Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

212
SITE SELECTION
Pedestrian countdown (PCD) signals were used by various agencies in Orange County. However,
the agencies that employed PCD signals used them almost exclusively at any intersection that had
notable pedestrian volumes. Therefore, the project team worked with two municipalities in close
proximity: one with PCD signals and one without.
A list of 10 intersections was provided for both jurisdictions. The traffic engineer in each jurisdiction
selected the intersections for potential inclusion based on the pedestrian volume at the intersection
and the likelihood of older pedestrians crossing at the intersection. The project engineer reviewed
these 20 intersections for the following aspects:
• pedestrian volumes, particularly older pedestrian volumes;
• lack of any construction or other temporary impediments (such as street closures) that may
affect pedestrian behavior;
• ability to sufficiently collect data;
• conventional intersection design;
• surrounding land use; and
• comparability in walking environment at intersections.
Based on field observations, discussions with the engineering staff at both jurisdictions, and the
recommendations of the AAA representative, four intersections were selected for the study—referred
to as intersections A, B, C, and D.
Intersections A and B were equipped with conventional pedestrian signals. Intersection A was located
a few blocks from the beach. The area surrounding this intersection was predominantly commercial
land use. Much of the pedestrian traffic was related to the beach or shopping near the beach.
Intersection B was just more than 2 miles from intersection A. It was adjacent to a shopping plaza, a
residential neighborhood, and a senior housing complex.
Intersections C and D were equipped with PCD signals and were approximately 5 miles from
intersections A and B and 1 mile from each other. Both intersections were located adjacent to a
park and residential neighborhoods. Most of the trips at these intersections were recreational trips
surrounding the park.
The authors acknowledge that the land use and trip purposes were different at the two traditional
intersections and the two PCD intersections. This may lead to different pedestrian characteristics,
such as walking speed, at the two intersections. Although identifying intersections with comparable
walking environments was one of the goals in the site selection, this goal had to be balanced with the
other intersection aspects of interest, particularly, sufficient pedestrian volumes to collect a suitable
sample size.