Using NCHRP Report 562 in Evaluating Pedestrian Crossings

Using NCHRP Report 562 in
Evaluating Pedestrian Crossings
ITE Intermountain Section Meeting
May 21, 2010
Ryan Peterson, PE, PTOE
Project Engineering Consultants

Background
• Several recent projects evaluating pedestrian
crossings:
– 11 th Ave. Pedestrian crossing
– BYU-I Campus-Wide Pedestrian Study
• Observations of difficulties faced by public
agencies
– Citizen requests
– High profile cases

Problem:
• Need a defendable framework for evaluating
the appropriateness of different crosswalk
treatments.

NCHRP 562
• Two Main Objectives
– Recommend selected
engineering treatments to
improve safety for pedestrians
crossing high-volume, high-speed
roadways at unsignalized
intersections, in particular on
roads served by public
transportation; and
– Recommend modifications to the
Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD)
pedestrian traffic signal warrant.

NCHRP 562 Cont’d
• Chapters 1 and 2: Background and Ped
Characteristics
• Chapter 3: Review of Pedestrian Crossing
Treatments
– Traffic Signal and Red Beacon Displays
– Flashing Beacons
– In-Roadway Warning Lights
– Motorist Warning Signs and Pavement markings
– Crosswalk Pavement markings
– Roadway Design Elements

NCHRP 562 Cont’d
• Chapter 4: Review of Pedestrian Signal
Warrant
• Chapter 5: Findings from Surveys
• Chapters 6 & 7: Field Surveys and Findings
• Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
– Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing
Treatments
• Provide general recommendations:
– “Red” – Signal or other red indication
– “Active or Enhanced”
– “Crosswalk”
• Engineering Judgment is used for final
treatment selection
• Combination of treatments

Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing
Treatments Cont’d
• Input variables:
– Speed on the major street
– Ped crossing distance
– Peak-hour (4-hour) pedestrian and vehicle
volumes
– Peak-hour lane widths
– Expected motorists compliance (high or low)
– Ped walking speed
– Ped start-up time and end clearance time

Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing
Treatments Cont’d
• Calculations:
– Signal warrant check
– Critical gap
– Major road flow rate
– Average ped delay
– Total ped delay
• Total ped delay and expected driver
compliance are used to determine treatment
category

BYU-I Campus-wide Pedestrian Study
• Recent pedestrian issues in the area
• Four main corridors around campus
• 20 crossing locations
• Very high pedestrian volumes
• J-walking
• Roadway Lighting

Signal Warrant Analysis
• Worksheet uses recommendations of report
for changes to MUTCD warrant
• Signal Warrant Analysis included:
– 2003 MUTCD
– Proposed Amendments for 2009 MUTCD
• Proposed Guidance for Application of Pedestrian Hybrid
Signal (HAWK)

Results of NCHRP 562 Analysis
• No locations met signal warrants
• Four locations met guidelines for HAWK
– Length of crossings near 60 – 80’
– Re-evaluated assuming curb extensions – did not
meet guidelines

Results of NCHRP 562 Analysis
Location
2003 Signal
Warrant?
2009 Signal
Warrant?
NCHRP 562
Recommended
Treatment
Category
Current
Treatment
Category
Site 1 No No Active or Enhanced Crosswalk
Site 2 No No Crosswalk Crosswalk
Site 3 No No
Median/Traffic
Calming
Median/Traffic
Calming
Site 4 No No NA Stop-Controlled
Site 5 No No Active or Enhanced Crosswalk
Site 6 No No Crosswalk Active or Enhanced
Site 7 No No Crosswalk Crosswalk
Site 8 No No Active or Enhanced Crosswalk
Site 9 No No Active or Enhanced Crosswalk
Site 10 No No NA Stop-Controlled
Site 11 No No Crosswalk Crosswalk
Site 12 No No Active or Enhanced Crosswalk
Site 12-A No No Crosswalk Crosswalk
Site 13 No No Active or Enhanced Active or Enhanced
Site 14 No No NA Stop-Controlled
Site 15 No No NA Stop-Controlled
Site 16 No No NA Stop-Controlled
Site 17 No No Active or Enhanced Crosswalk
Site 18 No No Active or Enhanced Crosswalk
Site 19 No No Crosswalk Crosswalk
Site 20 No No NA Stop-Controlled

Conclusions
• NCHRP 562 research is valuable education tool
• Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
– Research based framework for selecting
pedestrian crossing treatments
– Engineering judgment is still required
• Signal warrant analysis
• Selection of specific treatments

Questions?
Contact Information:
Ryan Peterson PE, PTOE
ryan@pecid.com
208-535-3500