National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix C. Research Approach Attachments
Page 280
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 280
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 281
Page 282
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 282
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 283
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 284
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 285
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 286
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 287
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 288
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 289
Page 290
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 290
Page 291
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 291
Page 292
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 292
Page 293
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 293
Page 294
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Research Problem Statements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26508.
×
Page 294

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.

280 Appendix D: Research Problem Statements Introduction This appendix provides a series of gap-filling research plans to support the development of reliable, valid, and replicable evaluations of pedestrian QOS, including both operational and satisfaction measures. These plans were originally prepared for consideration as research activities during Task 6 of NCHRP Project 17- 87, but were ultimately not selected. However, the research needs remain. The research needs were identified through a combination of the project Request for Proposals, the project Amplified Work Plan, and findings from the project literature review and stakeholder interviews. The research plans are organized into three groups: 1. Pedestrian Safety Countermeasure Satisfaction Measures. This group of activities focuses on understanding pedestrian satisfaction with effective pedestrian safety countermeasures. The research approach relies on cognitive evaluations of using various pedestrian facilities from intercept surveys, as well as behavioral affordances revealed through pedestrian behavior observed from video. 2. Sidewalk and Intersection QOS: This group of activities focuses on pedestrian satisfaction using different facilities, mainly sidewalks and crosswalks. Because QOS is the main metric, the analysis will rely on people’s cognitive appraisals of using various pedestrian facilities from intercept surveys as well as behavioral affordances revealed through pedestrian behavior observed from video. 3. Operational Measures: This group examines the operation of pedestrian facilities including sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic signals, in terms of such measures as pedestrian delay, pedestrian speed, pedestrian spillover out of the designated facility, and noncompliance with traffic signal indications. These activities rely primarily on pedestrian behavior observed from video. Group 1: Pedestrian Safety Countermeasure Satisfaction Measures This group of research activities focuses on understanding pedestrian satisfaction with effective pedestrian safety countermeasures. Do pedestrians experience improved QOS from these countermeasures? The research approach relies on cognitive evaluations of using various pedestrian facilities from intercept surveys as well as behavioral affordances revealed through pedestrian behavior observed from video. Justification A number of pedestrian safety countermeasures have been implemented and the safety impacts are well documented in the literature. Table D1 lists these countermeasures, in approximate order of their associated CMFs for pedestrian and MV crashes, if known. Countermeasures shown in bold in the table were rated highly effective in multiple interviews in Task 2, among those who had applied the countermeasure. Countermeasures shown in italics were studied by NCHRP 17-87. This topic received a high number of top-priority ratings by the practitioners interviewed in Task 2.

281 Table D1. Summary of CMFs for Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures (Adapted from NCHRP 17-73). Countermeasure Location Pedestrian CMF MV CMF 1. Advance stop/yield marking and R1-5/R1-5a signs Street segments 0.64–0.86 0.89 (total crashes), 0.80 (rear-end & sideswipe crashes) 2. Curb extension with parking restriction Intersection, midblock 0.7 (parking removal) No CMFs available for curb extension Unknown 3. LPIs Intersection 0.41–0.95 Unknown 4. Median crossing island Midblock 0.54–0.69 0.71–0.74 5. Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon Midblock 0.53–0.64 0.93 6. High-visibility crosswalk Intersection, midblock 0.52–0.63 0.81 (angle, head-on, left- turn, rear-end, rear–rear, right-turn, sideswipe) 7. Raised crosswalk/speed table Intersection, midblock 0.55 0.70 (serious, minor, and possible injuries) 8. Protected crossing phase (“Pedestrian Scramble” or “Barnes Dance”) Intersection 0.49–0.61 0.01 (left-turn crashes) 9. Improve lighting Street segments 0.58 0.77 (total injury crashes) 10. Longer pedestrian phase Intersection 0.50 0.98 11. Pedestrian hybrid beacon Intersection, Midblock 0.31–0.43 0.71 (total crashes), 0.85 (fatal and serious injury) 12. Road diet Street segments Unknown 0.53–0.81 13. In-roadway YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN (R1-6) Street segments Unknown Unknown Source: Adapted from Thomas et al. (2018) and Monsere et al. (2017). Proposed Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 20 locations per selected countermeasure (10 treated and 10 similar untreated sites as comparison sites) matched by traffic volumes, speeds, and lane configurations to the extent possible. These locations will be balanced by geography, scale, and land use. Two cameras will be used per location and record video for 12 hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on two days (one weekday, one weekend day). The video data collected will post-processed to derive PMs. Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics:  Pedestrian volume (crossing)  MV volume and speeds  Pedestrian behavior  Motorist and pedestrian compliance with traffic control  Pedestrian delay From the intercept surveys:  Pedestrian satisfaction

