UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations
1-1-2006
A decision support tool to identify countermeasures for pedestrian safety
Madhuri Uddaraju University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds
Repository Citation Uddaraju, Madhuri, "A decision support tool to identify countermeasures for pedestrian safety" (2006). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/jf5i-dp7b
This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself.
This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A DECISION SUPPORT TOOL TO IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURES
FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
by
Madhuri Uddaraju E.I.T
Bachelor of Technology Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University - Kakinada, India 2003
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Science in Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Howard R. Hughes College of Engineering
Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas December 2005
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1436806
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 1436806 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced witfi permission of tfie copyrigfit owner. Furtfier reproduction profiibited witfiout permission. Thesis Approval uNiy The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas
APRIL 14 20 06
The Thesis prepared by
MADHURI UDDARAJU
Entitled
A DECISION SUPPORT TOOL TO IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURES
FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING
Examination Committee Chair
6t ; Dean of the Graduate College
lamination Committee Member Ï K.'JCV Examination Committee Member
Graduate College Faculty Representative
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT
A Decision Support Tool to Identify Countermeasures for Pedestrian Safety
by
Madhuri Uddaraju
Dr. Shashi Nambisan, Thesis Committee Chair Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Enhancing pedestrian safety and providing a pedestrian-friendly environment are
key goals for urban planning and public works organizations. The primary tasks to be
accomplished in enhancing pedestrian safety include identifying high pedestrian risk
locations and implementing appropriate countermeasures to minimize the risks. The
selection of such countermeasures to address specific pedestrian safety concerns should
be done based on factors that influence the risks. A methodology to identify suitable
countermeasures for various scenarios is developed in this research. The factors
considered for selection are crash contributing factors, roadway functional class, posted
speed limits, type of location (intersection/non-intersection), vulnerable age groups of
pedestrians, and average daily traffic. A computerized decision support tool that helps the
user to identify appropriate pedestrian safety countermeasures is developed. This tool is
automated in Microsoft Excel environment using Visual Basic Applications.
Ill
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...... iii
LIST OF TABLES...... vi
LIST OF FIGURES...... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 Pedestrian Safety Facts ...... 1 High Crash Locations ...... 1 Crash Characteristics...... 2 Pedestrian Countermeasures ...... 3 Motivation ...... 3 Objective...... 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...... 5 Crash Data Analysis ...... 5 Identification of High Pedestrian Crash zones...... 6 Pedestrian Crash Countermeasures and Safety Programs ...... 7 Pedestrian Crosswalk ...... 11 Traffic Calming Measures ...... 12 Illuminated Push Button ...... 12 Advance Yield Markings ...... 13 Speed Reduction Measures ...... 13 ITS Countermeasures ...... 15 Countermeasures for Pedestrians with Disabilities ...... 16 Pedestrian Safety on Highways ...... 17 Pedestrian Safety by Location Type ...... 18 Older Pedestrians...... 19 Child Pedestrians...... 20 Pedestrian Countermeasure Matrix/ Tool ...... 21 Guides and Model Programs ...... 22 Summary ...... 23
CHAPTER 3 SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE/DESIGN...... 24 Theme of Proposed Study ...... 24 Functional Needs ...... 25
IV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Data Requirements ...... 26 Analytical Framework ...... 26 Road Functional Class ...... 27 Contributing Factors ...... 28 Location ...... 29 Speed Limit ...... 30 Age Group of Pedestrians ...... 31 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ...... 31 Software and Hardware ...... 33 Microsoft Excel ...... 34 Visual Basic Application ...... 34 ArcMap ...... 34 Adobe Acrobat Reader ...... 34 System Outputs ...... 35 User Options ...... 35 Maps ...... 36 Countermeasures ...... 40
CHAPTER 4 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT...... 48 Candidate Countermeasures ...... 48 Scenario Specific Countermeasures ...... 62
CHAPTER 5 CASE STUDY...... 64 Crash Concentration Maps ...... 65 High Pedestrian Crash locations ...... 70 Crash Data Analysis ...... 78 City of Henderson ...... 78 City of North Las Vegas ...... 87 Field Observations ...... 97 City of Henderson ...... 100 City of North Las Vegas ...... 102 Selection of Countermeasures ...... 108 City of Henderson ...... 108 City of North Las Vegas ...... 112
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 117 Summary ...... 117 Recommendations ...... 118
REFERENCES...... 120
APPENDIX...... 126
VITA...... 170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Criteria to identify appropriate pedestrian countermeasures ...... 27 Table 2 The Crash Frequency, Crash Severity, Crash Density, and Crash Rates in the City of Henderson ...... 74 Table 3 The Crash Frequency, Crash Severity, Crash Density, and Crash Rates in the City of North Las Vegas ...... 75 Table 4 Ranks of high crash zones in the City of Henderson ...... 76 Table 5 Ranks of high crash zones in the City of North Las Vegas ...... 77 Table 6 Pedestrian Crash Characteristics in the City of Henderson ...... 80 Table 7 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of Henderson by Month ...... 81 Table 8 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of Henderson by day of the week ...... 82 Table 9 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of Henderson by time of the d ay ...... 83 Table 10 Number of Crashes by Contributing Factor in the High Pedestrian Crashes in the City of Henderson ...... 84 Table 11 Pedestrian Crash Characteristics in the City of North Las Vegas ...... 88 Table 12 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of North Las Vegas by Month ...... 90 Table 13 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of North Las Vegas by day of the week ...... 91 Table 14 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of North Las Vegas by time of the d ay ...... 92 Table 15 Number of Crashes by Contributing Factor in the High Pedestrian Crashes in the City of North Las Vegas ...... 94
VI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Schematic layout of the decision process ...... 32 Figure 2. Layout of the automated tool in excel ...... 36 Figure 3. Selection of a factor to view maps in the tool ...... 37 Figure 4. Maps window for contributing factors in City of Las Vegas...... 37 Figure 5. Selection of factor to view spatial distribution ...... 38 Figure 6. Map representing pedestrian crashes due to “failure to yield” ...... 39 Figure 7. Map showing information of active layers ...... 40 Figure 8. Selection of criteria to view countermeasures ...... 42 Figure 9. Confirmation of criteria selection ...... 43 Figure 10. Recommended Countermeasures ...... 44 Figure 11. Selection of criteria ...... 45 Figure 12. User form with classifications of the criteria selected ...... 45 Figure 13. Selection of factors from criteria ...... 46 Figure 14. Selection confirmation message box ...... 46 Figure 15. Recommended countermeasures based on selection ...... 47 Figure 16. Warning sign for pedestrians on freeways ...... 49 Figure 17. Warning sign for pedestrians on interstate highways ...... 50 Figure 18. Rumble strips on 1-15, near Las Vegas, Nevada ...... 51 Figure 20. Pedestrian bridge on the Las Vegas Boulevard ...... 53 Figure 21. MUTCD Pedestrian warning sign for motorists ...... 54 Figure 22. In-Roadway Knock Down Signs on Twain Avenue, Las Vegas ...... 55 Figure 23. Crossing guard helping the children to cross ...... 56 Figure 24. Median Refuge ...... 57 Figure 25. Raised Crosswalk ...... 58 Figure 26. High Visibility Crosswalk ...... 59 Figure 27. Pedestrian countdown signal ...... 59 Figure 28. Danish Offset on Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, N V ...... 60 Figure 29. In pavement flash lighting system ...... 61 Figure 30. ITS infrared pedestrian detection device ...... 62 Figure 31. Spatial Distribution of pedestrian crashes from 1998 to2002 in the City of Henderson ...... 66 Figure 32. Spatial Distribution of pedestrian crashes from 1998 to 2002 in the City of North Las Vegas ...... 67 Figure 33. Pedestrian Crash Concentration in the City of Henderson Based on NDOT ..68 Crash data from 1998 - 2002 ...... 68 Figure 34. Pedestrian Crash Density in the City of North Las Vegas ...... 69 Figure 35. Selected High Crash Zones in the City of Henderson ...... 71
Vll
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 36. Selected High Crash Zones in the City of North Las Vegas ...... 72 Figure 37. Selected Sites for Data Collection from the High Pedestrian Crash Zones in the City of Henderson ...... 97 Figure 38. Selected Sites for Data Collection from the High Pedestrian Crash Zones in the City of North Las Vegas...... 98 Figure 39. Identification of Countermeasures at Sunset and Annie Oakley using the Decision Support Tool ...... 110
V lll
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express my earnest acknowledgements to Dr. Shashi Nambisan, for his continuous
support and understanding. 1 genuinely thank him for his guidance in the layout,
presentation and completion of my Thesis. 1 express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Srinivas
Pulugurtha, for his acceptance to serve on my Thesis Committee and for his support, both
in the personal and in the professional front. 1 also thank Dr. Mohamed Kaseko for
guiding me with innovative ideas that helped in the layout of this Thesis. 1 express my
sincere acknowledgements to Dr. Ashok Singh, for his acceptance to serve on my Thesis
committee. 1 am indebted to the Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada
Las Vegas for granting me financial support and for providing the infrastructure, without
which 1 would not have been able to make it to this point. I also thank the students and
faculty at the Transportation Research Center, for their understanding and help in the data
collection efforts. At this juncture, 1 would like to thank few important people who made
a difference in my life. Thank you so much Ravi, Naveen, Srinu, Mukund, Ramu, Siri
and Kalyan. Above all, 1 would like to thank the Almighty for blessing me with
wonderful and supporting family and friends. I dedicate my Masters Degree and my
Thesis to my Mother and to my Father with all the gratitude and love 1 have for them in
my heart.
IX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Pedestrian Safety Facts
Walking is a beneficial mode of transportation, as it promotes health, improves air
quality and reduces motor vehicle traffic congestion. Various aspects of travel by this
mode of travel have been receiving attention in recent years especially those related to
safety. It is not surprising that a significant number of pedestrian injuries and fatalities
occur each year, mainly on the urban streets. In the year 2004, 4,641 pedestrians were
reported to have been killed in motor vehicle crashes in the United States (1). It is
estimated that, on an average, in the United States a pedestrian is killed in a traffic crash
every 109 minutes and injured every 7 minutes in the country on average. Nevada alone
has experienced 60 pedestrian fatal crashes in 2004 and is ranked third in pedestrian
fatality rates. The pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 population in the state of Nevada is
2.57 (1). These data are indicative of the magnitude of the pedestrian problem in the state
of Nevada and in the United States.
High Crash Locations
The primary tasks in working towards the enhancement of safety are to estimate the
magnitude of risk, to identify the most risky locations or zones in the study area
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and to implement strategies to reduce the risks. The locations with high crash
concentrations should be identified to prioritize initiatives to reduce risk and to enhance
safety. Several tools are used to identify the high crash zones. A common and efficient
technique uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to help with the
analyses. Identification of high risk zones using GIS involves four steps: 1) Creating
crash concentration maps using geo-coded crash data, 2) Developing crash density maps,
3) Identifying high crash zones and 4) Ranking identified high crash zones. The Federal
Highway Administration Zone Guide for Pedestrian Safety (1998) provides a systematic
method for targeting pedestrian safety improvements in a cost-effective manner. Zoning
identifies a subset of a study area containing as much of the pedestrian problem of
interest in as little land area as possible.
Crash Characteristics
It is important to understand key characteristics of the crashes in order to identify
appropriate treatments. Such characteristics of the crashes include information about the
time and place of the crash occurrence, contributing factors that led to the crashes,
pedestrian actions at the time of occurrence, roadway design features, speed limit of the
roadway, traffic volumes and mix, pedestrian age, and driver age. Such information is
typically available from the databases maintained by the state departments of
transportation (DOT) or other agencies responsible for transportation safety. Many of
these data are recorded by the law enforcement officers investigating the crash location.
The traffic volume at the location is also an important aspect to be considered before
finalizing the treatments. The Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) is a measure of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. traffic volume. ADT values can typically be obtained from the annual traffic reports
maintained by the State DOT or local agencies.
Pedestrian Countermeasures
Pedestrian countermeasures are strategies or treatments to enhance pedestrian safety.
Countermeasure such as the pedestrian walk signal and pedestrian push button are most
commonly deployed at intersections with significant pedestrian activity. However, some
locations need other strategies because of the risk eharacteristics. Also, not all
countermeasures can be deployed everywhere because of factors such as their installation
and maintenance costs, and the suitability of the treatment to address the risk. Hence the
countermeasures are to be selected for deployment based on the nature of problems
encountered at the location and the roadway and land use characteristics proximate to the
location. For example, a Danish offset can be deployed to enable pedestrians to eross
safely at mid-block locations. Thus, the process to identify appropriate eountermeasures
requires considering numerous scenarios and evaluating several candidate
countermeasures. Such analyses are often complex, and require significant efforts and
time. A computerized decision support tool with user interface that helps in the selection
of the countermeasures will be of great help to agencies to improve pedestrian safety.
Motivation
The growing concern for pedestrian safety and an interest in the topic motivated the
development of the study. The fact that the pedestrian casualties can be reduced with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. proper installation of countermeasures is inspirational in developing a decision support
matrix.
