The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 96-156

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 96... ... 96 A P P E N D I X H Introduction This appendix reviews and summarizes research studies that have evaluated the safety effects of selected types of pedestrian crossing treatments at unsignalized crossing locations. Specifically, this appendix is the result of Task 2 of NCHRP Project 17-56, "Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments." The following types of pedestrian treatments are included: • Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk signs and pavement markings, including advanced yield or stop markings and signs; • High-visibility crosswalk marking patterns; • High-intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) Read the entire page →
From page 97... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 97 Treatment 1. Unsignalized Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs and Pavement Markings, including Advanced Yield or Stop Markings and Signs Signing In-Street Pedestrian Signs An early version of in-street pedestrian signs was studied as part of a 2000 report by Huang, Zegeer, Nassi, and Fairfax published by the Federal Highway Administration. Read the entire page →
From page 98... ... 98 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments the experiment, while five sites were used in the second year. The researchers were able to conduct before-after analysis at two of the sites and after-only analysis at two of the sites. Read the entire page →
From page 99... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 99 was also observed. The researchers concluded that the signs were more effective at intersections than at midblock crossings, but that the in-roadway yield-to-pedestrian signs had an overall positive effect on increasing pedestrian safety. Read the entire page →
From page 100... ... 100 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments on a rotating, random order either at the crosswalk itself, 20 feet in advance of the crosswalk, or 40 feet in advance of the crosswalk. A z-test for comparing proportions was utilized to analyze pedestrian and driver behavior as a result of the sign placement. Read the entire page →
From page 101... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 101 A 2009 evaluation of the Pedsafe II project in San Francisco used video observation and intercept surveys to collect pre- and post-treatment data to evaluate the effectiveness of 13 countermeasures deployed at 29 sites throughout San Francisco, California. As part of the project, in-street "Yield-to-Pedestrian" signs were installed in the medians of uncontrolled crosswalks. Read the entire page →
From page 102... ... 102 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments 4. Kamyab, A., S Read the entire page →
From page 103... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 103 separately from the high-visibility crosswalk, the researchers concluded that the treatments had a positive effect on pedestrian safety at the two intersections that were studied (4) Read the entire page →
From page 104... ... 104 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments In 2002, a Transportation Research Record article by Van Houten, McCusker, Huybers, Malenfant, and Rice-Smith gave the results of experiments that studied the effects of advance yield markings and fluorescent yellow-green RA 4 signs at 24 rural and urban crosswalks throughout Nova Scotia, Canada. The signs featured the message "yield here to pedestrians," using the yield symbol and an arrow pointing in the direction of the crosswalk on a rectangular, fluorescent yellow-green sign. Read the entire page →
From page 105... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 105 A 2011 Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTRANS) report described the agency's experience with installing, evaluating, and maintaining the SmartStud in-pavement crosswalk lighting system and BlinkerSign, a sign equipped with LED lights. Read the entire page →
From page 106... ... 106 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments data were used and new data were collected to evaluate the BlinkerSign. The researchers found that yielding compliance increased by 23 percent on average following the installation of the BlinkerSign, compared to 13 percent following the installation of SmartStud. Read the entire page →
From page 107... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 107 parallel lines, ladder or continental stripes, and diagonal stripes (1) Read the entire page →
From page 108... ... 108 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments parallel-line crosswalks had been removed due to resurfacing, rather than at sites with pedestrian accident histories. At many intersections, some legs had both marked and unmarked crosswalks before and after the study. Read the entire page →
From page 109... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 109 Source: Zegeer et al., 2002. Read the entire page →
From page 110... ... 110 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Revisiting Older Studies As documented by Campbell et al. Read the entire page →
From page 111... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 111 pedestrian at sample crossing locations, speed data were taken under three conditions: no pedestrian present, pedestrian looking, pedestrian not looking. Results indicated a slight reduction in vehicle approach speeds at most, but not all, of the locations after the crosswalk markings had been installed. Read the entire page →
From page 112... ... 112 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments in a marked crosswalk, would act more aggressively toward motorists. An analysis of data by the research team found no statistically significant difference in blatantly aggressive behavior by pedestrians following the crosswalk installation. Read the entire page →
From page 113... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 113 3. Zegeer, C Read the entire page →