282 Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:  Cost per camera: $200 (includes two 2-hour periods)  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 2 hours  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30  Intercept survey: 2 people collecting on two days, one weekend day and one weekday for a total of 4 hours per site ($60 per hour for two people), including transportation time to and from the site. Table D2 shows the breakdown of costs for a typical treatment. The cost estimate has been reduced from the studies conducted for NCHRP 17-87, because video is only proposed to be collected during the times surveys are conducted. Table D2. Cost per Countermeasure Study. Number of sites 20 Number of cameras per site 2 Video data recording (all sites) $8,000 Video processing $9,600 Intercept survey $7,200 Analysis $7,500 Contingency $3,200 Total cost per countermeasure $35,400 per countermeasure Schedule Each study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. Group 2: Sidewalk and Intersection Quality of Service This research activities in this group focus on pedestrian QOS, with three sidewalk-focused studies, two intersection-focused studies, and one network-focused study. Because QOS is the main metric, the analysis will rely on preferences from intercept surveys as well as revealed preference through pedestrian behavior observed from video. The studies in this group are: 1. Urban sidewalk QOS 2. Rural pedestrian facility QOS 3. LOS methods for intersection forms not addressed by the HCM 4. Driveway crossings Urban Sidewalk QOS Purpose The purpose of this activity is to better understand pedestrian QOS for urban sidewalks. This includes:  Comparing current HCM and alternative methods in literature to actual pedestrian ratings (e.g., does a current method work, or is a better method needed?)

283  Checking impact of factors listed in HCM as potentially affecting pedestrian QOS that are not currently included in method  Addressing limitations of the HCM method identified in the literature and through interviews Justification The current HCM urban street method has been criticized for being too data-intensive to be usable for large-scale planning, or even smaller-scale studies, for sometimes producing counterintuitive results, and for not incorporating environmental and aesthetic factors. A variety of alternative pedestrian QOS measures have been proposed in the literature, but have only received limited testing (e.g., in one city only). Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 45 locations, representing three levels of pedestrian traffic, three categories of sidewalk width, and five typical sidewalks in each category (3×3×5=45). These locations will be balanced by geography, scale, MV lanes, traffic volumes, and land use. Two cameras will be used per location and record video for 2 hours (4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. The video data collected will be post-processed to derive PMs. Intercept surveys will be collected at the same locations on a different day during the same 2-hour time period. Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics:  Pedestrian volume  Pedestrian behavior From intercept surveys:  Pedestrian satisfaction Infrastructure observations from video, field observation, and/or aerial photos:  Sidewalk width, condition, and other environmental factors  Size and type of buffer between sidewalk and street  Shade and protection from rain: tree cover or awning Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:  Cost per camera: $50 (includes one 2-hour period)  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 2 hours  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30 Intercept survey: 2 people collecting on one weekday for a total of 2 hours per site ($60 per hour for two people), including transportation time to and from the site. Table D3 shows the breakdown of costs for this research activity. Note that if Research Activity 3.2 (high-volume pedestrian facilities) is also selected, these costs could be reduced by using the same video and video processing time for both studies.

284 Table D3. Cost for Urban Sidewalk QOS Study. Number of sites 45 Number of cameras per site 2 Video data recording (all sites) $4,500 Video processing $10,800 Intercept survey $16,200 Analysis $40,000 Contingency $7,100 Total cost $78,600 Schedule The study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. Rural Pedestrian Facility QOS Purpose The purpose is to understand pedestrian QOS for rural pedestrian facilities, specifically: sidewalks, shared roads, advisory shoulders, and sidepaths. Justification The pedestrian methods in the HCM were developed using data from urban and suburban areas. No guidance is provided on evaluating pedestrian QOS on rural pedestrian facilities. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 40 locations, 10 study sites for each of the four facility types. These locations will be balanced by geography, scale, and land use. Two cameras will be used per location and will record video for 12 hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on a high pedestrian volume day (Saturday if a recreational site or a weekday if pedestrian activity is likely to be higher on weekdays). The video data collected will be post-processed to derive PMs. Intercept surveys will be collected for 4 hours at the same locations on a different day during the same time period. Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics:  Pedestrian and MV traffic volume  Facility type, width, condition and other environmental factors  Pedestrian behavior From intercept surveys:  Pedestrian satisfaction Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:

285  Cost per camera: $200 (includes one 12-hour period)  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 1 hour  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30  Intercept survey: 2 people collecting on a high pedestrian volume day for a total of 4 hours per site ($60 per hour for two people), including transportation time to and from the site. Table D4 shows the breakdown of costs for this research activity. Table D4. Cost for Rural Pedestrian Facility QOS Study. Number of sites 40 Number of cameras per site 2 Video data recording (all sites) $16,000 Video processing $28,800 Intercept survey $28,800 Analysis $40,000 Contingency $11,400 Total cost $125,000 Schedule The study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. LOS Methods for Intersection Forms Not Addressed in the HCM Purpose Develop perception-based LOS methods for up to six intersection forms not currently addressed in the HCM: intersections with channelized right-turn lanes, two-way stops (crossing the controlled street), all- way stops, roundabouts, free-flow ramp terminals, and alternative intersections. Justification The HCM only provides pedestrian LOS methods for signalized intersections and uncontrolled crossings and only the signalized intersection method is based on traveler perceptions. As a result, it is not possible to compare pedestrian LOS across different intersection forms when comparing the benefits of project alternatives. This research need was highly rated by the Highway Capacity Committee members who were interviewed. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 60 sites for each selected intersection form, using three levels of pedestrian traffic, two levels of vehicle traffic, and 10 representative intersections of each type. These locations will be balanced by geography, scale, and land use as well as number of approaching lanes on major and minor roadways. Four cameras will be used per location and will record video for 2 hours (4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. The video data will be post-processed to derive PMs. Intercept surveys will be collected for 2 hours at the same locations on a different day during the same time period.

286 Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics:  Pedestrian and MV traffic volume, including turning movements on all approaches  Intersection type and other environmental factors  Pedestrian behavior From intercept surveys:  Pedestrian satisfaction Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:  Cost per camera: $50 (includes one 2-hour period)  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 2 hours  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30  Intercept survey: 2 people collecting on one weekday for a total of 2 hours per site ($60 per hour for two people), including transportation time to and from the site. Table D5 shows the breakdown of costs for this research activity. Table D5. Cost for LOS Methods for Intersection Forms Not Addressed in the HCM Study. Number of sites per intersection form 60 Number of cameras per site 4 Video data recording (all sites) $12,000 Video processing $28,800 Intercept survey $21,600 Analysis $10,000 Contingency $7,200 Total cost per intersection form $79,600 per intersection form Schedule Each study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. Driveway Crossings Purpose The objective is to collect data to study the effect of driveways and stop-controlled side streets on pedestrian QOS. Justification Although the NCHRP Project 03-70, “Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets” research found no significant effect of driveways on pedestrian facility ratings, practitioners (such as panel members for NCHRP Project 03-120, “Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users”) have found this result hard to believe. In addition, the HCM urban street LOS method

287 assumes that pedestrians are unaffected when they must cross stop-controlled side streets, under the theory that side-street traffic must stop and give the right-of-way to crossing pedestrians. However, the influence of turning traffic from the major street is not considered. Consequently, further research is required on this topic. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 20 locations. These locations will be balanced by geography, scale, and land use. Two cameras will be used per location and record video for 2 hours (4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. The video data collected will post-processed to derive PMs. Intercept surveys will be collected at the same locations on a different day during the same 2-hour time period. Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics.  Number of driveways  Pedestrian volume  Vehicular volume  Driveway width  Visibility (sight lines) From the intercept surveys:  Pedestrian satisfaction Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:  Cost per camera: $50 (includes one 2-hour period)  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 2 hours  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30  Intercept survey: 2 people collecting on one weekday for a total of 2 hours per site ($60 per hour for two people), including transportation time to and from the site. Table D6 shows the breakdown of costs for this research activity. Table D6. Cost for Driveway Crossings Study. Number of sites 20 Number of cameras per site 2 Video data recording (all sites) $2,000 Video processing $7,200 Intercept survey $7,200 Analysis $10,000 Contingency $2,600 Total cost per intersection form $29,000

288 Schedule Each study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. Group 3: Operational Measures This research activities in this group focus on questions related to pedestrian operations on sidewalks and crosswalks. The activities in this group are: 1. Basic crosswalk operations 2. High-volume pedestrian facilities 3. Effects of pedestrian delay 4. Pedestrian crossing spacing 5. Effects of building entrances and high-activity transit stops on pedestrian facilities Basic Crosswalk Questions Purpose This research activity will collect data to address the following questions at signalized crosswalks:  Pedestrian speed while crossing  Vehicle effects on pedestrian flow  Length of time that pedestrians enter the crosswalk after the start of DON’T WALK These research needs were combined into one activity because the research team felt that they could be addressed from the same video data collected at specified locations. Justification Research by the New York City DOT has found that a number of factors affect pedestrian speeds in signalized crosswalks, but the current HCM procedure does not account for these effects. Vehicles interacting with pedestrians using the crosswalk may create operational effects (e.g., delayed entry into the crosswalk, longer crossing times, higher pedestrian densities as pedestrians avoid encroaching vehicles). The length of time that pedestrians enter the crosswalk after the start of DON’T WALK affects both pedestrian and motorized vehicle operations. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 20 signalized intersections. These locations will be balanced by geography, scale, and land use, and will especially focus on sites with higher percentages of seniors and children because these populations have different crossing behaviors. Three cameras will be used per location and will record video for 12 hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on two days (one weekday, one weekend day). The video data collected will post-processed (6 hours of video per day will be processed) to derive PMs. Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics:  Number of pedestrians crossing per cycle  Pedestrian characteristics (in a group, gender, general age, distractions)  Pedestrian speed (measured and compared with literature)

