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.
13 Chapter 2. State of the Practice Introduction This chapter provides information about the state of the practice related to pedestrian volume and exposure estimation, pedestrian operations analysis, pedestrian QOS analysis, and the relationship between pedestrian safety countermeasures and QOS, as identified through a literature review and stakeholder interviews. The chapter also assesses limitations of the on-street pedestrian operations and quality-of- service methodologies presented in the HCM 6th Edition (TRB 2016). Based on this information, gaps in knowledge were identified and potential research activities were scoped and budgeted to fill these gaps. Because more needs were identified than the project budget would permit investigating, the project panel and researchers had to prioritize which activities to fund, and selected those deemed to be most important by the stakeholders. Chapter 3 presents the research approach for the selected activities, while this chapter summarizes the activities that remain as research needs. Literature Review The literature review included more than 300 documents, of which more than 250 are summarized in the full review in Appendix A. This section summarizes key findings from the review. Techniques for Efficient and Accurate Estimation of Pedestrian Volume and Exposure The most commonly used technologies for counting pedestrians at present are manual counts in the field and manual counts from video. When automated counts are used, passive infrared, active infrared and automatic counts from video are the most common methods (FHWA 2011, Ryus et al., 2014a). Pedestrians are particularly difficult to count because they, more than cyclists and much more than motor vehicles, do not always stay in prescribed areas and often travel in close groups that make it difficult to distinguish and count individuals and to distinguish between other road or path users. For example, the most common technology for counting pedestrians, passive infrared, is known to undercount pedestrians by 9%â19% (Schneider et al. 2009, Greene-Roesel et al. 2008) with substantial variation between different manufacturersâ devices (Ryus et al. 2016). NCHRP Web-Only Document 229 gives accuracies for common pedestrian counting technologies (Ryus et al. 2016). To distinguish between pedestrians and bicyclists on paths, a combination of technologies are often employed; for example, counting total nonmotorized users with passive infrared counters and then identifying bicycles so that path users with bicycles can be distinguished from those without (pedestrians). Other technologies (automated counts from video, thermal camera, and radio) use only one sensor to distinguish pedestrians from bicycles (Ryus et al. 2014). Challenges to collecting pedestrian data include funding and legal challenges (e.g., permitting) installing counters. Costs for counting at a sufficient number of sites and for a sufficient duration, as well as for managing the data, are beyond some jurisdictionsâ budgets. Jurisdictions have overcome these costs by using volunteers for manual counts, crowdsourcing, justifying the counts in terms of their usefulness, and acquiring additional funding sources through grants or partnering with other agencies. To overcome quality problems, agencies conduct regular manual and automated quality assurance checks of data from automated counting devices.
14 Three types of models are discussed in NCHRP Report 770 (Kuzmyak et al. 2014) to estimate exposure from count data: trip generation and flow models, network simulation models, and direct demand models. Direct demand modeling is the most common of these because it can be easily applied, but it is not applicable beyond the community where the data used to develop the model were obtained. This method generally requires statistical modeling software to create the model. Methods for estimating pedestrian volumes are also discussed in a recent FHWA report that produced a spreadsheet-based tool for estimating pedestrian traffic at the state and regional levels using nationally available data sources (Turner et al. 2018). Performance Measures for Evaluating Pedestrian Safety, Operations, Mobility, and Satisfaction Literature has identified a number of risk factors that contribute to pedestrian crash frequency and severity. These have been classified into roadway, intersection, traffic, land use, demographics and behavior, and environmental categories. With respect to crash frequency, key pedestrian risk factors include traffic volume, pedestrian volume, measures of transit activity, land use (commercial), functional class (arterials), and presence of turn lanes (Thomas et al. 2018). Key factors that affect crash severity include older pedestrians, larger vehicles (heavy vehicles), darkness, higher speed limits (which affect driving and impact speed), pedestrian crossing the roadway, and pedestrians under the influence of alcohol (Thomas et al. 2018). Table 2-1 and 2-2 summarize the key factors and their effects on crash frequency and severity. Table 2-1. Key Factors Affecting Pedestrian Crash Frequency. Factors Impact on Pedestrian Crash Frequency Traffic volume Increase in crash frequency Pedestrian volume Increase in crash frequency Transit activity Increase in crash frequency Land use (commercial) Increase in crash frequency Presence of turn lanes (right, left) Increase in crash frequency Functional class (arterial) Increase in crash frequency Table 2-2. Key Factors Affecting Pedestrian Crash Severity. Factors Impact on Pedestrian Crash Frequency Older pedestrians Increase in crash severity Large vehicles (heavy trucks) Increase in crash severity Darkness Increase in crash severity Higher speed limits Increase in crash severity Pedestrians crossing the roadway Increase in crash severity Pedestrians under the influence of alcohol Increase in crash severity Pedestrian speed is a key factor describing pedestriansâ operations and mobility. A number of factors influence pedestrian walking speeds, including environmental, traffic, and pedestrian characteristics. These factors have been summarized in Table 2-3.