Objective
The primary objective of the thesis is to develop a decision support tool to help
identify pedestrian countermeasures. The tool will be based on crash characteristics such
as crash contributing factors, roadway functional class, speed limits, location
(intersection/mid-block), vulnerable age group of pedestrians, and the average daily
traffic (ADT). An automated tool with appropriate user interfaces is developed using
Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic Applications. The user can choose one or more factors
of interest and the tool then lists a set of potential countermeasures based on the user’s
selection. A summary of the review of the literature is presented in chapter 2. The
development of the tool and the system architecture are presented in chapters 3. Chapter
4 provides details pertaining to the development of the system focusing on individual
countermeasures and appropriate contexts for their application. A case study based on
data from the Las Vegas Metropolitan area is presented in Chapter 5 to demonstrate the
use of the decision support tool. Summary and recommendations are presented in Chapter
6 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This section presents a review of the literature that focuses on pedestrian safety issues
and techniques used to select appropriate pedestrian countermeasures based on specific
concerns. The literature review includes discussions on analysis of pedestrian crashes,
identification of high crash locations, identifying crash characteristics and selection of
countermeasures. The chapter includes reviews of evaluation studies of different
pedestrian countermeasures.
Crash Data Analysis
Typical safety studies involve the following basic tasks;
• Estimating the magnitude of risk in the study area
• Identifying the high risk locations in the area
• Identifying the contributing and responsible factors
• Selecting and implementing countermeasures to minimize the risk
The methodology adopted in the selection of countermeasures can be divided in to
the following tasks: (1) Creating crash concentration maps, (2) Identifying high
pedestrian crash zones, (3) Ranking the identified high crash zones, (4) Crash data
analysis and identification of crash characteristics at selected high crash zones, (5)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Conducting field observations and (6) Selecting appropriate countermeasures. This
chapter presents a detailed discussion of each of these tasks.
The risk factor of a location is often determined by the frequency rate, or severity of
erashes occurring at that location. Crash data over a period of time have to be analyzed to
understand the crash characteristics and responsible factors. This can be done effieiently
and easily in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) environment. Due to its ability to
manipulate large amounts of data and perform both simple and complex analyses, a GIS
is eonsidered to be a potential analysis and decision-making tool. A powerful aspect of a
GIS is its flexibility in modeling the aggregation of crash data and geographical data to
help evaluate the causes of high crash rates and their respective locations (1). A common
technique used for safety studies applying GIS technology is geo-coding crashes. A GIS
can be utilized to convert statistical data such as attributes of crashes, and geographic
data such as demographics, land use, roads, and crash locations, into meaningful
information for spatial analysis and mapping (3).
Identification of High Pedestrian Crash zones
Evaluating crash data over a period of time can identify high crash zones. In order to
ensure a reasonably stable measure, a minimum of one year's data or at least 100 crash
records should be available for establishing pedestrian crash zones (4). The high
pedestrian crash zones are identified in Clark, Washoe, Carson and Douglas counties in
Nevada using crash data for a period of five years. The high crash zones were identified
using kernel density feature in GIS (5). An automated GIS tool to identify and rank high
pedestrian crash zones is developed using the kernel density feature in GIS (6). The Iowa
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Department of Transportation identified high crash locations and relationships between
crash rates and selected roadway design characteristics using GIMS and GIS-ALAS
databases (7).
Pedestrian Crash Countermeasures and Safety Programs
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has sponsored in 2002 pedestrian
safety engineering studies in San Franeiseo, Las Vegas, and Miami. These efforts
analyzed pedestrian injuries by zones and identified eountermeasures for prevention
(8).The countermeasure plan by the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic
proposed basic traffic engineering countermeasures including advance limit lines, curb
bulbs, impactable YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN signs, median refuge island improvements,
modified signal timing, pavement stencils, pedestrian head start, pedestrian scramble, and
vehicle left-tum phases (8,9,10,11,13). Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) based
countermeasures such as animated eyes signals, automated detection of pedestrians to
adjust signal timing, modem flashing beacons, pedestrian countdown signals, radar speed
display signs, roadway lighting improvements and smart lighting, and signal visibility
improvements are being eonsidered in these studies.
The Transportation Research Center at the University of Florida proposed installation
and evaluation of a number of ITS-based treatments along the top 12 high crash corridors
in Miami Dade County. The countermeasures were selected by matching treatments to
specific sites using GIS crash data, the Pedestrian Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT),
site visits, demographic data and surrogate data collected at high crash sites (9). A set of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. countermeasures were recommended based on the crash data analysis and the
characteristics of high crash corridors (10). The recommendations are:
1. Advance yield markings for crosswalks with an uncontrolled approach.
2. Offset stop bars at intersections.
3. Leading pedestrian signal phase.
4. TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS symbol signs for drivers.
5. Eliminating permissive left tums.
6. Roadway lighting improvements.
7. In roadway knockdown YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS sign for crosswalks at
controlled and uncontrolled locations; pedestrian zone warning signs for
locations.
8. Crossing islands where erashes occur mid-block and at uncontrolled locations.
9. Curb radius reduction for location where right turning vehicles are over
represented in crashes.
10. ITS pedestrian detection for locations where pedestrians do not press call buttons.
11. ITS push buttons that acknowledge a call by a pedestrian who press the call
button.
12. ITS signs that show the driver the direction in which a pedestrian is crossing at an
uncontrolled crosswalk.
13. ITS smart lighting that increases brightness when pedestrian are crossing.
14. ITS No Right Turn on Red signs for sites where drivers do not yield to pedestrian
when turning right on red.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15. ITS pedestrian signals that warn pedestrians to look for turning vehicles during
WALK phase and provide the time left to cross during clearance phase.
16. ITS speed warning signs that flash SPEEDING SLOW DOWN when vehicle are
exceeding the speed limit.
17. LED transponders to assist the blind crossing the street.
The Transportation Research Center at the University of Nevada Las Vegas evaluated
countermeasures for various sites within the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Nambisan et.
al (2004) carried out field data collection to support the selection of countermeasures.
The sites were identified based on the pedestrian crash history for installation of the
countermeasures. The various countermeasures identified for evaluation were:
1. In-Roadway knockdown signs
2. Warning sign for motorists
3. Regulatory sign for motorists
4. Turning traffic must yield to pedestrian sign
5. Advance yield markings
6. High visibility crosswalk
7. Portable speed trailer
8. In-pavement flash light system
9. Pedestrian countdown timer
The countermeasures are installed based on the prevailing conditions at the sites.
Before and after condition data were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the
countermeasures (11). Karkee (2005) used several statistical methods to evaluate the
effectiveness of these countermeasures. Pulugurtha (2004) and Mantri (2005) evaluated
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the effectiveness of pedestrian countdown timer in the Las Vegas metropolitan area (14,
15, and 19)
Cotrell (2002) carried out an extensive study on pedestrian issues in the state of Utah
and made several recommendations in multiple areas. The author believes that a
combination of education, engineering, enforcement, monitoring, medical response and
policy is required. Cotrell made the following recommendations;
• Pedestrian awareness in drivers can be enhanced by education courses, by
introducing pedestrian safety questions in the driver’s examinations, special
pedestrian documents at the time of transfer and purchase of vehicles.
• Pedestrian safety training for elderly, children, and parents.
• Grade separated pedestrian crossings, crossing flags, and alternate school routes.
• Lengthened green phase that facilitates elderly pedestrians with 50 percent more
crossing time.
• Pedestrian crossing warning signs.
An intensive pedestrian safety engineering study was carried out by the University of
California Berkeley using computerized crash data. Two software packages were used for
analysis and were compared in this project. The final outcome of the project was a
countermeasure plan for evaluation and outreach. The plan proposed basic traffic
engineering countermeasures including advance limit lanes, curb bulbs, impactable
YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN signs, median refuge island improvements, modified signal
timing, pavement stencils, pedestrian head start, pedestrian scramble and vehicle left-tum
phases. A set of ITS countermeasures were also recommended that include animated eyes
signals, automated detection of pedestrians to adjust signal timing, modem flashing
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. beacons, pedestrian countdown signals, radar speed display signs, roadway lighting
improvements and smart lighting and signal visibility improvements (17).
The pedestrian crash rates are much lower in Europe when compared to the United
States. Netherlands and Germany have undertaken a wide range of measures to improve
safety; better facilities for walking and bicycling; urban design sensitive to the needs of
non-motorists; traffic calming of residential neighborhoods; restrictions on motor vehicle
use in cities; rigorous traffic education of both motorists and non-motorists, and strict
enforcement of traffic regulations protecting pedestrians and bicyclists (18).
Mantri (2005) evaluated the effectiveness of pedestrian countdown timers in Las
Vegas metropolitan area. The results showed that the countdown timer helped the
pedestrians to better understand the meaning of the flashing DON’T WALK sign and the
number of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the street (19).
Pedestrian Crosswalk
Efforts funded by FHWA led to several reports evaluating the effectiveness of
pedestrian facility designs. Crosswalk markings on low speed arterials appear to make
drivers more cautious, or more aware of pedestrians (20); it is essential to use the
pedestrian devices together with education and enforcement (21). A study in Clearwater,
Florida showed that high-visibility crosswalk treatments have a positive effect on
pedestrian and driver behavior on relatively narrow low-speed crossings (22). A before-
and-after evaluation of crosswalk markings at eleven locations in 4 U.S. cities concluded
that marking pedestrian crosswalks at relatively low-speed, low-volume, un-signalized
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. intersections is a desirable practice (23). A variety of advisory and regulatory signs are
used in conjunction with marked crosswalks to improve their visibility and increase the
likelihood that motorists will yield to pedestrians (24).
Traffic Calming Measures
Traffic calming treatments benefit pedestrians who cross the street by slowing down
vehicular traffic, shortening crossing distances, and enhancing motorist and pedestrian
visibility. Huang and Cyneeki (2000) evaluated the effects of traffic calming measures on
pedestrian and motorist behavior at both intersection and mid-block locations. The results
show that bulb outs and raised crosswalks can reduce motor vehicle speeds. The
combination of a raised crosswalk with an overhead flasher was most effective in
encouraging motorists to yield to pedestrians. Raised intersections and refuge islands are
likely to direct more pedestrians to cross within the crosswalk. However, these devices by
themselves do not guarantee that motorists will slow down or yield to pedestrians (25).
Illuminated Push Button
The pedestrian push buttons are generally installed at intersections to activate the
pedestrian walk signal. However the pedestrians often do not know whether the button is
activated when they press it to trigger the walk phase. An illuminated push button has a
light that tums on whenever it is aetivated. The Federal Highway Administration has
funded an evaluation study of these illuminated pedestrian push buttons in Ontario (26).
The results were not statistically significant to determine if these devices had a positive
effect on the pedestrian safety and behaviors.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advance Yield Markings
Van Houten, et.al evaluated the effects of advance yield markings and a symbol sign
prompting motorists to yield to pedestrians at the markings at multilane crosswalks with
pedestrian activated flashing beacons (27). The introduction of markings and a sign ten
meters upstream of the crosswalk reduced the percentage of motor vehicle and pedestrian
conflicts.
Speed Reduction Measures
Leaf and Preusser (1999) reported that higher vehicular speeds are strongly associated
with, both, a greater likelihood of pedestrian crash occurrence and severity of the crash
(28). It was estimated that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a
vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80,
and nearly 100 percent for vehicular speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles per hour or more
respectively (29). Comprehensive community-based speed reduction programs,
combining public information and education, enforcement, and roadway engineering in
addition to countermeasures such as road humps, roundabouts, horizontal traffic
deflections and increased use of stop signs are the measures to help reduce vehicle speeds
(29).
Anderson et al (1997) conducted a study to estimate the effect of reduced travel
speeds on the incidence of pedestrian fatalities. The study was based on the results of
detailed investigations of 176 fatal pedestrian crashes in Adelaide area between 1983 and
1991. The results show that small reduetions in travel speed are likely to result in large
reductions in impact speed in pedestrian collisions. Dixon, et al (1997) carried out a study
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to explore the behavior exhibited by motorists as they approach a pedestrian crossing in
the presence and absence of a speed hump. An experimental study was conducted with
208 motorists at two different pedestrian crossings on the campus of Florida International
University. The results show that speed humps provoke drivers to slow down, making
pedestrian more salient. Hoque et al report that the flow of traffic increases and the travel
times decrease when the pedestrians use an overpass or an underpass while crossing.
Karkee et al (2005) evaluated the effectiveness of an in-pavement flash light system
at a site in the City of Henderson, Nevada. The measures of effectiveness considered
were the evaluation: yielding behavior of motorists, yielding distance from crosswalk,
and vehicle speed with and without the presence of pedestrians. The results from
statistical analysis of a before-and-after study showed that the yielding behavior of
motorists significantly increased after the installation of the system. The results also
showed a reduction in the mean speeds and the 85* percentile speeds.