289  Pedestrian direction of crossing  Time when pedestrian starts and completes crossing  Time after green (WALK) when pedestrian enter the crosswalk  Presence of vehicles in the crosswalk  Vehicle volume  Pedestrian noncompliance (temporal) – Entering on flashing DON’T WALK – Entering on solid DON’T WALK  Pedestrian noncompliance (spatial) – Number of pedestrians crossing near the crosswalk Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:  Cost per camera: $200 (includes two 6-hour periods)  Hours of video to process: minimum of 12 hours  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 4 hours  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30 Table D7 shows the breakdown of costs for this research activity. Table D7. Cost for Basic Crosswalk Questions Study. Number of sites 20 Number of cameras per site 3 Video data recording (all sites) $12,000 Video processing $86,400 Analysis $10,000 Contingency $10,800 Total cost $119,200 Schedule The study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. High-Volume Pedestrian Facilities Purpose The objective of this research activity is to collect data on operational conditions particularly affecting high-volume pedestrian facilities.  Pedestrian spillover out of crosswalk area  Conditions under which pedestrians start spilling out of the circulation zone, or start walking in the street  Effective sidewalk width determination

290 These research questions were combined into one activity because the research team felt that these questions could be answered using the same video data at specified locations. Justification Studies by the New York City DOT found that the current HCM pedestrian measure was too insensitive to changes in pedestrian volume or effective width. The New York City DOT also found that shy distances reported in the literature were not based on actual observations and hypothesized that they may vary under different conditions. The HCM identifies that pedestrians will start spilling out of a pedestrian facility under conditions better than LOS F, but does not identify what those conditions are. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 20 locations. These locations will be selected using the following criteria: (a) very high pedestrian volumes (to observe spillover and more accurately determine shy distances), (b) some sort of bottleneck, (c) a variety of objects creating bottlenecks (lamp posts, benches, café tables, landscaping, cars blocking the curb ramp, etc.) and (d) a range of facility widths. Three cameras will be used per location to record video for 12 hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on two days (one weekday, one weekend day). The video data collected will be post-processed (6 hours of video per day will be processed) to derive PMs. Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics:  Sidewalk width (actual, effective)  Crosswalk width  Number of pedestrians (sidewalk, crosswalk)  Pedestrian characteristics (in a group, gender, general age, distractions)  Pedestrian direction of crossing  Pedestrian speed  Pedestrian density  Pedestrian behavior Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:  Cost per camera: $200 (includes two 6-hour periods)  Hours of video to process: minimum of 12 hours  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 3 hours  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30 Table D8 shows the breakdown of costs for this research activity.

291 Table D8. Cost for High-Volume Pedestrian Facilities Study. Number of sites 20 Number of cameras per site 4 Video data recording (all sites) $16,000 Video processing $86,400 Analysis $10,000 Contingency $11,200 Total cost $123,600 Schedule The study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. Effects of Pedestrian Delay Purpose The objective of this research activity is to collect data on the effects of pedestrian delay and low cross- street traffic volume on pedestrian noncompliance with traffic signals. Justification Pedestrian noncompliance with traffic signals is a safety issue. Demonstrating that countermeasures to reduce pedestrian delay (e.g., by shortening traffic signal cycle lengths) improve compliance could be used to justify those countermeasures. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 20 locations. These locations will be balanced by geography, scale, and land use, and be specifically selected for periods of both low and moderate cross- street volumes, as well as a variety of speed regimes. Four cameras will be used per location and will record video for 12 hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on two days (one weekday, one weekend day). The video data collected will be post-processed (6 hours of video per day will be processed) to derive PMs. Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics.  Pedestrian delay (time between push-button actuation or pedestrian arrival and WALK indication)  Pedestrian volume  Pedestrian compliance  Vehicular volume (major street and cross-street) Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:  Cost per camera: $200 (includes two 6-hour periods)  Hours of video to process: minimum of 12 hours  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 3 hours

292  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30 Table D9 shows the breakdown of costs for this research activity. Table D9. Cost for Effects of Pedestrian Delay Study. Number of sites 20 Number of cameras per site 4 Video data recording (all sites) $16,000 Video processing $86,400 Analysis $10,000 Contingency $11,200 Total cost $123,600 Schedule The study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. Pedestrian Crossing Spacing Purpose The objective of this research activity is to collect data to answer the following research questions:  Relationship between distance between marked crossing opportunities and crossing outside the marked crosswalks  Relationship between traffic volumes and crossing outside marked crosswalks. These statements were combined into one group because the research team felt that both questions could be answered using the same video data at specified locations. Justification This research will better inform practitioners’ understanding of pedestrian crossing behavior and could help support the development of standards for maximum distances between crossing opportunities. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 50 locations. These locations will consist of a variety of road widths, traffic volumes, and speeds and be balanced by geography, scale, and land use. Road segments with higher pedestrian traffic for a given road type and geography will be prioritized in order to have sufficient observations to answer the research questions. Because the sites will be located between marked crossings, six cameras will be used per road segment to capture crossings along the segment and record video for a total of 12 hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on two days (one weekday, one weekend day). The video data collected will be post-processed (6 hours of video per day will be processed) to derive PMs. Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics.  Distance between crosswalks

293  Pedestrian and vehicular volumes  Pedestrian compliance and selected crossing location Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:  Cost per camera: $200 (includes two 6-hour periods)  Hours of video to process: minimum of 12 hours  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 3 hours  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30 Table D10 shows the breakdown of costs for this research activity. Table D10. Cost for Pedestrian Crossing Spacing Study. Number of sites 50 Number of cameras per site 4 Video data recording (all sites) $60,000 Video processing $324,000 Analysis $10,000 Contingency $39,400 Total cost $433,400 Schedule The study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. Building Entrances and High-Activity Transit Stops Purpose The objective is to collect data to study the effect of high-volume building entrances and high-activity transit stops on pedestrian flow at transit stops. Justification Building entrances and high-activity transit stops generate both sidewalk cross-flows and groups of people that block a portion of the sidewalk circulation area. However, these effects on sidewalk operations have not been well-studied. Proposed Data Collection and Analysis Methodology The research team proposes to collect data at 20 locations. If possible, the study will be balanced across geography, but it is expected that most of the locations will be selected in a very high pedestrian volume commercial area, such as found in New York City. Two cameras will be used per location and record video for 12 hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on two days (one weekday, one weekend day). The video data collected will post-processed (6 hours of video per day will be processed) to derive PMs.

294 Performance Measures During the post-processing of the video data, we propose to collect the following metrics:  Pedestrian volumes (sidewalk, in and out of the building, boarding and alighting, waiting)  Sidewalk width (actual, effective) Cost The following assumptions have been made in developing cost estimates:  Cost per camera: $200 (includes two 6-hour periods)  Hours of video to process: minimum of 12 hours  Processing time per 1 hour of video: 3 hours  Processing cost per 1 hour of video: $30 Table D11 shows the breakdown of costs for this research activity. Table D11. Cost for Building Entrance and High-Volume Transit Stops Study. Number of sites 20 Number of cameras per site 2 Video data recording (all sites) $8,000 Video processing $43,200 Analysis $10,000 Contingency $6,100 Total cost $67,300 Schedule The study would take approximately 4 months from start to finish. References Kittelson & Associates, Inc.; Parsons Brinckerhoff; KFH Group, Inc.; Texas A&M Transportation Institute; and Arup. 2013. TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Mekuria, M.C., P.G. Furth, and H. Nixon. 2012. Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. Report 11-19. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, CA. Monsere, C., Y. Wang, H. Wang, and C. Chen. 2017. Risk Factors for Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes. Final Report, SPR 779. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem. Thomas, L., L. Sandt, C. Zegeer, W. Kumfer, K. Lang, B. Lan, Z. Horowitz, A. Butsick, J. Toole, and R.J. Schneider. 2018. Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis. Pre-publication draft of NCHRP Research Report 893. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Despite widespread use of walking as a transportation mode, walking has received far less attention than the motor vehicle mode in terms of national guidance and methods to support planning, designing, and operating safe, functional, and comfortable facilities.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Web-Only Document 312: Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities is a supplement to NCHRP Research Report 992: Guide to Pedestrian Analysis. It provides a practitioner-friendly introduction to pedestrian analysis.

Supplemental to the document are Proposed Highway Capacity Manual Chapters.

  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!