15 Table 2-3. Key Factors Affecting Pedestrian Speed. Factors Impact on Pedestrian Speed Age Older pedestrians walk slower than younger pedestrians Gender Males exhibit higher speeds than females Group size Slower speeds when pedestrians cross in groups Delay Pedestrian crossing speed increases with increase in delay Gap Pedestrians who accept shorter gaps have higher walking speeds Arrival during the signal phase Pedestrians arriving during the clearance phase who choose to cross may have higher walking speeds The relationship between pedestrian speed, flow, and density has been extensively described in the literature. Most of the studies describe a linear relationship between pedestrian speed and density. However non-linear fits have been found for different trip purposes (Ishaque and Noland, 2008). Studies have also found capacity losses resulting from bi-directional flows (Navin and Wheeler 1969, Fruin 1971, Al-Masaeid et al. 1993). The built environmentâs effects on pedestrian satisfaction and behavior has been extensively explored in the literature. Factors affecting level of satisfaction with the pedestrian environment include those related to physical infrastructure (sidewalk width, presence, and continuity; slope; bus shelter availability; parking; crosswalk presence; pedestrian signal presence; median island presence); road safety (traffic volume, noise and fumes, pedestrian flow rate, waiting time, crossing distance); aesthetics (sidewalk cleanliness and surface quality, presence of obstructions, presence of trees); access and facilities (disabled pedestrian access, land use mix); and security (street lighting, cameras, police patrols). Literature has revealed that pedestrians value factors that directly affect safety, such as road width, vehicle speed and volume, connectivity, and lighting conditions, higher than they value comfort-related factors. Pedestrian Safety Countermeasure Effects on Pedestrian Safety, Operations, and Quality of Service Literature has quantified the effects of only some countermeasures on pedestrian operations and LOS. This literature is mostly related to pedestrian signal timing strategies, such as LPIs (Fayish and Gross 2010, Kothuri et al. 2017, Saneinejad and Lo 2015) and exclusive pedestrian phases (Bechtel et al. 2004). Most other countermeasures implemented to improve pedestrian safety have not been studied for their impacts on pedestrian operations. However, the effects of some of these countermeasures can be predicted based on how they change factors related to the HCMâs pedestrian LOS methods. A summary of the expected effects of the countermeasures listed above is shown in Table 2-4.