From page 114... ... 114 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments treatments on vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and yielding behavior at the sites. An analysis of pre- and post-treatment data indicated that the markings and signs produced an 80 percent decrease in vehicle-pedestrian conflicts as well as an increase in percentage of yielding motorists at treatment sites. Read the entire page →
From page 115... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 115 and New Brunswick. Baseline data were collected in each of the cities prior to treatment, which consisted of education and enforcement in addition to the engineering countermeasures. Read the entire page →
From page 116... ... 116 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments In 2001, Van Houten, Malenfant and McCusker studied the effectiveness of advance yield markings used with symbol signs at three crosswalks in Nova Scotia, Canada, where yellow flashing beacons were already in place. The researchers experimented with yield marking placement, finding that marking and sign placement was effective at distances between 10 and 25 meters in advance of the crosswalk. Read the entire page →
From page 117... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 117 that Danish offset and high-visibility crosswalk treatments lead to a yielding rate of just below 50 percent at two sites, while the use of advanced yield markings caused the yielding rate to increase. Following statistical tests, the study concluded that Danish offsets, median refuge islands, and high-visibility crosswalks do enhance pedestrian safety with advance yield markings being more successful when coupled with Danish offsets as opposed to a combination with pedestrian refuge islands (8) Read the entire page →
From page 118... ... 118 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments A 2013 TRB paper by Hengel presented the results of a study of a single site in Santa Barbara, CA, where a curb extension, pedestrian refuge island, and stop bars were installed. MOEs were crossing delay, number of motorists failing to yield, and distance drivers yield from the crosswalk. Read the entire page →
From page 119... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 119 9. Pecheux, K., J Read the entire page →
From page 120... ... 120 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments and driver characteristics. Analysis of results showed that detection distances for continental and bar pairs were statistically similar and are also statistically significantly longer than for transverse line markings at day and at night. Read the entire page →
From page 121... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 121 crash rate decreased by 44.9 percent at treatment sites and by 11.5 percent at comparison sites. This resulted in an ANCOVA-adjusted reduction in pedestrian collisions of 48 percent at treatment sites, results which were significant at the 0.05 level (5) Read the entire page →
From page 122... ... 122 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments major arterials (1, 2) Read the entire page →
From page 123... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 123 high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) , and pedestrian user-friendly intelligent (PUFFIN) Read the entire page →
From page 124... ... 124 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments 3. Chalmers, M Read the entire page →
From page 125... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 125 trapped pedestrians, leading the authors to conclude that the stutter-flash beacon was effective in increasing pedestrian safety at multilane crosswalks (2) Read the entire page →
From page 126... ... 126 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments when the beacon was activated. The automated flashing beacon led to a significant reduction in vehicle/pedestrian conflicts (from 6.1 percent pre-treatment to 2.9 percent post-treatment) Read the entire page →
From page 127... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 127 The RRFB also produced increases in driver yielding behavior at the two sites where its performance was compared to overhead and side-mounted beacons. At the site of the overhead beacon, motorist yielding increased from 15.5 percent with the overhead beacon to 78.3 percent when two RRFBs were installed and to 88 percent when four RRFBs were installed. Read the entire page →
From page 128... ... 128 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments staged pedestrians and employed the same protocol for crossing and observing driver yielding across all sites to ensure more comparable study conditions. Yielding rates for 22 RRFB sites varied more across different cities (34 to 92% yielding) Read the entire page →
From page 129... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 129 References 1. Federal Highway Administration. Read the entire page →
From page 130... ... 130 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments owing to the differences across sites and observed treatment effects, it would be advisable to further study the systems before considering them fully ready for field implementation (3) Read the entire page →
From page 131... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 131 that would be visible during all seasons. Also, in-pavement lights are generally visible to only the first car in a platoon. Read the entire page →
From page 132... ... 132 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments 32,894 vehicular crashes and 1,012 pedestrian crashes that occurred in three U.S. cities (Atlanta, Georgia; Phoenix, Arizona; and Los Angeles/Pasadena, California) Read the entire page →
From page 133... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 133 the 3 years before installation to 6 during the 3 years following installation of the refuge islands. However, there were 46 vehicle-island crashes during the after period, which were not possible during the 3 years prior to island installation. Read the entire page →
