Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 16-28
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 16... ...
16 Safety Analysis -- Database Development The prime objective of this project was to determine the safety effectiveness of the MPS. This section describes the identification of potential study sites and the building of the database that will be used in the safety evaluation.
|
From page 17... ...
Safety Analysis -- Database Development 17 • Sites were removed if atypical intersection geometry was present, such as a large skew or a nearby frontage road that would affect pedestrian movement. Treated sites in Los Angeles, CA, San Antonio, TX, and several cities in Utah were identified.
|
From page 18... ...
18 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals 2014 by the Traffic Engineering Division of the City of Long Beach (29)
|
From page 19... ...
Safety Analysis -- Database Development 19 Hour Vehicle Pedestrian % Veha 6.0 Hrb 7.5 Hr 4.0 Hr 2.0 Hr % Peda 6.0 Hr 7.5 Hr 4.5 Hr 4.0 Hr 2.0 Hr 1.0 Hr 0 0.8 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 1 0.4 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 2 0.4 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 3 0.4 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 4 0.4 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 5 1.0 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 6 3.1 na na na na 6.0 na na na na na na 7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 na 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 na na 8 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 na 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 na na 9 5.6 5.6 5.6 na na 7.0 7.0 7.0 3.5 na na na 10 5.2 na na na na 6.0 na na na na na na 11 5.8 na na na 5.8 8.0 na na na na 8.0 na 12 6.3 na na na 6.3 9.0 na na na na 9.0 9.0 13 6.7 na na na na 9.0 na na na na na na 14 6.9 na na na na 8.0 na na na na na na 15 7.5 7.5 7.5 na na 7.0 7.0 7.0 na na na na 16 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 na 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 na na 17 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 na 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 na na 18 6.3 na 6.3 na na 8.0 na 8.0 na na na na 19 5.0 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 20 3.8 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 21 3.1 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 22 2.5 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na 23 1.3 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na % of dayc 100 40.6 46.9 27.5 12.1 100 46.0 54.0 35.5 32.0 17.0 9.0 Adj. Fac.d 1.00 2.46 2.13 3.64 8.28 1.00 2.17 1.85 2.82 3.13 5.88 11.11 a Percentage of vehicles or pedestrians in given hour.
|
From page 20... ...
20 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals of interest. The team used a buffer of 0.5 mi to extract population density, employment density, schools, and college campuses.
|
From page 21... ...
Safety Analysis -- Database Development 21 City Variable Minimum Maximum Average Standard Deviation Los Angeles Population density 0 342,263 149,430.0 82,801.0 Employment density 0 28,408 15,128.0 5,825.0 Schools 0 13 1.8 1.9 College campuses 0 4 0.6 0.9 Bus stops 0 119 52.5 34.4 Bus ridership 0 152,645 35,188.0 49,353.0 Intersection density 1 61 25.7 10.2 Restaurant density 0 61 76.8 66.1 Speed limit 25 45 29.5 5.2 ADT 3,515 127,230 2,6442.0 16,638.8 Signalized 0 1 0.9 0.3 Over two legs 0 1 0.6 0.5 San Francisco Population density 15,606 66,348 30,857.0 10,159.0 Employment density 638 31,702 5,657.2 7,947.9 Schools 0 19 4.6 4.0 College campuses 0 11 1.7 3.0 Bus stops 21 129 49.5 26.3 Intersection density 8 128 45.8 28.7 Restaurant density 1 255 62.5 72.5 Speed limit 15 35 24.9 6.2 ADT 62 28,640 9,224.0 7,168.8 Signalized 0 1 0.9 0.2 Over two legs 0 0 0.0 0.0 San Jose Population density 6,631 32,909 16,145.0 5,897.0 Employment density 1 56 19.7 17.2 Schools 0 8 2.6 2.1 College campuses 0 1 0.3 0.4 Intersection density 1 45 20.3 8.7 Restaurant density 0 38 18.9 12.7 Speed limit 20 40 27.9 5.4 ADT 310 15,094 4,480.0 3,761.7 Signalized 1 1 1.0 1.0 Over two legs 0 0 0.0 0.0 Long Beach Population density 61 24,549 14,232.8 6,219.5 Employment density 0 8 5.7 2.7 Schools 0 8 3.2 2.1 College campuses 0 2 0.5 0.8 Restaurant density 0 117 51.2 43.7 Speed limit 25 40 29.6 3.8 ADT 2,021 27,500 8,419.0 8,418.6 Signalized 0 1 0.7 0.5 Over two legs 0 0 0.0 0.0 Variable Estimate Std. Error Z-Statistic P-Value Intercept 3.231 1.002 3.23 0.001 ln(ADT)
|
From page 22... ...
22 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals developed by the research team based on nearby counts conducted for 12 hours. These locations, along with their estimated daily pedestrian counts, were included in this NCHRP 3-141 study.
|
From page 23... ...
Safety Analysis -- Database Development 23 • Main street presence of bicycle lane (yes or no) • Main street presence of on-street parking • Main street number of lanes on each leg • Main street total crossing distance (includes the width of the median when present)
|
From page 24... ...
24 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals to have minimal volume, it was believed to have nominal influence on operations and safety at that location and was kept in the database as a midblock signal. Additional characteristics of the driveway used to make the decision were if the driveway had one-way operation, did not have a stop sign, or was gated.
|
From page 25... ...
Safety Analysis -- Database Development 25 T or Ca Variable Nameb Values CA TX UT All States T Count Number 150 11 32 193 Main:TotCrossDis (ft)
|
From page 26... ...
26 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals Crash Data The research team acquired crash data from databases available in each state. Because one of the state databases only had fatal and injury (FI)
|
From page 27... ...
Safety Analysis -- Database Development 27 TxDOT's Crash Records Information System Database Crash data for San Antonio, Texas, were collected from in-house sources at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute with access to TxDOT's Crash Records Information System (CRIS)
|
From page 28... ...
28 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals Figure 5. Example of crashes at an intersection.
|
Key Terms
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.