16 Table 2-4. Effects of Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures on Pedestrian Operations and LOS at Intersections. Factors Effect on Pedestrian Operations Roadway Segments Sidewalks Improves pedestrian LOS Signalized Intersections Red clearance interval Potentially decreases pedestrian LOS due to increased pedestrian delay at intersection, if the cycle length is increased as a result. Exclusive phasing, pedestrian scramble Reduced pedestrian LOS due to increased pedestrian delay at intersection (Bechtel et al. 2004). Increased pedestrian delays are caused by longer cycle lengths. Additionally, can increase pedestrian noncompliance due to higher delays (Bechtel et al. 2004). Leading pedestrian interval Reduces pedestrian LOS due to increased pedestrian delay at intersection (Fayish and Gross 2010, Kothuri et al. 2017, Saneinejad and Lo 2015). Increased pedestrian delays could be caused by longer cycle lengths. Pedestrian push buttons Potentially improves pedestrian LOS due to decreased pedestrian delay at pedestrian-actuated signals. Pedestrian countdown timers No direct impact on pedestrian LOS. May reduce pedestrian delay if pedestrians determine they have sufficient time to cross during flashing DONâT WALK. Curb extensions No direct impact on pedestrian LOS. If the reduced crossing distance allows the cycle length to be reduced, could improve LOS. Parking removal near the intersection Potentially reduces LOS due to removal of barrier between moving traffic and pedestrians Curb ramps No impact on pedestrian LOS Median refuge If used to create a multi-stage pedestrian crossing, may increase pedestrian LOS due to added crossing delay. Unsignalized Crossings Marked crosswalks May improve driver yielding rate, thereby reducing crossing delay. If a crosswalk provides a new legal crossing opportunity that did not exist before, could improve pedestrian link and segment LOS due to the midblock crossing opportunity Advance YIELD/STOP signs May improve driver yielding rate High-visibility crosswalks May improve driver yielding rate Pedestrian hybrid beacons May improve pedestrian LOS by reducing street-crossing delay, compared to waiting for a gap in traffic Rectangular rapid-flashing beacons May improve driver yielding rate Median refuge, raised median If sufficiently wide to store pedestrians, allows for two-stage crossings, with overall lower delay (improves LOS) Illumination May improve driver yielding rate Pedestrian overpasses and underpasses May introduce extra walking distance into the street crossing Raised pedestrian crossings May improve driver yielding rate
17 Assessment of HCM 6th Edition Methods This research team reviewed the pedestrian analysis methods in the HCM 6th Edition, including the methodâs research basis, the sensitivity of the LOS result to the required inputs, and the challenges associated with the existing HCM methods. The full review is presented as part of the literature review in Appendix A. The following summarizes areas in which the HCM methods potentially could be improved. Simplified Versions of HCM Methods With the publication of the HCM 6th Edition (TRB 2016) and the Planning and Preliminary Engineering Applications Guide to the HCM (PPEAG) (Dowling et al. 2016), two avenues are now available for measuring pedestrian LOS based on operations and QOS. The PPEAG is intended for higher-level analyses that incorporate fewer and less-precise data inputs, while the HCM is intended for more-detailed analysis accounting for a full range of factors that influence operations or QOS. However, this capability to provide methods with different levels of effort is not used at present for pedestrian analysis, as the PPEAG generally refers readers to the corresponding HCM method, although it sometimes suggests additional default values not included in the HCM for a given method or methodological simplifications already suggested in the HCM (e.g., using a simpler link analysis instead of a full segment analysis). Signalized Intersections The HCM 6th Edition provides LOS based on traveler perception (pedestrian intersection LOS score) rather than operations (delay, crosswalk corner area, crosswalk circulation area), although it provided LOS ranges for operational measures prior to the HCM 2010. Given that speed- or delay-based measures of LOS are presented in many other parts of the HCM (including for pedestrians at unsignalized crossings), presenting both operational and traveler perception LOS measures could be considered. Alternatively, a combined LOS, where the reported LOS is the worse of the operational and traveler perception results, could be used, similar to what is currently done for urban street segments. The current method for estimating pedestrian delay at signalized crossings does not accurately account for multi-stage crossings, pedestrian-actuated signals, and non-random pedestrian arrivals. The current method