Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

lengths are preferred for pedestrian traffic so that wait time is shorter. Furthermore, extending
cycle lengths may have detrimental effects on the surrounding roadway network if signals
are coordinated. A coordinated traffic signal typically would have to remain coordinated to
maintain operational efficiency. Therefore, the entire signal coordination system would require
modification, which may be costly and may affect traffic patterns.
COMPARISON TO PAST STUDIES
The literature review identified a number of studies that reported pedestrian walking speeds. The
average reported walking speeds for older pedestrians varied from 3.19 ft./sec. to 4.60 ft./sec. MWS
for older pedestrians in this study ranged from 3.98 ft./sec. to 4.60 ft./sec. at traditional signals. This
is comparable to walking speeds reported in the literature, although the lower end of the range in the
literature was slower. MWS in this study ranged from 4.20 to 4.80 ft./sec. at PCD signals. This range
is slightly higher than reported in the literature. However, the studies reported in the literature were,
for the most part, conducted at TPS, and this study provides some evidence that pedestrians walk
faster at PCD signals. The one study conducted at a PCD signal (City of Berkeley, California) found
that all pedestrians (regardless of age) walked 4.80 ft./sec. at PCD signals versus 4.60 ft./sec. at
traditional signals.
The literature review also identified studies that reported 15th-percentile pedestrian walking speeds.
The reported 15th-percentile speeds varied from 2.20 ft./sec. to 4.00 ft./sec. for older pedestrians,
3.31 ft./sec. to 4.21 ft./sec. for younger pedestrians, and 3.09 to 4.80 for all pedestrians.
Table 23 provides a detailed comparison of the literature review data for walking speeds as compared
to the data developed in this study. The shaded areas are for the pedestrian types and statistics that
provided cases where walking speeds were greater at PCD signals.
Similarities and differences between the literature review and this study’s walking speed data are
shown below. In sum, there was a 0.52 ft./sec. (greater) average difference in walking speed for this
study’s data.
• At the low end of the range for MWS:
o For older pedestrians, this study showed 25 percent (0.79 ft./sec.) greater walking
speeds at traditional signals (compared to the literature review’s “all signals”) and 32
percent (1.01 ft./sec.) greater walking speeds at PCD signals (compared to the literature
review’s “all signals”).
o For younger pedestrians, this study showed 10 percent (0.43 ft./sec.) greater walking
speeds at traditional signals (compared to the literature review’s “all signals”) and 13
percent (0.58 ft./sec.) greater walking speeds at PCD signals (compared to the literature
review’s “all signals”).
• At the high end of the range for MWS:
o For older pedestrians, this study showed the same walking speed at traditional signals
(compared to the literature review’s “all signals”) and 4 percent (0.20 ft./sec.) greater
walking speeds at PCD signals (compared to the literature review’s “all signals”).
79