrian and Worker Safety). Part 7 (Sections 7A-7D) is an entire chapter dedicated to traffic control in school areas. Rulings about designs that have not yet been formally codified into the MUTCD are available as interim approvals (see discussion section). Web-Based Tools: PEDSAFE Countermeasure Selection Tool, http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/selectiontool.cfm Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org The following additional resources provide high quality, useful guidance but are older, and some countermeasures may not represent the most current designs or policies. NCHRP Report 562 Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (2006) AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004) NCHRP Report 500 Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians (2004) Based Primarily on Expert Judgment Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Based Primarily on Empirical Data
HFG PEDESTRIANS VERSION 2.1 28-19 Discussion The HFG focuses on common treatments at pedestrian crossing locations and is not intended to provide a comprehensive or definitive presentation of information on these treatments. Additional data sources follow: The Toolbox of Pedestrian Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness (1) provides estimates of expected crash reductions associated with the application of pedestrian crash countermeasures. The estimates are presented in the form of crash modification factors (CMF) that, when multiplied by expected crashes without the countermeasure, yield the estimated number of crashes with the countermeasure. The NCHRP Report 498 (2) highlights key resources and tools regarding pedestrian crossing improvements. Examples of emerging guidance and practices at the state and local level are also included. The NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (3) gives insight about street configurations in different settings and how these varying designs are used by the nationâs foremost engineers, planners, and designers in cities today. It provides a blueprint for both transforming existing corridors and creating new complete-street designs that integrate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and motor vehicle traffic in urban environments. However, designers should use caution because some treatments in the Urban Street Design Guide are not in compliance with requirements in the MUTCD. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (4) provides uniform standards for the design of all signs, signals, markings, and other devices that are used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic and that are placed on, over, or adjacent to streets, highways, pedestrian facilities, and bikeways. These features on the roadway have significant impact on pedestrian safety when they are crossing roads. As an addendum to the MUTCD, an Interim Approval (IA-11) provides specifications regarding the use of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (5). The PEDSAFE Countermeasure Selection Tool (6) is a web-based tool that allows users to review possible countermeasures to use based on their information provided. The user enters the name of the location, the goal of the treatment, and a description of the site and the selection tool returns a range of treatments that can be used. The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse (7) website connects users with countermeasures related to their search terms. The countermeasures are organized into different categories including pedestrians, bicyclists, shoulder treatments, and more. In the respective subcategories, specific countermeasures are listed, and their characteristics are shown such as quality, crash type, area type, and more. The NCHRP Report 562 (8) recommends engineering treatments to improve pedestrian safety for crossing high-speed, high- volume roadways at unsignalized intersections. The AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (9) focuses on identifying safety measures for interactions between pedestrians and traffic as well as appropriate methods for accommodating pedestrians in roadway and facility design. The NCHRP Report 500 (10) aims to reduce the number of crashes involving pedestrians through several strategies addressing different types of crashes. Design Issues None Cross References Pedestrians Chapter References 1. Federal Highway Administration. (2018b). Toolbox of pedestrian countermeasures and their potential effectiveness. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa18041/fhwasa18041.pdf 2. Thomas, L., Thirsk, N. J., and Zegeer, C. V. (2016). NCHRP Report 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 3. National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2013). Urban street design guide. New York, NY. 4. Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways. 2009 edition with revision numbers 1 and 2 incorporated. Washington, DC. 5. Federal Highway Administration. (n.d., November 20, 2018). Interim approvals issued by FHWA. Retrieved from https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res- interim_approvals.htm 6. Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.b). PEDSAFE. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. Retrieved from http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/ 7. Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.a). Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org 8. Fitzpatrick, K., Turner, S. M., Brewer, M., Carlson, P. J., Ullman, B., Trout, N. D., . . . Lord, D. (2006). TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 9. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. (2004). Guide for the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian facilities. Washington, DC. 10. Zegeer, C. V., Stutts, J., Huang, H., Cynecki, M. J., Van Houten, R., Alberson, B., . . . Hardy, K. K. (2004). Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