for estimating required crosswalk width to provide a desired LOS assumes a constant pedestrian speed, whereas research has found that these speeds are variable, depending on a variety of factors. The HCM exhibit for circulation areas at street corners that presents ranges of pedestrian space values for a given descriptive QOS (LOS thresholds in editions prior to 2010) is based on values for moving pedestrians (e.g., along sidewalks) rather than for standing pedestrians. However, street corners serve both waiting and moving pedestrians and therefore the QOS associated with a given pedestrian space likely falls somewhere between the values for moving and standing pedestrians. The pedestrian intersection LOS score is insensitive to the following required inputs: pedestrian delay, right-turn-on-red volume, and permitted left- turn volume. Urban Street Segments and Facilities The HCM provides a combined LOS based on both traveler perception (pedestrian segment LOS score) and operations (pedestrian space), with the worse of the two LOS results being reported as the segment LOS. The link component of the segment LOS score is relatively insensitive to the following required inputs: roadway lane widths, traffic speed, landscape buffer width, and sidewalk width (except when installing a sidewalk where none existed previously). Although pedestrian segment LOS is mathematically highly sensitive to the roadway crossing difficulty factor, for practical purposes it is difficult to devise a crossing
18 treatment that will produce much of an effect on the segment LOS score. The model was developed from ratings of pedestrian facilities along urban and suburban collector and arterial streets; it is unknown how pedestrian ratings might differ for local streets or in rural areas. Very large changes in pedestrian flow rates or sidewalk effective widths are needed to observe a change in pedestrian space LOS. Except in areas with very high levels of pedestrian activity, pedestrian space LOS will typically be A or B, and thus not needed to evaluate an overall segment LOS. Although platoon flow is more likely to be the typical case in situations where it makes sense to evaluate pedestrian space LOS, average flow is presented as the default situation. It is unknown whether the shy distances used to determine effective sidewalk width vary by pedestrian volume, time of day, and/or adjacent land use. Although the HCM identifies that pedestrians will spill out of the designated pedestrian circulation area at pedestrian space LOS values better than F, no guidance is provided on a specific LOS where this effect starts to occur. Uncontrolled Crossings The HCM provides an operational LOS based on delay for street crossings where traffic on the street being crossed is uncontrolled; no traveler perception measure is provided. No LOS measure is provided for crossings where traffic is controlled (e.g., by a STOP sign), in part because NCHRP Project 03-70 found no effect of driveways and controlled side-street intersections on urban street segment pedestrian LOS. The HCMâs method for estimating delay is sensitive to many of the types of pedestrian safety countermeasures that could be considered for an uncontrolled crossing, by shortening the crossing distance, improving driver yielding rates, or both. However, there are problems with the HCMâs yielding model that produce unreasonable estimates of delay. In addition, the model has not been field-tested. Other Intersection Forms The HCM provides no pedestrian LOS measure for a variety of intersection forms, including all-way stops, roundabouts, interchange ramp terminals, and alternative intersections and interchanges. In some cases, guidance is provided on adapting the signalized intersection or uncontrolled intersection method, as appropriate, to the other intersection form. Stakeholder Interviews This section summarizes the findings of the stakeholder interviews completed by the research team. The team proposed the organizations and people to be interviewed, which were subsequently approved by the project panel. The public agencies that were interviewed represent a mix of agency types: state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and cities and counties. In addition, these agencies represent a range of geographic locations and population sizes and are known as leaders in improving pedestrian transportation. In addition to the public agency interviews, representatives from several TRB committees were interviewed, including the committees on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service (HCQS), Pedestrians, and Accessible Transportation and Mobility. These interviews provided additional points-of-view, including consultants and academic practitioners, and also set the stage for continuing dialog between the project team and the committees. The distribution of interviews by stakeholder type is given in Table 2-5.
19 Table 2-5. Interviewee Response Rate by Organization Type. Organization Type Interview Completed Declined/ No Response State DOT 11 4 Metropolitan planning organization 9 3 City/county 8 7 TRB Highway Capacity Committee 6 0 TRB pedestrian-related committees 5 2 Panel members not included above 1 2 Total 40 18 Detailed results from the interviews are provided in Appendix B. A summary of the key findings from the interviews is provided below. Pedestrian Volume Counting About three-quarters of the interviewees performed pedestrian volume counts, while the remainder work with volume data collected by others. Most interviewees performed counts for several different types of facilities, with intersections and crosswalks, shared-use paths, and sidewalks all being mentioned by more than half of those who perform counts. About 40% of interviewed organizations who perform counts typically collected directional counts. Ten organizations had developed their own standard counting procedures, three are developing standards, one used the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project guidance, and one used Chapter 4 of the Traffic Monitoring Guide developed by FHWA. Manual counts, automated from video, and manual from video were the most commonly used count methods. Manual counting received mixed reviews: some were satisfied, while others were not satisfied due to the cost and reduced accuracy at high pedestrian volumes. Of those using automated counts from video, six were satisfied, two were not satisfied due to concerns about accuracy, and three did not express an opinion. Users were generally satisfied with manual counts from video, although the time required to reduce data and the need to make sure the camera field-of-view captures all areas of interest were stated as drawbacks. Other relatively common automated methods used were infrared/pyroelectric and piezoelectric; interviewees were satisfied to somewhat satisfied with these. Count locations were most often selected on a project-specific basis, sometimes in conjunction with vehicle counts (e.g., intersection turning-movement counts). Locations with high pedestrian volumes, citizen and councilmember input, and site selection to support a formal counting program were also mentioned by four or more interviewees. Counting for 1â3 hours during peak periods on a single day was the most common approach to conducting short-term counts, followed by one-week and two-week counts. Very few interviewees counted the same location more often than once every year or two, with some interviewees indicating that they favor counting more sites only once (to increase the spatial coverage of count sites) instead of counting the same site more than once (to increase count accuracy). Most interviewees do not adjust their count data for any purpose, except that nearly all of those who use portable automated counting equipment perform some sort of adjustment to account for device-specific errors. The most common count applications, mentioned by more than one-quarter of interviewees, are safety analyses, monitoring facility usage, and prioritizing pedestrian-specific improvements. However, fifteen different types of applications in all were mentioned.
20 Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures Nearly all of those interviewed either directly implemented pedestrian safety countermeasures to some degree, or were involved in planning or making recommendations for countermeasures. The most commonly used countermeasures mentioned by the interviewees were: ï· Intersections: Changing signal timing (particularly implementing LPIs and exclusive pedestrian phases), curb extensions/bulb-outs, installing or adjusting pavement markings, crosswalk treatments, and pedestrian countdown timers ï· Midblock crossings: Beacons (particularly RRFBs and pedestrian hybrid beacons), signage, curb extensions/bulb-outs, and median refuges ï· Street segments: Introducing or improving sidewalks or separated pathways, reducing roadway cross-sections, and introducing landscaping (as a buffer, to provide shade) or other amenities Only five organizations had tried to quantify the effectiveness of any of their installations through before- and-after studies using crash data. Therefore, information obtained from the interviewees is primarily anecdotal, and several interviewees chose not offer opinions on countermeasure effectiveness due to a lack of data. In most cases, only one or two interviewees offered an opinion on effectiveness, although the results were often consistent when multiple opinions were obtained. Countermeasures that had experienced mixed results included: RRFBs (two agencies considered them highly effective, while three thought their effectiveness was greatly dependent on-site characteristics), median refuge islands (three agencies considered them highly effective, while another thought they did not work well on 5-lane roadways because pedestrians were not visible enough), and signage (one thought it was highly effective, while another thought it was their least-effective measure, although it still helped). The need for safety countermeasures was identified by more than half of the organizations through safety planning and monitoring programs (including crash analysis and Vision Zero programs). Input from citizens, politicians, agency staff, and partner agencies was used by one-quarter of the organizations. In all, fourteen different processes were mentioned for identifying the need for countermeasures. Once the need was identified, a specific recommendation for a countermeasure was developed on a project-specific basis, based on the site conditions and crash history, informed by lists of approved countermeasures, national research, and/or engineering judgement. When choosing which countermeasures to implement, crash data and land uses generating significant pedestrian volumes were by far the most commonly used. Three organizations considered risk in addition to crash data. Project cost and/or available budget and staff to implement countermeasures was most commonly mentioned as a challenge for implementing countermeasures, closely followed by issues with the negative impacts to vehicular traffic or disagreements over the relative priorities given to different travel modes. In all, 16 different types of challenges were mentioned. One organization noted that seemingly simple projects, such as filling a sidewalk gap, can turn out to be very expensive, due to the need for water drainage and detention facilities, and that intersection projects were also expensive. That organization also noted that they had started bringing public health factors into the discussion to help justify installing countermeasures. The analysis tools most commonly mentioned as being needed to support pedestrian countermeasures were more data to quantify their effectiveness (including crash modification factors), and pedestrian exposure data (including the ability to forecast future demand once a countermeasure was in place). Pedestrian Quality of Service Only about one-quarter of the interviewees (4 MPOs and 3 DOTs, along with five consultants associated with the HCQS Committee) indicated that they measure, estimate, or forecast pedestrian level or QOS. Of these, nine use HCM methods (and sometimes others) and four use the Florida DOTâs method, while other
21 methods were used by one or two interviewees. Reasons given for not measuring QOS were varied, but included doubts about its usefulness or necessity, data intensiveness, specific issues with HCM methods, a lack of pedestrian volumes to justify performing evaluations, and the lack of agency requirements to study pedestrian conditions. A few organizations mentioned that they evaluate proxies for QOS (e.g., motorist yielding rates, vehicle turning speeds) or consider QOS qualitatively. Most interviewees who had applied the HCM pedestrian methods were somewhat satisfied with them, with the caveat that many of these were persons affiliated with the HCQS Committee (which has responsibility for maintaining the HCM). Two people mentioned that it was useful to have a procedure in a national manual that raises awareness of pedestrian needs. At the same time, a number of challenges were identified with the methods, especially that they require a lot of data, are too quantitative and complex, and are missing some aspects of the pedestrian experience, such as aesthetic and environmental factors. Those who used the FDOT method were somewhat satisfied with it. Some thought that data input for the method was simple, while others thought that the data requirements were too high and the results too optimistic. No single reason stood out as to why the HCMâs pedestrian methods were not used by those who used alternative methods for measuring QOS, but various concerns about the potential applicability of the HCM methods were mentioned, including whether they were suitable outside high-density urban areas, whether they measured the right things, and whether they were sensitive enough to show a change as a result of a proposed improvement. Potential Research Topic Rankings The interviewees were given a list of potential research topics for Phase II of NCHRP Project 17-87 and asked to rate them on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) in terms of priority. The highest-ranked topics by score were effects of physical safety-related improvements (4.4), effects of signal timing changes (4.1), systemwide pedestrian connectivity QOS (4.0), and evaluating pedestrian QOS crossing a street (3.9). In terms of receiving the most â5â ratings, the highest-rated topics were: effects of physical safety-related improvements (21), systemwide pedestrian connectivity QOS (18), and evaluating pedestrian QOS crossing a street (16). Interviewees affiliated with the HCQS Committee gave their highest ranking to extending HCM methods to additional intersection forms, but interviewees affiliated with TRB pedestrian committees and sections, cities, and counties gave the topic a relatively low ranking. Cities and counties were also much less interested than the interviewee group as a whole in evaluating systemwide pedestrian connectivity. Cities and counties were much more interested than the group as a whole in determining usable sidewalk or path width, while state DOTs were much less interested. State DOTs, cities, and counties were more interested than the group as a whole in determining how crosswalk configurations and motorist behaviors affect pedestrian QOS, while interviewees affiliated with the HCQS Committee were much less interested. Interviewees affiliated with the TRB pedestrian committees were much more interested than the group as a whole in evaluating pedestrian QOS crossing a street and the effects of physical safety improvements on QOS. The lowest-ranked topicsâpedestrian operations and satisfaction walking along a street and determining the required crosswalk width for a given pedestrian volumeâhad average scores just below 3, indicating a general feeling that the topics were still important, but were less important than the others. Interviewees suggested an additional 18 topics not included in the list. Development of the Phase II Work Plan The research team developed a series of research plans that would support the development of reliable, valid, and replicable evaluations of pedestrian QOS, including both operational and satisfaction measures.