Varheliyi (1998) evaluated driver’s behavior at zebra crossings in Sweden to observe
speed adaptation problems of the drivers and the frequency of yielding to pedestrians.
The influence of the time differences between arrival of pedestrian and vehicle on the
approach speed of the vehicle were also observed. The results show that the drivers were
reluctant to slow down and give way to pedestrians. The countermeasures suggested by
the author are speed humps and road cavities with drainage in the bottom. Road cushions
can also be considered. Other interesting solutions discussed in the paper are automatic
pedestrian detection and driver warning devices and in-car devices giving warning of
pedestrian presence in the crosswalk. A simple speed limiter in the car does not allow the
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. driver to speed up and can increase the willingness of drivers to give way to pedestrians
(34).
ITS Countermeasures
ITS based pedestrian injury countermeasures have been implemented to reduce
crashes at roadway intersections in recent years. Bechtel, Geyer and Ragland (2003)
reviewed previous scientific evaluation of some of these countermeasures such as red
light enforcement cameras, illuminated walk signal push buttons, automated pedestrian
detection systems for traffic signals, flashing crosswalk lights, countdown signals, and
animated eyes. The countermeasures were evaluated based on two broad measures of
effectiveness, intermediate measures of effectiveness (IMOEs) and final measures of
effectiveness (FMOEs).
Automated pedestrian detection systems provide the means to detect the presence of
pedestrians as they approach the curb prior to crossing the street, and then “eall” the
Walk Signal without any action required on the part of the pedestrian. To reduce the
number of false calls and missed calls, fine tuning of the detection zone is needed (35).
Hughes et.al (2001) evaluated automated pedestrian detection devices at signalized
intersections. A before-and-after study was conducted at intersection locations in Los
Angeles, California. Video data were collected and analyzed in both the before and after
scenarios. The results indicated a significant reduction in vehicle-pedestrian conflicts as
well as a reduction in the number of pedestrians beginning to cross during the Don’t
Walk signal.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Countermeasures for Pedestrians with Disabilities
Under the Amerieans with Disabilities Act (37), pedestrians with disabilities have a
civil right to access to information provided to other pedestrians. This information may
be necessary to enable them to travel independently in unfamiliar places. Bentzen,
Barlow and Franck (2000) presented the results of a survey of orientation and mobility
specialists regarding the problems students with visual impairments were experiencing at
signalized intersections. The results show that increasing complexity of intersection
design and signalization are decreasing the safety and independence of pedestrians who
are visually impaired. Van Houten et.al (1997) developed an experimental auditory
pedestrian signal to prompt pedestrians to look for turning vehicles at the start of the walk
signal. The data analysis results show that presence of auditory signal increased
observing behavior of the pedestrians and almost eliminated pedestrian motor vehicle
conflicts at a signalized intersection. Turning vehicles are a potential threat to pedestrians
at intersections. The presence of an auditory message appeared to prime pedestrians to
respond more rapidly to turning vehicles (39).
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pedestrian Safety on Highways
Limited research has been carried out on pedestrian safety on highways. Hall,
Kondreddi and Brogan (2003) discussed pedestrian safety issues on rural interstates,
identifying the characteristics of rural pedestrian fatalities in ten states with above-
average rates of mral pedestrian fatalities. The most prominent characteristics of rural
pedestrian fatalities in these states were clear weather, hours of darkness, weekends, non
intersection locations, and level, straight roads. The authors recommend retro-reflective
clothing for pedestrians to increase night time visibility. Warning signs or school crossing
signs can be supplemented where motorists least expect crossing pedestrians. Ivan,
Garder and Zajac (2001) evaluated the effect of roadway and area type features on injury
severity of pedestrian crashes in rural Connecticut. Variables that significantly influenced
pedestrian injury severity were clear roadway width, vehicle type, driver alcohol
involvement, pedestrian age (65 or older) and pedestrian alcohol involvement. Because of
the low population density, pedestrian erashes in rural areas are rare events, but remain a
concern (41).
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nearly 10 percent of all the nation’s pedestrian fatalities occur on interstates, even though
the interstate system comprises only about one percent of the nation’s road mileage (41).
Johnson (1997) identified crash types and factors contributing to fatal pedestrian crashes
on interstate highways and recommended countermeasures to address the problems.
Pedestrian fatalities in the states of Texas, Missouri and North Carolina for a three year
period were analyzed. The key responsible factors were driver and pedestrian alcohol
usage and poor light conditions. Johnson recommends common countermeasures sueh as
emergency call stations, roving roadside assistance vehieles and emergency cellular
telephone numbers to report disabled vehicles. It is observed that approximately one third
of the crashes oceurred due to unintended pedestrians. To avoid this, author recommends
motorist awareness campaigns and retro-reflective materials for drivers with vehicular
problems on interstates (42).
Pedestrian Safety by Location Type
In terms of crash location, 65 percent of crashes involving pedestrians occur at non-
interseetions (43). This is particularly true for pedestrians under age 9, primarily because
of dart-outs into the street. For ages 45 to 65, pedestrian crashes are approximately equal
for intersections and non-intersections. Pedestrians age 65 and older are more likely to be
injured or killed at intersections compared to non-intersections, since older pedestrians
tend to cross at intersections more often than younger ones. According to the National
Flighway Traffic Safety Administrations in 2002, 1,046 pedestrians, or 22 percent of all
pedestrians were killed at intersections and 31,000 pedestrians were injured at
intersections. In fact, a pedestrian is killed or injured in an intersection traffic crash every
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 minutes (43). About one third of fatal crashes involving pedestrians are the result of
pedestrians disobeying intersection traffic control or making misjudgments while
attempting to cross a street (44). FHWA recommends crosswalk improvements,
intersection design/physical improvements, installation of signal hardware technologies
such as pedestrian countdown signals, animated eye-pedestrian signals, pedestrian
intervals, signal phases, and accessible pedestrian signals.
Older Pedestrians
Older road users can he expected to have problems as drivers and as pedestrians,
given the known changes in their perceptual, cognitive, and psychomotor performances
(45). Crash rates for older persons (age 65 and over) are lower than crash rates for most
age groups, which may reflect greater caution by older pedestrians and a reduced amount
of walking near traffic. However, older pedestrians are much more vulnerable to serious
injury or death when struck by a motor vehicle than young pedestrians (46). People aged
65 and older have about 2.5 as many pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people as younger
groups. About 36 percent of pedestrian deaths among those aged 65 and older oceurred at
intersections in 2002 (46).
To accommodate the shorter stride and slower gait of less capable (15*'’ percentile)
older pedestrians, and their exaggerated “start-up” time before leaving the curb,
AASHTO Guidelines recommend pedestrian control-signal timing based on an assumed
walking speed of 0.85 m/s (2.8 ft/s). Guerrier and Jolibois Jr (1998) conducted a study at
five intersections in the City of Miami Beach to identify problems encountered by young,
middle-aged, and old pedestrians. Data were collected using questionnaires and
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. videotapes. The results show that pedestrians generally find the time available to cross
the street to be too short. The complaints were reported by the older pedestrians. The
authors emphasize the need for countermeasures that include engineering designs such as
more green time for pedestrians and educational campaigns for drivers and pedestrians
(46). Leading Pedestrian Intervals have a positive effect on pedestrian safety, especially
when there is a heavy concentration of turning vehieles. This evidently occurs regardless
of pedestrian volume (47).
Child Pedestrians
Crash involvement rates (crashes per 100,000 people) are the highest for 5-9 year old
males. This problem may be compounded by the fact that speeds are frequently a
problem in areas where children are walking and playing (1). The right to walk safely
seems fundamental, especially for children, yet each year for more than a decade, more
than 700 children have died from injuries sustained while walking. Schicker and Vegega,
(2001) reported that over 500 of these crashes occurred in traffic. Should
countermeasures he aimed at improving the road-user behavior of children, or should
they focus on altering traffic conditions to suit the abilities of children? To achieve the
former would require quite dramatic accelerations in the development of children’s road-
user abilities. Improving the road environment also has its limitations because it has
social and economic consequences and raises conflicts between different categories of
citizens who use roads in different ways (49).
Gliewe, Limbourg and Pappritz (1998) suggested a combination of traffic
engineering, traffic law enforcements, use of protection devices for children, road safety
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. education, crossing patrols, parent information, and car driver information to avoid
children fatal injuries in Germany. Some of the countermeasures suggested by them
follo'w:
• Traffic calming approaches in the school areas
Traffic lights with short waiting times for pedestrians
Safe pedestrian paths
Safe bus stops
Reflective school bags and coats
Safe pedestrian behavior training at the beginning of primary school, and
Crossing guards
Walking School Buses (WSB), which involves volunteers guiding children to and
from school in an orderly manner following established walking routes, has been rapidly
adopted within metropolitan Auckland, New Zealand to enhance child safety in school
zones (51). This also has adopted by the Transportation Research Center at University of
Nevada Las Vegas in their outreach efforts to enhance pedestrian safety in the Las Vegas
metropolitan area.
Pedestrian Countermeasure Matrix/ Tool
A Pedestrian crash analysis tool was developed by a pedestrian and bicycle safety
research program (52). The tool focused on identifying problem areas for pedestrians and
bicycles, developing analysis tools that allow planners and engineers to better understand
and target these problem areas, and evaluating countermeasures to reduce the number of
crashes involving pedestrians and bicycles. FHWA has developed crash group or general
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. countermeasure matrix and a tool that identifies potential solutions for use hy safety
practitioners. This matrix is particularly helpful as a resource of potential engineering
countermeasures, which may be implemented at a location to address a particular
pedestrian crash type (52). FHWA also developed a Pedestrian Safety Campaign Planner
(53). This toolkit contains outreach materials that states and local jurisdictions and
communities can customize and use locally.
The threefold purpose of the campaign is to:
1. Sensitize drivers to the fact that pedestrians are legitimate road users and should
always be expected on or near the roadway.
2. Educate pedestrians about minimizing risks to their safety.
3. Develop program materials to explain or enhance the operation of pedestrian
fatalities, such as crosswalks and pedestrian signals.
Guides and Model Programs
A FHWA guide provides a matrix of 47 possible pedestrian treatments for 13 groups
of pedestrian crashes (52). The guide provides information for each of the 47 engineering
treatments, including a description of the countermeasure, considerations for using it,
implementation cost and a figure. A countermeasure matrix for use in addressing various
performance objectives was also ineluded. The guide also provides examples of
pedestrian case studies and success stories.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Summary
The literature review focused on enhancing pedestrian safety by installing
countermeasures. Various pedestrian eountermeasures were evaluated using before-and-
after data analyses in the past. Researeh efforts recommended countermeasures based on
road functional class, location, and age of the vulnerable pedestrians. Guides and
programs provide information about countermeasures, issues to be considered before
installation, and implementation cost. The FHWA countermeasure matrix and seleetion
tool help the users in seleetion of treatments based on performance objective and crash
type. The matrix or the tool do not list specific countermeasures based on the user’s
selection. A tool that provides a list of specific countermeasures such as “Danish offset”
or “in-pavement flash lighting system” instead of a general recommendation like
“pedestrian facility design” would be of great help to the planners and safety engineers.
Further, an interactive computerized tool would help expedite various analyses,
evaluation of alternatives, and decision-making process to improve pedestrian safety. The
development of such a computerized tool that concentrates on pedestrian signals and
pedestrian facility designs is the objective of this research effort.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE/DESIGN
Theme of Proposed Study
The implementation and maintenance of the infrastructure that enhances safety call
for several analyses and observations. To ensure safety, primarily it is necessary to
understand the crash history, contributing factors, and the high crash locations. Further, a
good knowledge of the countermeasures that can address site specific concerns is
necessary. This includes developing an extensive list of safety concerns (or scenarios),
potential countermeasures that might be applicable, and mapping the countermeasures to
the individual scenarios. This mapping could be elegantly summarized in the form of
multidimensional matrix. Alternatively, a decision support tree could be used to represent
the multitude of possible combinations of scenarios and appropriate countermeasures.
The total process requires great deal of time and efforts. An interactive computerized tool
to operationalize the decision support tree would help expedite various analyses,
evaluation of alternatives, and decision making process to improve pedestrian safety. A
computerized tool that concentrates on pedestrian signals and pedestrian facility designs
is developed herein. The following steps are considered while designing the system
architecture for the proposed decision support tool. Each of the steps is explained in
detail in this chapter.
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1. Identify Functional Needs
2. Identify Data Requirements
3. Define Analytical Framework
4. Specify Software and hardware requirements
5. Specify System Outputs
Functional Needs
The growing concern for pedestrian safety imparts an interest in the people from both
the public and private sectors and also in the general publie. Information regarding the
general distribution of pedestrian erashes over a study area and the magnitude of the
problem in the study area are of utmost interest to the general publics; whereas the public
and private safety agencies are more interested in specific treatments and
countermeasures that can be deployed to reduce the risk. In general, the process of
identifying appropriate countermeasures involves crash data analysis and field
observations. The user needs crash data for the study area in order to understand the crash
history and crash trends in the area. These data can typically he obtained from the state
departments of transportation or local agencies. Crash data analysis includes the analysis
of the crash data over a period of time. This analysis helps in identifying high crash
locations, contributing factors, pedestrian characteristics, actions that led to the
occurrence of the crashes and crash characteristics. The data requirements for this
analysis are discussed next.
