Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 29-39
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 29... ...
29 Safety Analysis -- Findings The focus of the safety analysis was investigating changes in crash frequency by type (all, pedestrians, and rear end) due to the presence of the MPS.
|
From page 30... ...
30 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals Treated or Control Control Typea CA TX UT Total Treated MPS 150 11 32 193 Control group 1, All CBoverhead-24/7 0 1 0 1 Control group 1, All CBoverhead-PedAct 2 0 2 4 Control group 1, All CBroadside-24/7 4 0 0 4 Control group 1, All CBroadside-PedAct 1 1 4 6 Control group 1, All CW&Sign 61 18 19 98 Control group 1, All CW_only 1 0 0 1 Control group 1, All LED-Em 0 2 2 4 Control group 1, All LED-Em & Flags 0 0 4 4 Control group 1, All NoPedTCD 0 32 2 34 Control group 1, All PHB 0 4 10 14 Control group 1, All RRFB 23 2 2 27 Control group 1, All RRFB-Overhead 9 0 0 9 Control group 1, All Signal 198 220 61 479 Control group 1, All Stop-AllWay 3 0 0 3 Control group 1, All Stop-Cont 7 0 0 7 Control group 1, All Stop-ContwCB 1 0 0 1 Control group 1, All Stop-OneWayTraffic 3 0 0 3 Control subtotal 313 280 106 699 Grand total 463 291 138 892 a See Table 15 for descriptions of control type. Treated or Control Control Typea CA TX UT Total Treated MPS 150 11 32 193 Control group 2, 2-leg CBoverhead-24/7 0 1 0 1 Control group 2, 2-leg CBoverhead-PedAct 2 0 2 4 Control group 2, 2-leg CBroadside-24/7 4 0 0 4 Control group 2, 2-leg CBroadside-PedAct 1 1 4 6 Control group 2, 2-leg CW&Sign 60 18 19 97 Control group 2, 2-leg CW_only 1 0 0 1 Control group 2, 2-leg LED-Em 0 2 2 4 Control group 2, 2-leg LED-Em & Flags 0 0 4 4 Control group 2, 2-leg NoPedTCD 0 32 0 32 Control group 2, 2-leg PHB 0 4 9 13 Control group 2, 2-leg RRFB 10 2 0 12 Control group 2, 2-leg Stop-Cont 7 0 0 7 Control group 2, 2-leg Stop-ContwCB 1 0 0 1 Control group 2, 2-leg Stop-OneWayTraffic 3 0 0 3 Control subtotal 89 60 40 189 Grand total 239 71 72 382 a See Table 15 for descriptions of control type.
|
From page 31... ...
Safety Analysis -- Findings 31 Models Preliminary analyses were conducted using the variables listed in Table 16. After preliminary analyses, some of the variables were eliminated because they were consistently not significant (e.g., type of median treatment)
|
From page 32... ...
32 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals Variable Name Model Coefficient Description ADP badp Average daily pedestrians for site (total of all approaches) ADT badt Average daily traffic for the site (total of all approaches)
|
From page 33... ...
Model Coefficient, Variable Name • Ped FI Crashes • All Control Sites • All Treated Sites • Ped FI Crashes • 2-Leg Control Sites • All Treated Sites • Ped FI Crashes • 2-Leg Grey Control Sites • All Treated Sites badp, ADP 0.2225 0.4814 (< 0.0001)
|
From page 34... ...
34 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals within 100 ft. The smaller sample size for treated group 3 (MPS with No Driveway within 100 ft)
|
From page 35... ...
Safety Analysis -- Findings 35 there is a driveway 10 ft or more away, and no safety disbenefit was found when there is no driveway within 50 ft. Rear-End Fatal and Injury Crashes Table 27 provides the estimated regression coefficients for RE crashes for the three control groups.
|
From page 36... ...
36 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals Crash Modification Factors The CMF for the MPS is determined in Equation 4: CMFtrt = ebtrt (4) The various models, along with control groups and treated groups, resulted in several cases where the treatment variable is significant.
|
From page 37... ...
Safety Analysis -- Findings 37 group did not produce a statistically significant coefficient, but the control group that included all comparison sites did. More than one of the models for pedestrian FI crashes resulted in a statistically significant coefficient, and the research team recommends the model that considered those MPSs where a driveway was not within 50 ft of the marked crosswalk.
|
From page 38... ...
38 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals Crash Type PHB CMF 2017 NCHRP Study (11) PHB CMF 2019 ADOT Study (12)
|
From page 39... ...
Safety Analysis -- Findings 39 In general, the CMFs for the MPS developed in this study are similar to the CMFs identified for the PHB. A needed caution when comparing the CMFs for the MPS and the PHB is the difference in characteristics of the sites in each study.
|
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.