22 The needs to be addressed were identified by starting with the known gaps in knowledge listed in the projectâs Request for Proposals and Amplified Work Plan. These needs were supplemented with new insights gained through the literature review and then developed into âresearch activities,â individual problem statements addressing one or (usually) more of these needs, along with an identified scope, budget, and schedule. The research activities were then assigned to one of the following four groups: 1. Research Design and Administration. This group of activities was required regardless of which specific activities were selected. It included finalizing the research design for the selected research activities, obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals, pilot testing, and documenting Task 6 methods and findings. 2. Pedestrian Safety Countermeasure Satisfaction Measures. This group of activities focused on understanding pedestrian satisfaction with effective pedestrian safety countermeasures at crossings. The proposed research approach relied on identifying stated satisfaction using various pedestrian facilities obtained from intercept surveys, as well as pedestrian and motorist behaviors revealed through video observations. 3. Sidewalk and Intersection Quality of Service: This group of activities focused on pedestrian satisfaction using different facilities, primarily sidewalks and crosswalks. Similar to the Group 2 activities, the proposed research approach relied on identifying stated satisfaction using various pedestrian facilities obtained from intercept surveys, as well as pedestrian and motorist behaviors revealed through video observations. 4. Operational Measures: This group examined 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 proposed activities relied primarily on pedestrian behavior observed from video. A total of 18 potential research activities were developed. Because the available project budget was less than the amount required to perform all these activities, several âpackagesâ of activities were developed to demonstrate the different ways the activities could be combined. In some cases, cost efficiencies could be achieved by performing related research activities as part of the same package, as the activities could share the same video data collection and processing effort. In other cases, it would not make sense to perform certain activities if related activities were not also performed. The project team recommended that one of the following three packages be selected for Task 6. Each package addressed one or more of the highest-priority research topics identified from the stakeholder interviews, but did so in different ways. These packages were: ï· Safety Countermeasures Focus. This package would have focused the Task 6 research effort on evaluating up to five safety countermeasures, prioritizing countermeasures based on practitioner feedback from the Task 2 interviews. It also included a naturalistic walking study to validate the findings of the video and intercept survey observations. The results would have been used to update the HCMâs existing LOS method for uncontrolled street crossings to account the QOS afforded by various safety countermeasures. ï· Signalized Intersections Focus. This package would have focused the Task 6 research effort on improving understanding of pedestrian QOS and (secondarily) operations at signalized intersections. It would address limitations of the HCM 6th Edition delay method for signalized intersections and would also include a naturalistic walking study. The results would have been used to update all of the pedestrian operations and LOS methods in the HCMâs signalized intersection chapter.
23 ï· Highly Ranked Activities. This package would have addressed a variety of research activities that were highly ranked by the stakeholders interviewed, but with less focus and detail compared to the first two packages. The package included evaluating three pedestrian safety countermeasures and developing a measure of spatial connectivity QOS. It also addressed issues with the existing HCM pedestrian LOS methods and included a naturalistic walking study. The results would have been used to update the HCMâs existing LOS methods for signalized intersection delay (based on theory, without field validation) and uncontrolled street crossings (for fewer countermeasures than the first package), as well as provide a new spatial connectivity LOS method. At the in-person panel meeting, the panel selected the âhighly ranked activitiesâ package to conduct during Phase II of the project. Chapter 3 describes the research approach used for the selected research activities. Appendix D provides research problem statements and estimated budgets for the research activities that were not selected.