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Data Requirements
The erash data analysis discussed ahove requires various data elements such as the
crashes history for about a period of five years. These data are typically obtained from the
state DOT or loeal agencies. A map that represents the crashes in the study area helps in
better understanding of the distribution and location. These maps can be developed using
GIS technology. To view the spatial extent of these crashes in a GIS environment, shape
files of the crashes (represented as dots), shape files of the street centerline (represented
as lines), and the shape files of the study area (represented as polygons) are required.
Further, a crash database with all the crash characteristics is necessary for analyses. For
the present study, data are obtained from Clark County GIS Management Office
(GISMO), Nevada Department of Transportation, and Transportation Research Center.
Analytical Framework
The development of the analytical framework for the identification of appropriate
countermeasures is discussed in this section. The analytical framework is used to
develop the decision support tool. The user can select one or more of the six eriteria
available. These criteria are listed in Table 1.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1 Criteria to identify appropriate pedestrian countermeasures
# Criteria 1 Road Functional Class 2 Contributing Factor 3 Location 4 Speed 5 Age Group 6 Traffic Volume
Not all combinations of these criteria are applicable; further, certain combinations of
the criteria are necessary for certain analyses. For example, to view the spatial
distribution of the crashes, the user has to choose from the following eriteria: road
functional class, contributing factors, speed, and age group. The evaluation criteria are
selected by the user using a cascading process. In this process, the user starts by selection
of one of the criteria listed in Table 1, and continues selecting the remaining criteria until
the desired analytical scenario has been defined. Each of the six criteria is briefly
discussed next.
Road Functional Class
Functional class of the road is an important factor to he considered in the selection of
countermeasures, as the problems encountered by pedestrians vary depending on the
function of the road. The severity of the crashes also depends on the functional class of
the road. A pedestrian who gets hit hy a vehicle on high speed facility (e.g, a freeway)
where the vehicle speeds are expected to he high, has a lower probability of surviving
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. than a pedestrian hit on a low speed facility (e.g; a eollector street), where the vehicle
speeds are expected to be lower. The road funetional classes considered in the
development of the matrix are:
1. Freeways / Interstates
2. Arterials, both rural and urban
3. Collectors / local streets, both rural and urban
Contributing Factors
Contributing factors are the major factors responsible for the crash occurrence. They
can be attributable to the drivers or by the pedestrians at the time of crash. For example,
many of the pedestrian and vehicle conflicts in the United States occur due to the driver’s
failure to yield to the pedestrian or due to pedestrian failure to yield to the drivers. In such
crashes the contributing factor is “Failure to yield”. Likewise crashes occur when either
the driver or the pedestrian is inattentive. The contributing factor for sueh crashes would
be “inattentive driver “or “inattentive pedestrian”. The contributing factors used in the
development of the matrix for countermeasure selection are:
1. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs
2. Pedestrian crossing against signal
3. Diagonal crossing by the pedestrian
4. Excessive speeding of the driver
5. Failure to reduce speed hy the driver
6. Driver’s failure to yield to pedestrians
7. Improper vehicular turn
8. Improper usage of the crosswalk by pedestrians
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9. Inattentive driving
10. Inattentive pedestrians
11. Pedestrian mid-block crossing
12. Pedestrian in roadway
13. Pedestrians trapped in the middle
14. Pedestrians with disabilities
If the road functional class criterion is selected prior to selecting the contributing
factor, the decision tree at this stage would he driven hy the functional class selected. The
decision tree would only include the relevant combinations of functional class and
contributing factors. For example, it is unlikely to find a pedestrian who is “crossing
against signal “or “crossing diagonally” on a freeway or an interstate highway. Thus
these combinations are not included in the decision tree.
Location
Two types of locations are considered for the matrix:
> Interseetion location
> Mid-block location
Pedestrian problems are prevalent both at intersection and mid-block locations in the
United States. Though erossing at intersection is generally expected to he safer,
pedestrians sometimes prefer to eross at a mid-block location. Such pedestrian behavior
can be attributed to the land-use characteristics proximate to the road, road network
geometry, and the functional class of the road. Hence, it becomes voluntary to provide
facilities for pedestrians to minimize the risk of getting involved in crashes at mid-block
locations. The problems generally encountered at intersection locations are different from
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the problems encountered at a mid-block location. Therefore, eountermeasures deployed
to address the problems depend on whether the location is an intersection or a mid-block
location. As at the previous levels in the decision tree, only valid combinations of the
decision variables are included at this level of the decision tree. Countermeasures such as
“Danish offset” and “in-pavement flash lightening system” are designed to address
pedestrian problems at mid-block locations and countermeasures like “pedestrian count
down signal” and “leading pedestrian phase” are designed for intersection locations.
Thus, the countermeasures should he selected based on the location type of the study
area.
Speed Limit
In the case of crashes, involving a pedestrian and a vehicle, the greater the speed of
the vehicle, the greater is the crash severity. A person hit by a vehicle traveling at a speed
of 65 mph is more likely to die when compared to the same person being hit by a vehicle
at a speed of 25 mph. The latter may survive with relatively minor injuries. Hence, speed
is an important factor that plays a key role in the selection of countermeasures. The
values of posted speed limit used in the matrix are;
> less than and equal to 25 mph
> 30 mph speed
> 35 mph, 40 mph or 45 mph
> greater than 45 mph
However, similar to the contributing factors not all of the above classifications of
speed apply to all functional classes of roads.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Age Group of Pedestrians
The crash characteristics and risks are different between age groups. If the
predominant age group of pedestrians is known, then the countermeasures can be
identified to address the characteristics of such pedestrians so as to reduce their risks. The
predominant age group at a location can be identified from the crash history at the
location. Field observations also help in determining the risk associated with each age
group. If children are frequently involved in pedestrian crashes at a location, then
countermeasures like “crossing guards” and “school zone improvements” can he
installed. Similarly, if older pedestrians are involved in more number of crashes, then
countermeasures like “longer pedestrian phase” and “pedestrian countdown signals” can
he installed. Hence, knowing the target age group is eertainly important for the
installation of appropriate countermeasures. The pedestrians are divided into the
following age groups for the analyses:
> Under 18 years of age
> Age between 18 years and 54 years
> Age between 54 years and 65 years
> Older than 65 years of age
Average Daily Traffie (ADT)
The crash rate due to vehicular volume method is used in the ranking of high crash
locations. As the traffic volume on a road increases, the level of pedestrian exposure to
motor vehicles also increases. The ADT also influenees the type of countermeasures that
would be appropriate. The different classifications of ADT used in the matrix are:
> ADT less than 10,000 vehicles
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. > ADT between 10,000 and 25,000 vehicles
> ADT between 25,000 and 50,000 vehicles
> ADT greater than 50,000 vehicles
Sub Criteria
The eountermeasures can be identified using the tool by considering one or more
factors. The schematic layout of the user’s deeision process is illustrated in figure 1.
Start
□ □ □ □ □ □ Road Functional Contributing Location Speed A ge Group ADT Class Factor I E T 1. Interstate 1. Failure to yield 1. Intersection 1. < = 25 mph 1. < = 18 yrs 1.< lO K 2. Rural Arterial 2 .D .U .I 2. M id-block 2. 30 mph 2. 1 8 - 5 4 yrs 2. lOK-25 K 3. Urban Arterial 3. Excessive Speeding 3. 35 - 45 mph 3. 54 - 65 yrs 3.25K-50K 4. Local Street 4. Mid-block Crossing 4. > 45mph 4. > = 65 yrs 4.>50K 5. Collector 5. Inattentive Driving Street 6. Inattentive Pedestrians 7. Improper Turning 8. Violation of signals 9. Pedestrians with Disabilities
you wish Yes No Select Next / To add Another \ Identify Criterion \ . Criterion? y / Countermeasures
Figure 1. Schematic layout of the decision process
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The following is an example that illustrates the analytical framework possible if the
user starts with seleetion of road funetional class. The tool identifies the countermeasures
at any stage of the process illustrated in the figure 1. For example, the user can wish to
identify countermeasures based on
• road functional class
• road functional class and contributing factor
• road functional class, contributing factor, and location type
• road functional class, contributing factor, location and pedestrian age group
• road functional class, contributing factor, location, pedestrian age group and speed
limit, and
• road functional class, contributing factor, location, pedestrian age group, speed
limit, and traffic volume (Average Daily Traffic)
The layout is an example and does not imply that the user has to start with the road
funetional elass. In fact, the user can start with any criteria and proceed to identify
sequentially all the desired criteria. The tool identifies the countermeasures based on
user’s speeification of the analytical frame work.
Software and Hardware
In order to expedite the system development, it was deeided to use existing “off the
shelf’ software and hardware. This also offers flexihility to adapt or modify the tool in
the future. The software used in the development of the decision support tool are
Microsoft Excel, Visual Basic Applications, ArcGIS, and Adohe Acrobat Reader. Each
of the software with the system hardware requirements are discussed in this section.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Microsoft Excel
Microsoft Excel is very useful software that is a part of the MS Office package. It
allows performing simple to complex calculations in spread sheets. The tool is developed
using the 2003 edition of the software. The software requires a computer with an Intel
Pentium 233 MHz or faster processor with a minimum of 128 megabytes of Random
Access Memory (RAM), 150 megabytes of hard-disk space, a CD-ROM or a DVD ROM,
monitor, Microsoft windows or windows XP or other operating system, keyboard and
mouse (55).
Visual Basic Application
Visual Basic enables the user to personalize the functions on Excel spread sheets. The
software requires a computer with 600 MHz or faster processor, operating system sucha
as Microsoft Windows, Microsoft XP etc, 192 MB of RAM or more, 2 GB of available
hard disk space, DVD-ROM drive, monitor, keyboard and mouse or any other pointing
device (56).
ArcMap
Arc Map is the premier application for desktop GIS and mapping. It enables the user
to visualize the spatial distribution of data, create maps to display data in an effective
manner, and also enables one to customize the applications. The minimum hardware
requirements for this software are Windows 2000 or Windows XP operating system, a
memory of 512 MB and 1 GHz processor, monitor, keyboard and mouse (57).
Adobe Acrobat Reader
Acrobat reader allows the user to view and print Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF) files on a variety of hardware and operating system platforms. The system
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. requirements needed to run Adobe Acrobat Reader are Mierosoft windows 2000 with
Service Pack 2, Windows XP Professional or Home Edition, or Windows operating
system, 64 MB of memory and 26 MB of hard disk spaee (58).
System Outputs
The objective in developing the tool is that it should respond hased on the user’s input
otherwise ealled user’s decision. The tool consists of two major output components:
1. View erash distribution maps
2. Identify Countermeasures
The maps and the countermeasures will be presented based on the user’s selection of
the eriteria. A Decision Support Tool to Select Pedestrian Countermeasures, an
automated tool that incorporates the deeision support matrix discussed in the previous
chapter, is developed. The automated tool is developed in Microsoft Excel environment
using Visual Basic Application. This section provides a brief description of features of
the tool and the user interface.
User Options
The two options the user has in the tool are: 1) View maps of spatial distribution of
pedestrian crashes based on criteria selected by the user.2) View the set of
countermeasures recommended addressing the seleeted criteria. The layout of the tool is
shown in the figure. Figure 2.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. # Automated Decision Support Toot.xls A Decision Support Tool to Select Pedestrian Countermeasures
Select criteria to Identity countermeasures
r Corttibuting Factor r Road Functional Qass r uocaticn
r S p e e d l ~ V ulnerable A g e Q o u p r TralUc
aicktoview Qicktoviaw traps reconrœndecl countermeasures
■ H
Figure 2. Layout of the automated tool in excel
Maps
Dynamic and static maps are provided in the tool with spatial distribution of
pedestrian crashes in the study area. The study area used to illustrate the tool includes
City of Las Vegas, City of Henderson and in the City of North Las Vegas and
Unincorporated parts of Clark County. For example, if the user wishes to see the spatial
distrihution of pedestrian crashes due to “failure to yield” in the City of Las Vegas the
user needs to check in the hox for “Contributing Factor” and then click the command
button that says “Click to view maps”. Figure] below shows this operation. The resulting
display is shown in Figure 4.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. # decision support lool_for figures-xts A Decision Support Tool to Identify Pedestrian Countermeasures
select criteria to identity counterm easuies
'Contributing Factor Roaa Functional aase r Locaticn
S p eed r Aqe Group r" Trcflic Vdurre
u ic k to v e w Chcktoview rraps recomTEnded counterrreasures
Notes: Maps are available fwi (.«..xiibun. Select each o 1 dmm imllvidually ana Maps are not avalalbc for inoro Uun
Figure 3. Selection of a factor to view maps in the tool
# Click to view the pedestrian crashes by Contributing Factors
I C ity o f L a s V e g a s C ity o f H e n d e rs o n City of North Las Vegas Unincorporated Clark County Entire Study Area
I d.u.i D.UI D .U .i D U I D .U I I d.U.Id ru u s E>cessive soeedinci D U I drugs D.U.I drugs D.Ü I drugs l Eycessive soeedina Failure to yield Excessive speeding Excessive speeding Excessive speeding [ Failure to yield Inattentive driving Failure to yield Failure to yield Failure to yield [ inattentive driving Improper backing Inattentive driving Inattentive driving Inattentive drivinq [ improper backing Pedestrian in roadway Improper backing Improper backing Improper backing [pedestrian in roadway Improper turn Improper turn Imnroper turn Pedestrian in roadwav Pedestrian in roadwav Pedestrian in roadwav [Click to view interactive maps
[ City of Las Vegas City of Henderson City of North Las Vegas Unincorporated Clark County Entire Study Area
Click to go back to tool
Figure 4. Maps window for contributing factors in City of Las Vegas
37
Reproduced witti permission of ttie copyrigfit owner. Furtfier reproduction profiibited witfiout permission. On the screen shown in Figure 4, the user next has to click on the link for “Failure to
yield” in the appropriate column for the spatial area of interest (in this case it is the City
of Las Vegas). This is shown in Figure 5.
