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.
2023 N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1030 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals Kay Fitzpatrick Srinivas Geedipally Boniphace Kutela Texas A&M Transportation Institute College Station, TX Peter Koonce Peter Koonce Consulting Portland, OR Subscriber Categories Highways â¢ Operations and Traffic Management Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta- tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high- way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniquesâthe National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- ment No. 693JJ31950003. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRBâs recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRBâs relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year R&Iâs recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published research reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx Printed in the United States of America NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1030 Project 03-141 ISSN 2572-3766 (Print) ISSN 2572-3774 (Online) ISBN 978-0-309-68770-6 Library of Congress Control Number 2022951382 Â© 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade- marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifi- cations. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which pro- vide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names or logos appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1030 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Sid Mohan, Associate Program Manager, Implementation and Technology Transfer, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Zuxuan Deng, Senior Program Officer Anthony P. Avery, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Claire Aelion-Moss, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 03-141 PANEL Field of TrafficâArea of Operations and Control Trey Young Tillander, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL (Chair) John E. Fisher, South Pasadena, CA Sirisha Murthy Kothuri, Portland State University, Portland, OR Stephen Landry, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME Alejandra L. Medina, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, VA Richard B. Nassi, Pima Association of Governments, Tucson, AZ Sonja Piper, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Roseville, MN Bill J. Shao, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, CA Juliet Shoultz, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Washington, DC Peter Eun, FHWA Liaison
NCHRP Research Report 1030: Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals presents a state- of-the-practice guide to midblock pedestrian crossing treatments, summarizes the safety effectiveness of midblock pedestrian signal (MPS) installations, and proposes language for consideration in future updates to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for MPSs. The material in this report will be of immediate interest to new and experienced traffic engineers and roadway designers in their efforts to design facilities to accommodate midblock pedestrian crossings that lead to greater pedestrian safety and satisfaction. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) Signals Tech- nical Committee has reviewed treatments for several types of midblock pedestrian crosswalk with highway traffic signals or beacons, and has recommended a new chapter for Part 4 of the MUTCD titled âMidblock Pedestrian Signals.â The MPS would operate similarly to a standard semiactuated vehicular traffic control signal at a midblock crossing, except it would display to motorists a flashing red indication in place of a solid red indication during the pedestrian clearance interval. The MPS supports âcomplete streets,â a transportation policy and design approach that calls for roadways to be designed and operated with all users in mind: bicyclists, public transportation users, drivers, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Pedestrians frequently find themselves in a predicament when needing to cross roads to access transit stops, busi- nesses, medical facilities, and residences. Without an easily accessible signalized crossing, they may be uncomfortable crossing with only a crosswalk and sign, and pedestrian volumes may not accurately reflect pedestrian demand. Moreover, increases in lower-density sprawl- like development mean these crossings rarely happen in such a concentrated manner as to justify a midblock signal based on conventional signal volume warrants described in MUTCD Chapter 4C. The FHWAâs Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (2018) presented alternative treatments such as the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) and the pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB). The proposed MPS is intended to expand safety options at midblock crossings while reflecting modern pedestrian crossing needs and roadway contexts. The MPS concept has been used for more than 40 years in several cities, including Los Angeles, and previous FHWA studies have found this type of operation to have a very high rate of driver compliance. Under NCHRP Project 03-141, âGuidance on Midblock Pedestrian Signals,â Texas A&M Transportation Institute was asked to summarize the effectiveness of MPS installations and propose language for consideration for future updates to the MUTCD. The research team F O R E W O R D By Zuxuan Deng Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
conducted a literature review on the safety effectiveness of pedestrian treatments with a signal controller and provided a summary of the literature on how to estimate pedestrian volume at a signalized intersection, since pedestrian volume is a key element in a safety analysis of pedestrian treatments. A survey was developed and administered to learn about the state of the practice for pedestrian crossing treatments at intersections and midblock locations. The research team identified 193 treatment sites and more than 1,000 control sites to assess the safety effectiveness of MPSs using a cross-sectional observational study. The team selected a recommended MPS CMF (crash modification factor) for each crash type analyzed. Supplemental to this report is an Implementation of Research Findings memo, available on the National Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org) by searching for NCHRP Research Report 1030: Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals.
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at nap.nationalacademies.org) retains the color versions. 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Research Objective 1 Organization of Report 3 Chapter 2 Literature Review 3 Midblock Pedestrian Signal Effectiveness 5 Half-Signal Effectiveness 5 PHB Safety Effectiveness 6 Coordinated Signals 6 Sources for Pedestrian Volume 10 Key Findings from Literature 11 Chapter 3 Survey of Public Agencies 11 Information about the Agencies Responding to the Survey 12 Experience with Pedestrian Crossing Treatments 12 Selecting Treatments 13 Detection for MPS/PHB Treatments 13 Display, Device Operations, and Performance 15 Benefits of Treatments 15 Summary of Key Survey Findings 16 Chapter 4 Safety AnalysisâDatabase Development 16 Site Identification 17 Vehicle and Pedestrian Volume 22 Roadway Characteristics 26 Crash Data 27 Identifying Crashes for a Given Location/Database Cleaning 29 Chapter 5 Safety AnalysisâFindings 29 Method 29 Number of Sites for Treated and Control Groups 31 Models 32 Findings 36 Crash Modification Factors 37 Comparison with Other Studies 40 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 40 Summary 41 Discussion 42 Future Research Needs 44 References C O N T E N T S