Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

More documents

Recommendations

Info

58 Table 8. Mean walking speeds for pedestrians with impairments, stratified by impairment. Observed impairment Pedestrians Mobility impaired (walked with a cane, crutch, limp, or push cart) MWS (ft./sec.) 93 3.3 Motorized wheelchair 28 5.1 Non-motorized wheelchair 9 4.5 Visually impaired 21 4.3 Other impairments 3 4.2 Compliance with the Pedestrian Signal Pedestrian compliance with the pedestrian signal indication varied widely by intersection leg and was likely a result of the different volume levels and available crossing gaps at intersections. That is, compliance is likely to be lower at a low-volume minor street approach (major pedestrian movement crossing the minor street vehicle approach) than at a high-volume major street approach because there are fewer cars and, therefore, more gaps. This makes it difficult to attribute differences in signal compliance to the different pedestrian signal indications. Tables 9 and 10 show the percentage of younger pedestrians and pedestrians age 65 and older entering on WALK, FDW, and DW at the study intersections in each jurisdiction. The traditional crossings and the PCD crossings were combined in each jurisdiction. The sample size for each jurisdiction was greater than 30 observations, with the exception of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota (for the population group age 65 and older). Table 9. Pedestrian signal compliance for younger pedestrians by jurisdiction for traditional and pedestrian countdown signals. Jurisdiction Pedestrians entering intersection under different signal indications (percent) Traditional Countdown W FDW DW W FDW DW Broward County, Florida 55 4 42 61 9 30 Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota Montgomery County, Maryland 72 13 15 62 12 26 44 13 43 67 11 22 Orange County, California 71 9 20 46 13 41 Salt Lake City, Utah 82 13 5 73 18 9 White Plains, New York 63 16 21 53 11 36
Table 10: Pedestrian signal compliance for older pedestrians by jurisdiction for traditional and pedestrican countdown signals. Jurisdiction Pedestrians entering intersection under different signal indications (percent) Traditional Countdown W FDW DW W FDW DW Broward County, Florida 51 4 44 59 10 31 Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota (Ntra d = 12, Npcs = 30) Montgomery County, Maryland 100 0 0 67 10 23 71 4 26 74 10 17 Orange County, California 79 7 14 73 6 21 Salt Lake City, Utah 81 9 10 86 7 6 White Plains, New York 72 11 16 62 10 28 • In four and three of the six jurisdictions, respectively, there was greater compliance with the WALK indication for younger pedestrians compared to older pedestrians at traditional signals. • For older pedestrians, the percentage entering on WALK was greater than 51 percent at all intersections and generally was greater than 70 percent. • In three and three of the six jurisdictions, there was greater compliance with the FDW indication for younger pedestrians compared to older pedestrians at traditional signals. • In four and three of the six jurisdictions, there was greater compliance with the DW indication for younger pedestrians compared to older pedestrians for countdown signals. • For younger pedestrians in four of the six jurisdictions, the countdown intersections had a higher percentage of pedestrians entering on DW. This may be because these intersections were more likely to be pedestrian actuated. Most notably, the two PCD signals in Orange County, California were pedestrian actuated but the two traditional signals were not. The project team observed a higher level of noncompliance at intersections that were pedestrian actuated. The higher noncompliance at these pedestrian-actuated signals often was because pedestrians did not locate and push the pedestrian signal actuation button and, therefore, did not receive a WALK indication. Instead, they waited until they found a gap in traffic or until the parallel movement had the green indication. • Older pedestrians generally had a higher rate of compliance than their younger counterparts at the same intersection. 59
Page 1:
Pedestrian Signal Safety for Older
Page 5 and 6:
LIST OF TABLES Table/Page ES-1/19.
Page 7: LIST OF FIGURES Figure/Page 1/22. E
Page 11 and 12: LIST OF DEFINITIONS Access Board Th
Page 13: FOREWORD ABOUT THE SPONSOR This stu
Page 16 and 17: 16 Mark J. Kulewicz Director-Traffi
Page 18 and 19: 18 LITERATURE REVIEW FINDINGS • O
Page 20 and 21: 20 1. Based on the results observed
Page 22 and 23: 22 Figure 1. Example of a pedestria
Page 25 and 26: METHODS The project objectives were
Page 27 and 28: and 3.40 ft./sec. for pedestrians o
Page 29 and 30: the potential impact of various wal
Page 31 and 32: Pedestrian Start-Up Time Pedestrian
Page 33 and 34: • a PCD signal with both the coun
Page 35 and 36: six crosswalks experienced a signif
Page 37 and 38: where: W = duration of WALK indicat
Page 39 and 40: Gates, Noyce, Bill, and Van Ee expa
Page 41 and 42: Table 3. Summary of empirical data
Page 43 and 44: Table 4. Summary of researcher reco
Page 45 and 46: SITE SELECTION/EFFECT OF DIFFERENT
Page 47 and 48: Walking Speeds The project team mea
