Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Figure A-7. Roadway characteristics.
Multi-lane roadw ays
5%
Narrow crossings
5%
Complex intersections;
unusual geometrics
10%
Wide crossings
80%
Figure A-7. Roadway characteristics.
LOCATIONS WHERE COUNTDOWN SIGNALS SHOULD NOT BE USED
Table A-3 summarizes the responses in tabular form. When respondents were
LOCATIONS WHERE COUNTDOWN SIGNALS SHOULD NOT BE USED
asked to identify locations where they would recommend that PCD signals
should not be used, surprisingly, 41 percent (n = 25) indicated that they would
Table A-3
use
summarizes
PCD signals
the responses
in all cases.
in tabular form. When respondents were asked to identify
locations where they would recommend that PCD signals should not be used, surprisingly, 41 percent
(n = 25) indicated Responses that that they cited would locations use PCD where signals countdown in all cases. signals should not be used
included: 1) areas of low pedestrian volumes (18 percent); 2) cost
Responses considerations, that cited locations including where acquisition, countdown energy, signals and should maintenance not be used costs included: (8 percent); areas of low
pedestrian and volumes 3) intersections (18 percent); with cost wide considerations, crossings (10 percent). including It acquisition, appears that energy, there and was maintenance
a
costs (8 percent); divergence and of intersections opinion with with regard wide to crossings wide crossings. (10 percent). In question It appears 13 (see that Figure there was a
divergence A-7), of opinion 80 percent with of regard the respondents to wide crossings. indicated In question that PCD 13 signals (see Figure were appropriate A-7), 80 percent of
the respondents and should indicated be used that for PCD wide signals crossings. were appropriate and should be used for wide crossings.
Monroe County, Monroe New County, York New considered York considered the issue of the providing issue of PCD providing signal PCD devices signal based devices on roadway
crossing distance. based on The roadway County crossing considered distance. crossing The distance County considered (number of crossing lanes to distance cross) and the time
required to (number cross under of lanes a 4.00 to cross) feet/second and the (ft./sec.) time required and 6.0 to ft./sec. cross under scenario. a 4.00 The County concluded
that there feet/second was increased (ft./sec.) usefulness and 6.0 of ft./sec. the PCD scenario. signal as The the County crosswalk concluded distance that increased, there
especially was in cases increased of extreme usefulness length. of The the County PCD signal developed as the crosswalk a threshold distance of at least a 60-ft. crossing
distance to increased, implement especially a PCD signal.
in cases of extreme length. The County developed a
threshold of at least a 60-ft. crossing distance to implement a PCD signal.
115
101