From page 134... ... 134 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments mean speeds and increase in speed-limit compliance at the treatment site for both the long and short term (8) Read the entire page →
From page 135... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 135 researchers measured the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the roadway, the percentage of pedestrian–vehicle conflicts, the percentage of drivers yielding to pedestrians, and the average pedestrian delay before and after the medians were installed. The researchers found no significant impact on driver yielding, trapped pedestrians, or pedestrian–vehicle conflicts at either of the sites, and a statically significant increase in pedestrian delay at one of the sites. Read the entire page →
From page 136... ... 136 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Danish offset, there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of diverted pedestrians, proportion of drivers who yielded to pedestrians, and driver yield distance (11) Read the entire page →
From page 137... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 137 A 2001 study by Huang and Cynecki involved evaluating curb extensions at eight residential and arterial crosswalk locations in Massachusetts, Washington, North Carolina, and Virginia, based on pedestrian wait time, vehicle speed, and motorist yielding behavior. The researchers employed pre- and post-treatment research design for the sites in Massachusetts and Washington and treatment and control design in North Carolina and Virginia. Read the entire page →
From page 138... ... 138 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments were crossing delay, number of motorists failing to yield, and distance drivers yield from the crosswalk. Results show that the combination of treatments is effective at reducing wait times to cross, decreasing percentage of vehicles that pass before yielding, and increasing the distance that vehicles yield in advance of the crosswalk (5) Read the entire page →
From page 139... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 139 North Carolina crosswalk, there were insufficient pedestrian crossings for comparison. At the Maryland site, the difference in motorist yielding was not statistically significant. Read the entire page →
From page 140... ... 140 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments increased motorist awareness of the crossings, as evidenced by lower mean vehicle speeds and self-reported yielding behavior. However, surveys revealed limited driver understanding of the markings' purpose (2) Read the entire page →
From page 141... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 141 increase in pedestrian fatalities, compared to statewide collision data. While the comprehensive program made determining specific program impacts difficult to analyze, the program has accompanied an improved pedestrian safety environment throughout the city (3) Read the entire page →
From page 142... ... 142 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments engineers concerned with whether it is cost-effective to use high-visibility crosswalk marking patterns. More research is needed to determine safety effects of this treatment. Read the entire page →
From page 143... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 143 (e.g., two-lane vs. multi-lane, high-speed vs. Read the entire page →
From page 144... ... 144 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Treatment 1. (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 145... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 145 Treatment 1. (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 146... ... 146 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Treatment 1. (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 147... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 147 Treatment 1. (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 148... ... 148 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Study Title Authors Year Summary CMFs? Application Notes Effect of Advanced Yield Markings and Symbolic Signs on VehiclePedestrian Conflicts: A Field Evaluation Samuel et al. Read the entire page →
From page 149... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 149 Treatment 2. (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 150... ... 150 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Study Title Authors Year Summary CMFs? Application Notes Pedestrian and Motorists' Actions at Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Sites: Findings from a Pilot Study. Read the entire page →
From page 151... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 151 Treatment 4. (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 152... ... 152 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Treatment 5. (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 153... ... Effects of Pedestrian Treatments at Unsignalized Crossings: A Summary of Available Research 153 Treatment 6. (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 154... ... 154 Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Treatment 7. Curb Extensions. Read the entire page →
From page 155... ... Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) Read the entire page →
From page 156... ... TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-44626-6 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 4 6 2 6 6 9 0 0 0 0 N O N -PR O FIT O R G . Read the entire page →

From page 96...

... 96 A P P E N D I X H Introduction This appendix reviews and summarizes research studies that have evaluated the safety effects of selected types of pedestrian crossing treatments at unsignalized crossing locations. Specifically, this appendix is the result of Task 2 of NCHRP Project 17-56, "Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments." The following types of pedestrian treatments are included: • Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk signs and pavement markings, including advanced yield or stop markings and signs; • High-visibility crosswalk marking patterns; • High-intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK)