Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

SUMMARY
In summary, the key results are as follows for Minneapolis and St. Paul:
• MWS for younger pedestrians was faster at PCD intersections (5.00 ft./sec.) than at traditional
signals (4.90 ft./sec.).
• Walking speeds for older pedestrians were generally slower than for younger pedestrians. MWS
for pedestrians 65 and older was faster at PCD intersections (4.30 ft./sec.) than at traditional
signals (4.00 ft./sec.).
• Pedestrians with mobility impairments and without wheelchairs had appreciably slower walking
speeds than pedestrians without mobility impairments—their mean was 3.60 ft./sec. A small
sample size is recognized.
• Pedestrians with visual impairments had an MWS similar to older pedestrians—their mean was
4.20 ft./sec. A small sample size is recognized.
• Older pedestrians had a slower start-up time, but this will vary by intersection and leg of
intersection.
• A slightly higher level of compliance (entering crosswalk on WALK display) was found at
traditional intersections for the younger group of pedestrians. The sample size of the older
group of pedestrians was too small to draw conclusions.
• PCD signals had a much lower occurrence of younger pedestrians being left in the intersection.
• The majority of surveyed pedestrians understood the PCD signal indication. Interestingly, of
those who had a preference, the majority of pedestrians surveyed preferred TPS.
• Operational analysis:
o The 3.00 ft./sec pedestrian walking speed, as compared to the 3.50 ft./sec. and 4.00
ft./sec. pedestrian walking speeds, had a greater negative impact on vehicular traffic
operations at the case study intersection. From existing volume conditions to a modeled
increase of 15 percent over existing volumes, there was a reduction of two LOS
designations (from LOS C to LOS E) and a corresponding increase of 21 sec. for ADPV.
Under the 3.50 ft./sec. and 4.00 ft./sec. walking speed scenarios, there was no change
in LOS (LOS C remained the same) and the ADPV was 5 sec. and 4 sec. under the 3.50
ft./sec. and 4.00 ft./sec. walking speed scenarios, respectively.
o The major street delay increased exponentially with the increase in traffic volume for the
3.00 ft./sec. walking speed.
153