Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

222
Very similar results and trends were evident at the 3.50 ft./sec. walking speed for the same volume
range comparison. The range in ADPV was 40 sec. to 169 sec. (this represented an increase in
average delay of 129.0 sec.). LOS also was reduced from LOS D to LOS F. There were only minor
increases in AVD at the 4.00 ft./sec. walking speed under existing volume conditions as compared to
a modeled increase of 15 percent above existing volumes. The range in ADPV was 33 sec. to 43 sec.
(this represented an increase in average delay of 10 sec.). LOS was reduced from LOS C to LOS D.
Minor Street Approaches
Delays were shown to be higher with a 4.00 ft./sec. walking speed than with 3.50 ft./sec. and 3.00
ft./sec. walking speeds. This is because the minor street traffic was getting lesser green time based
on 4.00 ft./sec. walking speed as compared to 3.50 ft./sec. and 3.00 ft./sec. walking speeds. The
additional green time needed for the minor street traffic movement was acquired from the major street
green time and thereby increased the delays on the major street approaches.
The range in ADPV under existing volume conditions as compared to a modeled increase of 15
percent above existing volumes for the 3.00 ft./sec. walking speed assumption was 25 sec. to 68
sec. (this represented an increase in average delay of 43 sec.). LOS was reduced from LOS C under
existing volume conditions to LOS E. Similar trends (but more extensive differences) were evident
at the 3.50 ft./sec. walking speed for the same volume range comparison. The range in ADPV was
35 sec. to 109 sec. (this represented an increase in average delay of 74 sec.). At a walking speed
of 4.00 ft./sec., LOS remained the same (LOS F). The range in ADPV was 91 sec. to 147 sec. (this
represented an increase in average delay of 56 sec.).
Table H-12. Orange County, California intersection characteristics: approach lane usage, peak-hour
traffic volumes, and cycle length.
Approach
Northbound
(MJ)
Southbound
(MJ)
Eastbound
(MN)
Westbound
(MN)
MJ
approach
MN
approach
Number of approach lanes
L LT T TR R Total
-10percent
volu me
Existing
volu me
Peak-hour tra ffic vol umes
(existing and modeled)
+5percent
volume
+10 -
percent
volume
+15 -
percent
volume
1 0 2 1 0 4 1,800 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300
1 0 2 1 0 4 1,800 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300
1 0 1 1 0 3 1,125 1,250 1,313 1,375 1,438
1 0 2 1 0 4 1,125 1,250 1,313 1,375 1,438
2 0 4 2 0 8 3,600 4,000 4,200 4,400 4,600
2 0 2 2 0 6 2,250 2,500 2,625 2,750 2,875
Total 4 0 6 4 0 14 5,850 6,500 6,825 7,150 7,475
Cycle length : 100 sec.
* Note: l = left; LT = left-through; T = through; TR = through-right; R = right.
Volume
range
2,250 –
2,875
5,850 –
7,475