Click to view the pedestrian crashes by Contrlbufmg Factors
City of Las Vegas City of Henderson City of North Las Vegas Unincorporated Clark County Entire Study Area
D.U.I D.U.I D.U.I D.U.I D .U I D.U.I druQs Excessive speeding D U.l drugs D.U.I drugs D.U I drugs Excessive speeding Failure to vield Excessive speedinn Excessive speeding Excessive speeding Failure to yield Inattentive driving Failure to yield Failure to yield Failure to vield
loaa-e ..d - die to failure to yield M Inallanliye.iimma Inattentive driving Inattentive driving Irngrc from 1998 to 2002 Joadwav Imnroper backing Improper backing Improper backing Pedestrian in roadwav Improper turn improper turn Improper turn Pedestrian in roadwav Pedestrian in roadwav Pedestrian in roadwav Click to view interatnive m aps
City o f L a s V e g a s City of Henderson City of North Las Vegas Unincorporated Clark County Entire Study Area
Click to go back to tool
Figure 5. Selection of factor to view spatial distribution
As a result of executing the operation shown in Figure 5, a map which shows the
spatial distribution of crashes which occurred due to “failure to yield” opens up in a PDF
format. This is shown in Figure 6.
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. gg Add>e Acrobat Professional - [Failure to yield_Las Vegas.pdfJ % < View Oooawsnt Ta^s Advanced v'WxJow
^ Open ^ rf ^ 01 Create %F : Review 4 Comment i Secure •» ^ Stgn * i {^: Advanced EdKmg If s-cT«, . g; How To..’ - :
TROPIC^' t
r. 0 adW*N # _ r-^^v SUCKWnf? pV CHBBAE , A
rNÿ-f.N I
F
^tCT^PRY/ h
Figure 6. Map representing pedestrian crashes due to “failure to yield’
Flowever, it would be interesting to view a dynamic map with active layers of
pedestrian crashes due to all of the contrihuting factors. To facilitate this, maps of City
of Las Vegas, City of Flenderson, City of North Las Vegas, and Unincorporated parts of
Clark County are provided along with a list of layer of information available. The user
can activate a layer hy checking the box adjacent to the layer. More than one layer may
he activated at one time hy the user. The user can view these maps with active layers of
all the classification by road functional class, contributing factor, speed limits and
vulnerable age group of pedestrians. This is illustrated in Figure 7.
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. crashes - ArcMap - ArcView
9 e e* t ^ insert getecOon loois ^fodcw Heip
D ûÿ Q â @ I1 102.23S d a t«? ;
£ 0 Pedestrian Fatsi Crashes 0 Pedestrian Fatal Crashes
0 MïW_urtiên_8rterial setecttor\
0 Lirban_iocrf séectKrn (TV t ^
d 0 Pedestrian Crashes between 1996 and 2002 0 Pedestrian Iitju -y Crashes
;d 0 Urban_!ocai
5 □ L*ban_coïectDr , *, ; * - ir -, 0 Minor_urbai_artenal
T: 0 Interstate_ürban □ sdmajor ; ; V * 0 Mender son EC.N- 60P- ' * % $ fC^zû-r t ^ □ E 0 !
Di^iay fSoutce | Selectiw} * □To j j ' _ti" cnçc; ?4Mde<
Figure 7. Map showing information of active layers
Countermeasures
The user operations in the tool are divided into three steps: 1) Select one or more
criteria to identify countermeasures, 2) Select the respective classification under each
criterion and 3) Confirm the selection. User interfaces are developed using Visual Basic
Applications. The user need not input any additional information or data. However, the
user should have a working knowledge of the factors that the countermeasures should
address. The user can select any of the factors listed in the criteria to identify the
countermeasures by checking the boxes against each criterion. To view the list of
recommended countermeasures, the user has to check the box pertaining to one or more
factors and click the command button that says “Click to view counter measures”. For
example if the user wants to select countermeasures based on road functional class, then
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the user should check the box for road functional class. The user has many options to
identify countermeasures from the given criteria. The user can view the countermeasures
for each of the factors and the classifications of the criteria. The user has forty one ways
of selecting the criteria to view countermeasures. If all the 3 functional classes of the
road, fifteen contributing factors, two location types, four age groups of pedestrians, four
classifications of the speed limits and four values of ADT are considered, then the user
has numerous combinations to select. The tool is expected to give the list of
countermeasures for each of these combinations.
The figures 8 to 15 below illustrate the functionality of the tool when a criterion is
selected. As shown in the Figure 8, the user has selected “Contributing Factor” as the
criterion to view the countermeasures. The resulting window will be a user form with all
the classifications of the selected criterion. For example, in the figure, the user form lists
all the contributing factors for pedestrian crashes.
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Â Decision Support Tool to Identify Pedestrian Countermeasures
Select criteria to identify countermeasures
P CDrtrlbutlng Factor r Road Functional Qass r Location
Identification of Countermeasures Based on Contributing Factor
S eie^ the contributbig Factor r S p e e d D.U.I Crossing against signal Diagonal crossing Excessive speeding Faikjret^^^jç^peed
Click for C ounterm easures
Figure 8. Selection of criteria to view countermeasures
The next step would be to select a factor and click the command button that says
“Click for Countermeasures”. This would lead to a message box appearing that asks the
user to confirm the selection, as shown in Figure 9. The user can always go back to the
form for a new selection by clicking “Cancel”. Otherwise, he or she can proceed by
clicking “Ok”.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Select criteria to Identify countermeasures
P CDntiibuting Factor r Road Functional Qass r Locatlcn
Wen* Ir of
Select the contrSniting Factor r S p eed D.U.I Crossing against signal f ] Diagonal crossing Excessive speeding me# Failure to reduce speed
CSckfor Countermeasures Exit 1
Notes: Maps are available for Contrib Microsoft Eîœcl Select each of them individual Maps a ie not dvaialbe fur mui ^ 9 ^ The Criteria Selected to Identtfy Potential Countermeasures are Cwitributing Factor: F^ure to yield Do y ou w sh to continue?
Figure 9. Confirmation of criteria selection
Based on the selection, the tool next provides the list of countermeasures along with
the criteria selected. The message box that appears with the list of countermeasures is
shown in Figure 10.
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Select criteria to identify countermeasures
R? C ontributing F a c to r r Road Functional C ass r Ijo ca tim or CAi'ir.toirrie.rairF». f\id i -u'd.l.ijtu p [o '-*
Select the contributing Factor r S p eed Microsoft txce
Based on the Selected Contrbuting Fxtor Ped^trlan Countermeasures recommended are Tuning 'i«Ncles yield to pedestrians Advanced yield marldngs II111 Police Enforcement and Advance w am m g sign for m otorists
Figure 10. Recommended Countermeasures
The figures 11 to 15 show the iterations and displays when the criteria selected are
“contributing factor” and “road functional class”.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Â Decision Support Tool to Identify Pedestrian Countermeasures
Select criteria to luenti^ countermeasures
17 Contributir^Factor FlRoad Functional Class! ‘ Locatlcn
r Speed r Aoe Group r Traffic V durre
uick tovew ■ Ml ocktovieiv maps recorrTTEndeO counterrrEasures
Notes: Maps are available for 'Xi. Select eacb o f Ibem lndrvidu/«bv and . Maps are mot avaiaihe for m ore than oi
Figure 11. Selection of criteria
A Tern I 4» ^ I "tm y m ^, Y m A Identification of countermeasureses based on Contributing factor and Functional Class of the road
Select the contrSniting Fai^or Select fiffictional dass irf the road
D.U.I Interstate Rurd Crossing against signal Interstate Urban a Diagonal crossing Prinicipal j^terial Rural Excessive speeding Prinicipal Arterial Urban Failure to reckjce speed Minor Arterial Rural Failure to yield Minor Arterial Urttan z l
CSdcfor Coui^ermeasures
Notes: Maps are available f o r Contrihun. s Age Group Select each of tlrcm Individually /,*u, Maps are not avaialbi» for more rbau on
Figure 12. User form with classifications of the criteria selected
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A Decision Support Tool to Identify Pedestrian Countermeasures
Select criteria to identify countermeasures
Î7 Contiltxiting Factor R Road Functional Class ^ Location
S d « ± the contributing Factor Select functional class of the road
Interstate Rural Crossing against signal In terstate Urban Diagonal crossing Priracipal Arterial Rural Excessive speeding Prinicipal Arterial Urban Failure to reduce speed Minor Arterial Rural Failure to yield t Notes: Maps are avail Seled eacii of Maps are not a Click for C ounterm easures
FigurelS. Selection of factors from criteria
Select criteria to identify countermeasures
17 Contributing Factor 7 Road Functional Class Locaticn
Sde<± the contritMAing Factor Select functional class of the road
In terstate Rural Crossing against signal In te rsta te Urban Diagonal crossing Prinicipal Arterial Rural Excessive speeding Pfinicfljal Arterial Urban Failure to reduce speed Minor Arterial Rural Failure to yield M n o r A rterial U b a n
Microsoft Excel
, «% i 1F« Criteria Selected to Identify Potential Countermeasures are Contributing Factor: D.U, S a / R oad F u tcd o n d Class: Minor Arterial U rban Do y ou wish to conbnue?
Figure 14. Selection confirmation message box
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A Decision Support Tool to Identify Pedestrian Countermeasures
Select criteria to identify counterm easures
I7 coitriCiillngFactDr P Road Functional Class Locaticn
n! ( jiiiitt rriiiM-‘.iiiov.*> un LO 'ttniiûth'p îirtos ,tiwj ; .ir> Cm
Select the contributing Factor Select lunrtional class or the road
Inter^ate Rural Crossing against signal Interstate Urban Diagonal crossing Prinicipal Arterial Rural Excessive speeding Prinicipal Arterial Urban Failure to reduce speed Minnr ArlwiA Rural Failure to yield [4rior Arterial Ijrbari
Microsoft Excel
Based on the Sdected Conti*uting F«tor: D.U.I Oick for Co and R oad Function^ Class: Minor Arterial Urban Pedestrian Countermeaswes Recormnended are Police Enforcement and Warnmg s ^ for motorists
Figure 15. Recommended countermeasures based on selection
Tbe tool also facilitates tbe selection of one or more criteria to find tbe appropriate
pedestrian countermeasures.
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
Identifying appropriate countermeasures to enhance pedestrian safety requires
evaluating various risk factors related to the site, addressing various constraints, and
examining potential countermeasures. Executing these steps manually would be
extremely laborious and resource intensive. Systematic analyses of tbe options would
benefit significantly from a well documented combination of various conditions/risks and
potential countermeasures to address these risks. This could be in tbe form of a matrix or
a decision support tree that helps in identification of appropriate pedestrian
countermeasures based on criteria. This would help expedite tbe analyses and decision
making process. Tbe matrix or tree serves only as a guide. As with any decision support
tool, tbe decision maker must use this as one of tbe key elements in tbe decision making
process. There is no guarantee that tbe countermeasures recommended would definitely
alleviate problems, as tbe effectiveness of tbe countermeasures is subject to several other
issues - primarily those that are site specific.
Candidate Countermeasures
Tbe candidate countermeasures identified in tbe tool are described in detail in this
section (Transportation Research Center UNLY, 2004):
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1. Warning Signs: Signs warning about tbe possibility of a pedestrian can alert tbe
drivers and can reduce tbe probability of a crasb due to unexpected pedestrian
activity. Figures 16 and 17 sbow tbe warning signs wbicb can be used on
interstate highways and freeways. Tbe purpose of such signs is to alert drivers of
potential pedestrian activity in otherwise unexpected situations. For example,
figure 17 shows a warning sign installed in Alberta, Canada.
