Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 43-58

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 43...
... Pedestrian Walking Speed by Age Groups To permit comparisons with other studies, the data were grouped to reflect the following: • Young -- consists of pedestrians between the ages of 13 and 60, and • Old -- includes pedestrians older than 60. The gender of the pedestrian was also recorded if the technician was able to determine the information from the field observation or later in the office during the video data reduction effort.
From page 44...
... . Comparison of TCRP/NCHRP Walking Speed Findings with Previous Work As documented in Appendix M, several studies have examined walking speed, including • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (1)
From page 45...
... F 15th P 50th Walking Speed (ft/s) F 50th P F1,n-1,0.05 Male, Old & Young 3.11 0.0001 4.19 4.78 19.2 0.0001 3.85 Female, Old & Young 2.82 3.79 24.8 0.0001 4.41 4.67 1.78 0.1825 3.85 Both Age Groups Male & Female 3.67 3.75 2.91 0.0882 4.75 4.67 2.91 0.0882 3.84 Old Male & Female 3.11 2.82 2.67 0.1053 4.19 4.41 1.54 0.2174 2.91 Young Male & Female 3.75 3.79 0.70 0.4029 4.78 4.67 5.31 0.0213 3.84 Both Genders Old & Young 3.03 3.77 35.25 0.0001 4.25 4.74 14.96 0.0001 3.84 Bold cells indicate the walking speeds are different between the comparison groups.
From page 46...
... Summary of Motorist Yielding Rates Tables 21 and 22 summarize the measured motorist yielding data from both types of pedestrian crossings (general population and staged) , including comparable evaluation data from the literature where available.
From page 47...
... TCRP D-08/NCHRP 3-71 Study Other Studies Compliance – Staged Pedestrian Crossing Compliance – General Population Pedestrian Crossing Compliance – Literature Review (from Table L-1) Crossing Treatment # of Sites Range (%)
From page 48...
... Only two crossing treatments (total of four study sites) had motorist yielding rates with a greater than 10 percent difference between general population and staged pedestrians.
From page 49...
... The research team performed a qualitative analysis and a statistical analysis of covariance to find those factors that most affected the range in compliance rates. Effect of Number of Lanes The top chart in Figure 25 shows the motorist yielding by treatment type (major grouping)
From page 50...
... Motorist yielding by crossing treatment and number of lanes.
From page 51...
... Motorist yielding by crossing treatment and posted speed limit.
From page 52...
... The F-statistical tests revealed that the compliance rates were statistically different, which indicates that the speed limit affects the performance of the device. Flags, refuge islands, and high-visibility markings all perform better on the lower-speed roadways.
From page 53...
... might enter the crosswalk, giving the appearance that the actual gap was very small; but if the pedestrian properly timed the crossing, the gap is acceptable to the pedestrian at a comfortable walking speed. CA-LA-2 is a four-lane divided roadway with a configuration similar to that shown in Figure 27.
From page 54...
... Inspection of Figure 29 reveals that the observed gaps were less than the calculated critical gap for a walking speed of 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s)
From page 55...
... Of the 53 pedestrians who boarded a bus, the distribution of crossing behavior is listed in Table 25. About 17 percent of the boarding pedestrians ran or walk/ran through the major roadway crossing before boarding.
From page 56...
... Each treatment that showed a red indication to the motorist (e.g., Half, HAWK, or Msig) had between 90 and 95 percent of the pedestrian crossings within 10 ft (3.1 m)
From page 57...
... , all treatments had rates of 84 to 98 percent. Pedestrian Activation If the crossing treatment could be activated, each crossing pedestrian was coded into one of the following categories: • 1 -- the pedestrian did not attempt to activate the system but had to wait for an acceptable gap; • 2 -- the pedestrian did not attempt or was not properly positioned to activate the pedestrian crossing, or an acceptable gap was present when the pedestrian arrived at the curb; • 3 -- the crossing treatment was activated by the pedestrian, who waited until the proper time to cross (i.e., Walk signal or flashing light activation)
From page 58...
... about 60 percent of crossing pedestrians, while active yellow devices were activated 28 percent of the time. Also, about one-half of the pedestrians at a refuge island had no wait, while 85 to 90 percent of pedestrians at other enhanced treatments had no wait.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.