Page 49 and 50: RESULTS AGENCY SURVEY FINDINGS Deta
Page 51 and 52: 5 0 . 0 % 4 5 . 0 % 4 0 . 0 % 3 5 .
Page 53 and 54: POSITIVE IMPACTS OF PEDESTRIAN COUN
Page 55 and 56: • Give third priority to signaliz
Page 57: 15th-Percentile Walking Speed The 1
Page 61 and 62: Table 12. Older pedestrians remaini
Page 63 and 64: The case study intersections in Sal
Page 65 and 66: Five different traffic volume condi
Page 67 and 68: Minneapolis/St.Paul, Minnesota Figu
Page 69 and 70: Figure 10. Delay vs. volumes at Mon
Page 71 and 72: There was no change in overall LOS
Page 73 and 74: Figure 13. Delay vs. volumes at Ora
Page 75 and 76: Pedestrian Understanding and Prefer
Page 77 and 78: the countdown at the end of the FDW
Page 79 and 80: lengths are preferred for pedestria
Page 81 and 82: Table 23. Comparison of the literat
Page 83 and 84: observer was assigned to each inter
Page 85 and 86: APPENDIX A WEB-PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN
Page 87 and 88: PURPOSE OF SURVEY The purpose of th
Page 89 and 90: d) Plan to use during the next one
Page 91 and 92: Question 22 If you answered “yes
Page 93 and 94: Table A-1. Distribution of responde
Page 95 and 96: Table A-2. Respondent organizations
Page 97 and 98: Figure A-2 shows the distribution o
Page 99 and 100: 6 0 .0 % 5 5 .0 % 5 0 .0 % 4 5 .0 %
Page 101 and 102: Figure A-7. Roadway characteristics
Page 103 and 104: PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL START/E
Page 105 and 106: PCD Signal Start/End Times Start of
Page 107 and 108: 3. Seniors and other adults showed
Page 109 and 110:
• No. Countdown timers encourage
Page 111 and 112:
the crossing time remaining? Yes 20
Page 113 and 114:
• None (n = 32) • Motorists spe
Page 115 and 116:
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY FOR OLDER PEDESTR
Page 117 and 118:
APPENDIX C: BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
Page 119 and 120:
BACKGROUND Broward County is locate
Page 121 and 122:
DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY Pedestr
Page 123 and 124:
For younger pedestrians, the mean w
Page 125 and 126:
Pedestrians Under 65 Table C-6 show
Page 127 and 128:
Pedestrians Left in Intersection At
Page 129 and 130:
Table C-11. Pedestrian WALK and cle
Page 131 and 132:
Figure C-2. Delay vs. volumes at ca
Page 133 and 134:
Table C-13. Broward County, Florida
Page 135 and 136:
APPENDIX D: MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL, M
Page 137 and 138:
BACKGROUND Minneapolis, in southeas
Page 139 and 140:
• Lyndale Avenue and Franklin Ave
Page 141 and 142:
Table D-2. Walking speeds for pedes
Page 143 and 144:
Table D-4. Significance testing of
Page 145 and 146:
Table D-7. Frequency and percentage
Page 147 and 148:
SURVEY RESULTS A total of 150 pedes
Page 149 and 150:
For the major street approaches, LO
Page 151 and 152:
3.50 ft./sec. Figure D-6. Intersect
Page 153 and 154:
SUMMARY In summary, the key results
Page 155 and 156:
LIST OF TABLES Table/Page E-1/156.
Page 157 and 158:
SITE SELECTION Engineering staff fr
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Twenty-two pedestrians with mobilit
Page 165 and 166:
Older Pedestrians Table E-8 shows t
Page 167 and 168:
EFFECT OF CHANGING WALKING SPEEDS O
Page 169 and 170:
As shown in Table E-12, major stree
Page 171 and 172:
3.50 ft./sec. Figure E-6. Intersect
Page 173 and 174:
SUMMARY In summary, the key results
Page 175 and 176:
LIST OF TABLES Table/Page F-1/176.
Page 177 and 178:
SITE SELECTION The City of White Pl
Page 179 and 180:
RESULTS Walking Speeds The walking
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
cross. That is, at an intersection
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Table F-11. Pedestrian WALK and cle
Page 189 and 190:
Table F-13. White Plains, New York:
Page 191 and 192:
APPENDIX G: SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH CA
Page 193 and 194:
BACKGROUND Salt Lake City is Utah
Page 195 and 196:
Figure G-2 displays the type of ped
Page 197 and 198:
Table G-2. Walking speeds for pedes
Page 199 and 200:
Pedestrians with Impairments Pedest
Page 201 and 202:
Older Pedestrians Table G-8 shows t
Page 203 and 204:
EFFECT OF CHANGING WALKING SPEEDS O
Page 205 and 206:
Figure G-3. Delay vs. volumes at ca
Page 207 and 208:
Table G-13. Salt Lake City, Utah in
Page 209 and 210:
APPENDIX H: ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORN
Page 211 and 212:
BACKGROUND Orange County, Californi
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Younger Pedestrians Table H-6 shows
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Figure H-2 shows the overall averag
Page 223 and 224:
Figure H-2. Delay vs. volumes at ca
Page 225 and 226:
Table H-13. Orange County, Californ
Page 227 and 228:
APPENDIX I: MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK
Page 229 and 230:
COUNTY OF MONROE DEPARTMENT OF TRAN
Page 231 and 232:
APPENDIX J: NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON U
Page 233 and 234:
3. Add a new Guidance statement rec
Page 235 and 236:
Guidance: Where the pedestrian clea
Page 237 and 238:
Fugger, T.F., B.C. Randles, A.C. St
show all

Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?