CAUT ON
Figure 16. Warning sign for pedestrians on freeways Source: http://www. trafficsignstore. com/W54.jpg
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 17. Warning sign for pedestrians on interstate highways Source: http://www. trcins.sov. ah.ca/Content/doctvve252/prodiiction/mnsl60.htm
2. Police Enforcement: Police enforcement is intended to modify driver behavior or
pedestrian behavior to attain improved levels of compliance with traffic laws and
regulations. Police enforcement can help reduce behaviors like speeding, traffic
signal violation, not yielding, and driving under tbe influence of dmgs or alcohol.
Also, pedestrians on interstates are most often tbe drivers from vehicles that
experience some problems. A police officer can help such individuals or minimize
tbe need for pedestrians on interstates and freeways.
3. Rumble Strips: “Inattentive driving” is a major factor wbicb leads to run-off-
road crashes on freeways. Most of tbe pedestrians on freeways are drivers or
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. passengers with vehicular problems. These drivers generally pull off their vehicle
to shoulders and wait for help. There is a possibility of such individuals who are
on tbe shoulders being bit by another vehicle running off tbe road. To alert drivers
and to reduce potential for run off tbe road events, “continuous shoulder rumble
strips” can be installed on interstate highways and freeways. Thus, this
countermeasure reduces problems due to “inattentive driving”. An example of
rumble-strips intalled on 1-15 in tbe state of Nevada is shown in tbe Figure 18.
Figure 18. Rumble strips on 1-15, near Las Vegas, Nevada
4. Emergency Call Stations: Johnson (1997) recommends some common
countermeasures such as emergency call stations, roving roadside assistance
vehicles and emergency cellular telephone numbers to report disabled vehicles
(32). These call stations help tbe drivers with vehicular problems, who are
unintended pedestrians.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5. Motorist awareness campaign: A motorist awareness campaign can educate
motorists about the ways of getting help for a disabled vehicle on a freeway
without being struck by the traffic. The campaign can also help the drivers to
better handle the situation of an unexpected pedestrian on roadway.
6. Retro-reflective Clothing: The literature recommends retro reflective clothing to
be worn by pedestrians, especially during nights, on a roadway to be visible. For
this countermeasure to be effective education and awareness campaigns are
needed to educate motorists to carry such clothing in their vehicles in case of
emergencies.
7. Portable Speed Trailer: Portable speed trailers are intended to inform motorists of
the posted speed limit and their travel speed, so as to alert speeding motorists. In
turn this is to help reduce the problems due to excessive speeding. An example of
a portable speed trailer is shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19. Portable speed trailer {Source: www.oksolar.com)
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8. Pedestrian Bridge: A pedestrian bridge over a freeway enables pedestrians to
cross safely and with-out interrupting the traffic flowing. The Figure 20 illustrates
a pedestrian bridge across the Las Vegas Boulevard.
Figure 20. Pedestrian bridge on the Las Vegas Boulevard
9. Advance Warning Sign for Motorists: These signs warn drivers about the
pedestrians crossing ahead or about a pedestrian crosswalk immediately
downstream. These signs are intended to encourage the drivers to reduce their
speed and to yield for the pedestrians. The signs adopted in the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Devices (MUTCD) in this regard are W ll-2. This sign is
illustrate in Figure 21.
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W11-2
Figure 21. MUTCD Pedestrian warning sign for motorists
10. In-roadwav knockdown signs: These signs are intended to address problems such
as pedestrian not using the crosswalk, pedestrian trapped in the middle of street
while crossing, and motorist failure to yield. Figure 22 illustrate In-Roadway
knock down signs on Twain Avenue, between Paradise road and Cambridge Road
in Las Vegas.
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 22. In-Roadway Knock Down Signs on Twain Avenue, Las Vegas
11. Crossing Guards: Children are susceptible to crashes when crossing at school
zones. Trained crossing guards can help them cross safely by stopping the
oncoming vehicles, usually with a handy stop sign as shown in Figure 23.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 23. Crossing guard helping the children to cross Source: http://www.southcoasttodav.com/dailv/04-00/04-05-00/disest.litml
12. Median Refuge: Medians help pedestrian in crossing at mid-block location or
crossing wide roads. Pedestrian crashes at mid-block locations can be reduced by
providing a median so that they can stop and see the traffic in each direction
before crossing. They can also be built at intersections with wide roads where the
factors like “pedestrian trapped in the middle” have contributed to the pedestrian
crashes. An example of such a median is illustrated in Figure 24.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 24. Median Refuge Source: http://www.humantransport.ors/universalaccess/librarv/wide/wide.htm
13. Raised-Crosswalk: Raised crosswalks are intended to help in speed reduction as a
visual stimulus to drivers. The drivers tend to slow down when they see a raised
or a grade separated crosswalk. These also stimulate pedestrians to use crosswalks
at intersection locations. An example of a raised crosswalk is shown in Figure 25.
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 25. Raised Crosswalk Source: http://www. techtransfer. berkeley. edu/newsletter/03-2/crosswalk-pics.php
14. High Visibility Crosswalk: High visibility crosswalks are the crosswalks with
enhanced markings. Like raised crosswalks, high visibility crosswalks also alert
drivers and motivate pedestrians to used crosswalk for crossing. This is
advantageous in locations with high crash rates during night time. Figure 26
illustrate a high visibility crosswalk.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 26. Fligh Visibility Crosswalk Source: www.ncdot.ors
15. Pedestrian Countdown Signal: A countdown signal informs pedestrians of the
time remaining to complete the crossing maneuver. It is very effective and can be
installed on arterial and collector streets. The signal is especially valuable to help
older and younger pedestrians to safely cross the intersection, and minimizes
confusion about the “WALK” and flashing “DON’T WALK” pedestrian signal
phases. A typical pedestrian countdown signal is shown in the Figure 27.
Figure 27. Pedestrian countdown signal
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16. Danish Offset: The Danish offset is a pedestrian facility design type that is
intended to provide safer crossing for pedestrians at mid-block locations. The
geometry of these crossings enable the pedestrians to safely cross half turn and
face the oncoming traffic, and to look and wait for the traffic in the other direction
before crossing the other half. This treatment is particularly useful for midblock
locations with two or more lanes in each direction. Figure 28 illustrates the
Danish Offset on Maryland Parkway, near UNLV, Las Vegas.
Figure 28. Danish Offset on Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17. In-Pavement Flash Lighting System: This is a unique lighting system that can be
installed at mid-block locations and at intersections with high crash rates during
the night time. The system includes a pedestrian push button, which when pressed
activates a series of flashing lights along the crosswalk. When flashing these
lights indicate that a pedestrian is waiting to cross or a pedestrian is in the
crosswalk. This is an added visual stimulus for the driver and it increases the
driver yielding behavior. An illustration of the system is presented in Figure 29.
Figure 29. In pavement flash lighting system Source: http://www. walkineinfo. ors/pedsmart/tlite. htm
18. ITS Automatic Pedestrian Detection System: This is an automated pedestrian
detection system which detects the presence of pedestrians at intersections and
triggers the pedestrian walk phase. This signal can be installed where the cases of
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “inattentive pedestrians” and “pedestrians reluctant to press the push button” are
major concerns. Figure 30 show an example of this system.
Figure 30. ITS infrared pedestrian detection device Source: http://\\^ww.walkinsinfo.ors/pedsmart/infred.htm
Scenario Specific Countermeasures
This section has the layouts of the scenarios and the countermeasures recommended for
implementation to enhance pedestrian safety at the specific conditions. The Scenario
specific countermeasures are presented for the following facility types:
1. Interstate or freeways
2. Rural arterial intersections
3. Rural arterial mid-block location
4. Urban arterial intersections
5. Urban arterial mid-block locations
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Separate decision support trees or decision support matrices for collectors and local
streets are not included in this thesis as the countermeasures recommended for the arterial
streets will also be effective at local and collector streets. The layout of the decision
support trees for various contributing factors on interstates, urban and rural arterials are
included in the appendix of the report.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5
CASE STUDY
The methodology, described in chapter 3, and the decision support trees or matrices
were used to develop a personal computer based decision support system to identify
appropriate pedestrian safety countermeasures. The system was then used to analyze
pedestrian safety in the City of Henderson and in the City of North Las Vegas. The
analysis includes the following steps:
1) Building crash concentration maps
2) Identifying high pedestrian crash locations
3) Ranking of the high pedestrian crash locations
4) Crash data analysis
5) Field observations and
6) Recommendation of countermeasures for installation at the high pedestrian crash
locations.
This chapter provides the analyses results and the recommendations for the City of
Henderson and the City of North Las Vegas.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Crash Concentration Maps
Crash data for a period of five years (1998-2002) were used to develop the spatial
distribution and the density maps for both the cities. The crash data used were obtained
from the Nevada Department of Transportation and were geo-coded by the
Transportation Research Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The density
maps were developed using a search radius of 400 ft using kernel density method in CIS.
The spatial distribution and the density maps can be seen for both the cities in the Figures
31-34.
65
Reproduced witti permission of ttie copyrigfit owner. Furtfier reproduction profiibited witfiout permission. n
HOSfffiDN
RCO«
Legend
#- Pedesirian Fatal Crashes
* Pedestrian Injury Crashes
I I H en d e rso n
Street Network s 0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Figure 31. Spatial Distribution of pedestrian crashes from 1998 to 2002 in the City of Henderson
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CZTT.T
a 1
g
Legend
# Pedestrian Fatal Oashes
• Pedestrian Injury Crashes
Street Network
I I City of North Las \* g a s w E
S 0.3 0.6 1.2 Mile
Figure 32. Spatial Distribution of pedestrian crashes from 1998 to 2002 in the City of North Las Vegas
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ATH^S S A T H etS S SUNPAC P BERLIN
# PLUM ESSEX 5 FRTH ^ I « r r «y * - «MT* BORT KHK ° F ■“ 3 Æ %. WVARRE iUS t r a c t ! MAOfW ^RAIL CANYON '■ m isty w s e % M.;: 5§j AMERICAN PACIFIC « „ WIGWAAt /.Ü' BL11Æ« g L 5 § o ZURICH g. g NEWPORT CASADY HOLLOW gTYLS^raOGE viewmontfarvvry '■' 2“ ^ LtlCYLUCY > % “ PINCAV HOMZGW IWGE SOLSIVIOC POW ^ % g <3 ^ ATncus ^ « &3>Z i g / 3 a GREYHOUND I M^CINCT BORY «lisHOR133N ^ S s a m i T T4%A*ACK FCATHER
U S ftS ^ P A N a .c s s M iæ O N I;< THEÎIIER L MCJNlcr» SANWÎUNO 4» § P A T T lA H N W O O D S g ^AN GABRIEL PARAOfâE H iixs ^ Santa v nez
FOX H all PHEONCT aony ARlf' %
Legend
Street Network Crash Density i , ] 25 - 37.3 [ % ] 0-12.4 [3374.49.7 ■ ■ 49.8 - 62.1 ■4 “ 12.5 - 24.9
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Figure 33. Pedestrian Crash Concentration in the City of Flenderson Based on NDOT Crash data from 1998 - 2002
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. G R A Y R O B IN < Z B ELLI N G T O N
O A K IS L A N D § BARR KIER
g > < (TO GOWAN • C O W A N h a r l i n GEORGE m C A R L A
ALBATA < B L A K E . C O L T O N COLTON S h a r p
? O C H E Y E N N E g . % ARKTOe ^ VANA g %i 4, BROOKS 6 ^ DIANA P IP E R X O) E ^ MPER DOG'WOOD E V A N S %E f DEL RIO ro S A R IT A FERGUSON g D U K E A t l a s ^ B U LL R U N C A R T E R o o ENERGY ■ PUTNAM HADDOCK O -H > C Y P R E S S NELSON r TJ s a n d s a g e m B R O A D W A Y z C A R E Y El o m P ULUS o M ILLER m m / ÿ A, o OPR o g O R R \ y HAWSE i73 n J U D S O N O D ILLO N % . ClOAy m f 0 m A HUNKINS T A B O R % m U) .of*- L05 yr]U Legend Crash Density 1 1 0 - 4 6 .7 2 [-]4G .73.93.« I' 1 93.44 -140.2 0.3 0.6 1.2 M ile I 23 3 .7 - 2 8 0 .3 d H 230.4 - 327 S treet Net»p/ork Figure 34. Pedestrian Crash Density in the City of North Las Vegas It can be observed from the Figures that pedestrian crashes were observed along Boulder Highway in the City of Henderson. Similarly, higher concentrations of the 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pedestrian crashes were observed along Lake Mead, Las Vegas Boulevard and Civic Center Drive in the City of North Las Vegas. High Pedestrian Crash locations The high pedestrian crash zones were then identified by drawing buffers around the locations with relatively higher crash concentrations. The circular zones include crashes within a 200 feet buffer radius and are centered at the intersections. If the crashes are unevenly distributed along a corridor then the corridor is selected as a linear zone with a buffer radius of 50ft to 100ft. A total of 2 linear zones and 8 circular high pedestrian crash zones were identified in the City of Henderson. Similarly 5 linear and 12 circular high crash zones were identified in the City of North Las Vegas as seen in Figures 35 and 36. 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PATRICK ATHENS i GALLER'A A T H E N S g H'W YIEVf cwz g I ^ E 9 , E X ^ I in'* EPODP WARM BRINGS WR§ S f ^ 2 mm\ü ^ «ASH- -I* O ta R \ If P IN O < Ô WIGWAM, iR'1 b'WSWa^HOLDÇR T A 0 C » ' , -ë A5 --- ' % ^ NEVVPOR' fiURW AY P A S tO VERDE -ROCWBl ^ C A * » O R b HORtgON R'DGE 4 , \ V - h\JimoR lo ;m : PRECINCT BDRY fi; 2 O / COLT A P P iA N f \ O Î4J UGV&USB& 4b L , , f ^ mission p PATTfANMWOODS PARADISE HILLS > . ", ” SANDY z A T 7 Legend I I High Pedestrian Crash Zones H enderson Street Net^vork 0 0 .5 1 2 M iles Figure 35. Selected High Crash Zones in the City of Henderson 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4L5 P L__. Legend street Network 0 0.3 0.6 1,2 Mils I I North Las Vegas I I Higti Pedestrian Crasti Zones Figure 36. Selected High Crash Zones in the City of North Las Vegas 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ranking of the High Pedestrian Crash Locations The ten high crash locations identified in the City of Henderson and the seventeen in the City of North Las Vegas are ranked based on the crash frequency, crash severity, crash density, crash rate based on population and crash rate based on population by age group, sum of ranks and crash score methods. Crash rates due to vehicular volume and pedestrian volumes were not estimated due to complexity involved in obtaining and manipulating the data. The crash rate values and ranks from the methods for the selected high pedestrian crash zones are presented seen in tables 1 through 4. 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Rates in the City of Henderson CDA per 100,000Sq ft # Zone CFN CFS area CRPP CRPP 1-18 CRPP 18-64 CRPP 65 UP 8 1 Sunset: Annie Oaklay to Athenian 12 206 0^2 0.02 0.00154 0,00000 0.00200 2 Warm Springs / Green Valley 5 199 1.15 0.03 0.00000 0,00079 0.00000 (O' 3 Lake Mead Drive / Boulder Highway 5 101 0.42 0.03 0.00080 0.00128 0.00216 4 Valle Verde Drive / Wigwam Parkway 5 102 0.44 0.02 0.00364 0.00365 0.00148 5 Boulder Highway: Roily Street to Com Street 4 101 0J9 0.02 0.00115 0,00049 0,00289 6 Lake Mead Drive / Ash Street 3 197 1.26 0.05 0.00000 0.00033 0.00000 7 Major Avenue / Boulder Highway 3 197 0^3 0.06 0.00061 0.00022 0.00000 3. 8 Boulder Highway / Magic Way 3 197 0.64 0.06 0.00206 0.00044 0.00279 3 " CD 9 Boulder Highway / Texas Avenue 3 100 039 0.02 0.00349 0.00000 0.00182 10 Foster Street / Boulder Highway 3 3 0.01 0 0.00310 0.00142 0.00683 ■DCD O Q. C a Legend 3o "O o CFN Crash Frequency CD Q. CFS Crash Frequency Based on Severity CDA Crash Density ■D CD CRPP Crash Rate based on Population C/) CRPP 1-18 Crash Rate based on Population in age group below 18 years C/) CRPP 18-64 Crash Rate based on Population in age group 18 to 64 years CRPP 65_UP Crash Rate based on Population in age group above 65 years CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) Table 3 The Crash Frequency, Crash Severity, Crash Density, and Crash Rates in the City of North Las Vegas 3o' O CDA per 100,000Sq ft # Zone CFN CFS area CRPP CRPP 1-18 CRPP 18-64 CRPP 65 UP 8 1 Lake Mead Boulevard: Civic Center Drive to Statz Street 17 793 70.1 0.04860 0.13950 0.08100 0.94000 ci' 2 Lake Mead Boulevard / Pecos Road 17 211 3176 0.01710 0.04540 0.03 0.34000 3 Lake Mead Boulevard: Wilkinson Way to Belmont Street 12 788 100.89 0.04620 0.12310 0.0803 0.95 4 Lake Mead Boulevard / Las Vegas Boulevard 12 109 42.92 0.01330 0.03810 0TG28 0.21 5 Las Vegas Boulevard: Van Der Meer Street to Webster Street 11 690 18.93 0.03140 0.08850 0.0533 0^# 6 Las Vegas Boulevard / Bruce Street 9 591 144.71 0.07240 0.21540 0.1193 1.25000 3 7 Lake Mead Boulevard / Me Daniel Street 9 397 144.6 0.04400 0.13220 0.0715 0.85000 3" 8 Owens Avenue: Bruce Street to Patricia Street 9 0.01310 0.03590 0.2 CD 203 2L73 0.0229 9 Las Vegas Boulevard / Pecos Road 7 298 790.73 0.03530 0.09970 0.06070 0.55 CD ■D 10 Civic Center Drive: Hickey Avenue to Stanley Avenue 6 394 5Z78 0.30000 0.08430 0.0506 0.59 O Q. 11 Hassel Avenue / Camstock Drive 6 200 2C28 0.02740 0.07630 0.0492 0.35 C LA a 12 Martin Luther King Boulevard / Carey Avenue 6 6 9.15 0.00120 0.00300 0.0023 0.03 O 3 13 Carey Avenue / Belmont Street 5 199 27336 0.01710 0.04560 0.0291 0.45 ■D O 14 Las Vegas Boulevard / Tonopah Avenue 4 295 104.53 0.03570 0.11340 0.0577 0.54 15 Lake Mead Boulevard / Rancho Drive 4 4 1.94 0.00140 0.00520 0.0023 0.01 16 Losee Road / Cheyenne Avenue 3 3 3.94 0.00110 0.00300 0.0019 0.03 CD Q. 17 Las Vegas Boulevard / Hamilton Street 3 3 3.12 0.00036 0.00110 C00058 0.01 ■D CD C/) C/) CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Table 4 Ranks of high crash zones in the City of Henderson R an k R an k R an k R an k R ank R an k C R P P R a n k C R P P R an k s # Z on e CFN CFS CDA CRPP C R P P 1-18 18-64 65 U P SR R an k CS 8 1 Sunset: Annie Oaklay to Athenian 1 1 5 6 5 9 5 5 5 2 Warm Springs / Green Valley 2 2 2 4 9 4 8 8 4 ci' 3 Lake Mead Drive / Boulder Highway 2 7 7 4 7 3 4 4 7 4 Valle Verde Drive / Wigwam Parkway 2 6 6 6 1 1 7 7 9 5 Boulder Highway: Roily Street to Com Street 5 7 8 6 6 5 2 2 8 6 Lake Mead Drive / Ash Street 6 3 1 3 9 7 8 8 3 7 Major Avenue / Boulder Highway 6 3 3 1 8 8 8 8 2 3 8 Boulder Highway / Magic Way 6 3 4 1 4 6 3 3 1 3" CD 9 Boulder Highway / Texas Avenue 6 9 8 6 2 9 6 6 6 ■DCD 10 Foster Street / Boulder Highway 6 10 10 10 3 2 1 1 10 O Q. C a 3o Legend "O o CFN Crash Frequency CFS Crash Frequency Based on Severity CD Q. CDA Crash Density CRPP Crash Rate based on Population ■D CD CRPP 1-18 Crash Rate based on Population in age group below 18 years C/) C/) CRPP 18-64 Crash Rate based on Population in age group 18 to 64 years CRPP 65_UP Crash Rate based on Population in age group above 65 years SR Sum of Ranks Method CS Crash Score Method TDCD O a . c 8 Q. TD CD C/) C/) Table 5 Ranks of high crash zones in the City of North Las Vegas Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank CRPP Rank CRPP Rank CRPP Rank Rank # Zone CFN CFS CDA CRPP 1-18 18-64 65 UP SR CS CD 1 Las Vegas Boulevard / Bruce Street 6 4 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 2 Lake Mead Boulevard: Civic Center Drive to Statz Street 1 1 7 2 2 2 3 3 2 5 3 Lake Mead Boulevard: Wilkinson Way to Belmont Street 3 2 6 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 Lake Mead Boulevard / Pecos Road 9 7 1 6 6 5 7 5 4 5 Las Vegas Boulevard / Pecos Road 6 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 6 Lake Mead Boulevard / Me Daniel Street 5 3 13 7 7 7 6 8 5 7 Las Vegas Boulevard: Van Der Meer Street to Webster Street 14 8 5 5 5 6 8 6 6 8 Las Vegas Boulevard / Tonopah Avenue 10 6 8 8 8 8 5 7 7 3 9 Civic Center Drive: Hickey Avenue to Stanley Avenue 10 11 11 9 9 9 11 10 8 3" CD 10 Hassel Avenue / Camstock Drive 13 12 2 11 10 11 9 8 9 11 Carey Avenue / Belmont Street 1 9 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 TDCD O 12 Owens Avenue: Bruce Street to Patricia Street 6 10 12 13 13 12 13 12 12 CQ. 13 Lake Mead Boulevard / Las Vegas Boulevard 3 13 9 12 12 13 12 11 13 a 14 Martin Luther King Boulevard / Carey Avenue 10 14 14 15 15 15 15 14 14 o 3 15 Lake Mead Boulevard / Rancho Drive 14 15 17 14 14 14 16 15 15 TD O 16 Losee Road / Cheyenne Avenue 16 16 15 16 16 16 14 16 16 17 Las Vegas Boulevard / Hamilton Street 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 16 17 CD Q. CD C/) C/) Crash data analysis City of Henderson Crash data for the years 1998 to 2002 were obtained from NDOT and analyzed to understand the spatial and temporal characteristics of the pedestrian crashes in the City of Henderson. About 156 injuries and 11 fatalities involving pedestrians occurred in Henderson during this period. Forty out of these crashes were type A injuries while 63 of them were of type C. About 89 percent of the crashes occurred in clear weather. About 62 percent of the total crashes in Henderson occurred in speed control zones and 20 percent occurred when signal lights were in operation. The selected high crash zones contained 46 crashes out of the total pedestrian crashes that occurred in the City. While the others were randomly distributed over the City, most of them are concentrated on Boulder Highway and Sunset Road. Three crashes out of these were fatal and 11 were severe injuries (type A). The pedestrians from 18-54 years of age were involved in 18 of these crashes. The crashes involving male pedestrians were about the same as female pedestrians. Crashes among children and teens below 18 years of age were injury crashes and were 17 in number. Out of the 3 fatalities reported, 2 crashes involved pedestrians older than 65 years of age. Key demographic characteristics of the pedestrian involved crashes in the City of Henderson are shown in table5. The months of January and November had higher frequency of pedestrian crashes. The highest frequency of crashes occurred on Thursdays and Mondays. While the highest frequency of crashes were observed between 3pm and 6 pm, the time period between 6 am and 9 pm, noon and 3 pm, and 6 pm to 9pm also showed comparable crash 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. frequencies. The temporal characteristics of the crashes by month of the year, day of the week and time of the day are enclosed in Tables 7, 8 and 9 respectively. The major contributing factors for the crashes at the selected locations were failure to yield, inattentive driving, and driving under the influence of alcohol. Most of the pedestrians were crossing at intersection with signal when involved in crash. Other significant pedestrian actions were mid-block crossing and signal violation. The highest number of crashes occurred on minor urban arterials. Table 10 presents the crashes in each high crash zones by the contributing factor. 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Table 6 Pedestrian Crash Characteristics in the City of Henderson G ender Severity Pedestrian Age below 18 years # Injury # Injury # Injury # Injury # Injury # Injury # Zone # Total # M ales # Fem ales # Fatal # Injury T ype A Type B Type C # Total # Fatal # Injury Type A Type B Type C 8 1 Sunset: Annie Oaklay to Athenian 12 5 7 0 12 2 5 5 4 0 4 1 1 2 2 Warm Springs / Green Valley 5 3 2 0 5 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 ci' 3 Lake Mead Drive / Boulder Highway 5 2 3 0 5 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 Valle Verde Drive / Wigwam Parkway 5 1 4 0 5 1 0 4 4 0 4 0 0 4 5 Boulder Highway: Roily Street to Com Stree 4 2 2 0 4 1 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 Lake Mead Drive / Ash Street 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 7 Major Avenue / Boulder Highway 3 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 8 Boulder Highway / Magic Way 3 3 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Boulder Highway / Texas Avenue 3 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 Foster Street / Boulder Highway 1 2 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3" 10 3 CD Total 46 23 23 3 43 11 10 21 17 0 17 4 4 9 ■DCD O CQ. o00 a o 3 Pedestrian Age 18 - 54 years Pedestrian Age above 54 years ■D # Injury # Injury # Injury O # Injury # Injury # Injury # Zone # Total # Fatal # Injury Type A TypeB Type C # Total # Fatal # Injury Type A TypeB Type C 1 Sunset: Annie Oaklay to Athenian 6 . 0 4 0 4 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 CD Q. 2 Warm Springs / Green Valley 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 Lake Mead Drive / Boulder Highway 3 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 Valle Verde Drive / Wigwam Parkway 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Boulder Highway: Roily Street to Com Stree: 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 ■D 6 Lake Mead Drive / Ash Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 CD 7 Major Avenue / Boulder Highway 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 C/) 8 Boulder Highway / Magic Way 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 C/) 9 Boulder Highway / Texas Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 10 Foster Street / Boulder Highway 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 18 0 17 2 6 9 8 2 6 4 0 2 CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Table 7 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of Henderson by Month # Zone January February M arch April M ay June July A ugust Septem ber October November December Total 1 Sunset: Annie Oaklay to Athenian 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 12 2 Warm Springs / Green Valley 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 3Lake Mead Drive / Boulder Highway 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 8 4 Valle Verde Drive / Wigwam Parkway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 5 5 Boulder Highway: Roily Street to Com Street 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 ci' 6 Lake Mead Drive / Ash Street 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 7 Major Avenue / Boulder Highway 1 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 8 Boulder Highway / Magic Way 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 Boulder Highway / Texas Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 10 Foster Street / Boulder Highway 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Total 6 1 3 5 1 3 5 4 4 1 7 4 44 3 3" CD ■DCD O CQ. 00 a o 3 ■D O CD Q. ■D CD C/) C/) "OCD 3 Q. C 8 Q. "O CD Table 8 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of Henderson by day of the week # Zone Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Total 1 Sunset: Annie Oaklay to Athenian 0 3 1 2 4 1 1 12 8 2 Warm Springs / Green Valley 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 5 "O 3 Lake Mead Drive / Boulder Highway 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 eg- 4 Valle Verde Drive / Wigwam Parkway 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 5 5 Boulder Highway: Roily Street to Com Stree: 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 6 Lake Mead Drive / Ash Street 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 7 Major Avenue / Boulder Highway 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 3.C 8 Boulder Highway / Magic Way 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 3" CD 9 Boulder Highway / Texas Avenue 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 3 10 Foster Street / Boulder Highway 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 "O o Total 2 10 5 7 12 5 5 46 CQ. 00 g. o "O o CD Q. "O CD 8 CD "O O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Table 9 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of Henderson by time of the day # Zone 0 AM-3 AM 3 AM-6 AM 6 AM-9 AM 9 AM-12 PM 12 PM-3 PM 3 PM-6 PM 6 PM-9 PM 9 PM-0 AM Total 1 Sunset: Annie Oaklay to Athenian 1 0 0 1 3 4 3 0 12 2 Warm Springs / Green Valley 0 0 1 0 3 0 I 0 5 8 3 Lake Mead Drive / Boulder Highway 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 5 4 Valle Verde Drive / Wigwam Parkway 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 5 5 Boulder Highway: Roily Street to Com Street 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 6 Lake Mead Drive / Ash Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 7 Major Avenue / Boulder Highway 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 CD 8 Boulder Highway / Magic Way 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 9Boulder Highway / Texas Avenue 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 10 Foster Street / Boulder Highway 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 3. 3" Total 1 1 7 3 10 12 9 3 46 CD ■DCD O CQ. U)00 a o ■D O CD Q. ■D CD C/) C/) CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) Table 10 a) Number of Crashes by Contributing Factor in the High Pedestrian Crashes in the City of Henderson 3o" 0 # Z one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 3 CD 1 Sunset : Annie Oakley to Athenian 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 8 2 Warm Springs Rd / Green Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci' 3 Lake Mead Dr / Boulder Hwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3" 4 Valle Verde Dr / Wigwam Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 5 Boulder Hwy: Roily St to Com St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 "n 6 Lake Mead Dr / Ash St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 3. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3" 7 Major Avenue / Boulder Hwy CD 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 8 Boulder Hwy / Magic Wy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 "O 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 9 Boulder Hwy / Texas Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q. 00 C 0 0 0 a 10 Foster / Boulder Hwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 T otal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■D O CD Q. ■D CD C/) C/) CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) Table 10 b) Number of Crashes by Contributing Factor in the High Pedestrian Crashes in the City of Henderson 3o" 0 # Z one 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 3 CD 1 Sunset .'Annie Oakley to Athenian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 Warm Springs Rd / Green Valley 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci' 3 Lake Mead Dr / Boulder Hwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3" 4 Valle Verde Dr / Wigwam Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 Boulder Hwy: Roily St to Com St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 6 Lake Mead Dr / Ash St 0 0 0 00000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "n c 3. 7 Major Avenue / Boulder Hwy 0 0 0 00000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3" CD 8 Boulder Hwy / Magic Wy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 "O 9 Boulder Hwy / Texas Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 o Q. 00 C 10Foster / Boulder Hwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O T otal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 ■D O CD Q. ■D CD C/) C/) CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Table 10 c) List of Contributing Factors 01,D.U.I. Alcohol,1/1/90 ,Null 17,Defective Roadway.,1/1/90 .Null 36,D.U.I. of Drugs,1/1/90 ,Null 47,Defective Brakes,l/l/90 .Null 02,Excessive Speed,1/1/90 ,Null 18,Weather- Snow, Rain, Icy, Etc.,1/1/90 ,Null 37,Inexperienced Driver,1/1/90 .Null 48,Defective Tires, 1/1/90 .Null 8 03,Following too Close,l/1/90 ,Null 19,Defective Vehicle,1/1/90 .Null 38,Animal in Roadway (Cow),1/1/90 ,Null 49,Speed too Fast For Conditions, 1/1/90 .Null 04,Mountain Driving,l/l/90 ,Null 20,Physical Driver Defect.,1/1/90 .Null 39,Animal in Roadway (Horse), 1/1/90 .Null 50,Rocks in Roadway, 1/1/90 ,Null (O' 05,on Wrong Side of Rdwy,1/1/90 ,Null 21,Fatigued Driver,1/1/90 .Null 40,Animal in Roadway (Deer), 1/1/90 .Null 51 .Improper Use of Turn Lane,l/l/90 .Null 06,Improper Passing, 1/1/90 .Null 22,Driver Vision Obscured., 1/1/90 .Null 41,Animal in Roadway (Burro ), 1/1/90 .Null 52,Wrong Way on one Way,1/1/90 .Null 07,Improper Lane Change,1/1/90 ,Null 23,Opening Door into Traffic,l/l/90 .Null 42,Loose Material on Surface,l/l/90 .Null 53,Stalled in Travel Lane, 1/1/90 .Null 08,Improper Turn ,1/1/90 .Null 24,Driving in Other Lane,1/1/90 .Null 43,infant Or Small Child At Wheel,1/1/90 .Null 54,Defective Trailing Unit,1/1/90 ,Null 3 3" 09,Failure to Yield,,1/1/90 .Null 25,Improper Backing, 1/1/90 .Null 44,Lights Not on, 1/1/90 .Null 55,Vehicle too High,1/1/90 .Null (D 10.Failure to Give Signal,l/l/90 ,Null 26,Driving in Other Than Proper Manner, 1/1/91 45,Failure to Yield to Emrg Vehicle, 1/1/90 ,Null 56,Unsafe Load,l/1/90 .Null (D T3 O 11,Improper Start Position, 1/1/90 .Null 27,Disregard Temporary Traffic Sign ,1/1/90 .Null 46,Defective Steering,l/l/90 .Null Q. 00 C o\ 12,Improper Parking Location., 1/1/90 .Null 30,Inattentive Driving, 1/1/90 .Null a 13,0bjects in Roadway, 1/1/90 .Null 31,Prior Accident ,1/1/90 .Null 3o T3 14,Pedestrian in Roadway, 1/1/90 .Null 32,Design Factor.,1/1/90 .Null O 15,Animal in Roadway,l/1/90 .Null 33,H it& Run,l/l/90 ,Null 16,Non-Contact Vehicle,l/l/90 .Null ____ +-t,Other, 1/1/90 .Null ______(D Q. T3 CD in City of North Las Vegas The NDOT crash data in the years 1998 to 2002 were analyzed to understand the spatial and temporal characteristics of the pedestrian crashes in the City of North Las Vegas. About 239 injuries and 9 fatalities involving pedestrians occurred in the City during this period. Approximately 74 out of these crashes were type A injuries while 89 of them were of type C. About 88 percent of these crashes occurred during clear weather. About 70 percent of the total crashes in North Las Vegas occurred in speed control zones and 21 percent occurred when signal lights were in operation The selected high crash zones contained 140 crashes out of the total pedestrian crashes that occurred in North Las Vegas. While the others were randomly distributed over the City, many of them are concentrated on the streets of Lake Mead, Las Vegas Boulevard and Civic Center Drive. Six crashes out of these were fatal and 46 were severe injuries (type A). The pedestrians from 18-54 years of age were involved in 72 of these crashes involving in 3 fatalities. Male pedestrians were involved in about twice as many crashes as compared to female pedestrians. Crashes among children and teens below 18 years of age were injury crashes and were 44 in number. The characteristics of the pedestrian crashes in the high crash zones are tabulated (Table 11). Probability that a pedestrian is involved in a crash is higher in the months of May to August and October. Crashes occurred more on Tuesdays and Saturday. A majority of the crashes occurred between 3 pm and 6 pm and the pedestrians involved during this time are mostly below 18 years of age. The temporal characteristics of the crashes by month of the year, day of the week and time of the day are in Tables 12, 13 and 14 respectively. 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Table lia) Pedestrian Crash Characteristics in the City of North Las Vegas Gender Severity Pedestrian Age 0 -18 yrs # ZONE # # Injury # Injury # Injury # Injury # Injury # Injury # Total # M ales Females # Fatal # Injury T ype A Type B T ype C # Total # Fatal # InjuryT ype A T ype B T y p eC 8 1 Lake Mead Blvd : Civic Center Dr - Statz St 17 9 8 0 17 8 2 7 7 0 7 2 2 3 2 Lake Mead Blvd / Pecos Rd 17 10 7 0 17 2 5 10 7 0 7 1 2 4 3 Lake Mead Blvd : Wilkinson Wy - Belmont St 12 8 4 1 11 7 3 1 3 0 3 0 2 1 (O' 4 Lake Mead Blvd / Las Vegas Blvd 12 9 3 0 12 1 3 8 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 Las Vegas Blvd : Van Der Meer St - Webster St 11 8 3 1 10 6 2 2 3 0 3 1 1 1 6 Las Vegas Blvd / Bruce St 9 6 3 2 7 4 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 7 Lake Mead Blvd / Me Daniel St 9 5 4 0 9 4 3 2 3 0 3 2 0 1 8 Owens Av : Bruce St - Patricia St 9 7 2 0 9 2 1 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 9 Las Vegas Blvd / Pecos Rd 7 4 3 0 7 3 1 3 2 0 2 1 0 1 3 10 Civic Center Dr : Hickey Av - Stanley Av 6 5 1 1 5 3 1 I 2 0 2 0 1 1 3" 11 Hassell Av / Comstock Dr 6 6 0 0 6 2 3 1 4 0 4 1 3 0 CD 12 Martin L King Blvd / Carey Av 6 5 1 0 6 0 3 3 2 0 2 0 1 1 3 13 Carey Av / Belmont St 5 3 2 0 5 2 2 1 5 0 5 2 2 1 "O 0 0 o 14 Las Vegas Blvd / Tonopah Av 4 1 3 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 Q. oo 15 Lake Mead Blvd / Rancho Dr 4 2 2 0 4 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 C oo a 16 Losee Rd / Cheyenne Av 3 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 17 Las Vegas Blvd / Hamilton St 3 1 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 140 92 48 6 134 46 37 51 44 0 44 13 17 14 ■D O CD Q. ■D CD C/) C/) CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Table 11 b) Pedestrian Crash Characteristics in the City of North Las Vegas 3o" O Pedestrian Age 18-54 yrs Pedestrian Age >54 yrs # ZONE # Injury # Injury # Injury # Injury # Injury # Injury # Total # Fatal # InjuryType A Type B Type C # Total # Fatal # Injury Type A Type B TypcC 8 1 Lake Mead Blvd : Civic Center Dr - Statz St 10 0 10 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Lake Mead Blvd / Pecos Rd 9 0 9 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci' 3 Lake Mead Blvd : Wilkinson Wy - Belmont St 7 0 7 6 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 4 Lake Mead Blvd / Las Vegas Blvd 7 0 7 1 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 Las Vegas Blvd : Van Der Meer St - Webster St 5 0 5 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 Las Vegas Blvd / Bruce St 8 2 6 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Lake Mead Blvd / Me Daniel St 4 0 4 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 8 Owens Av : Bruce St - Patricia St 6 0 6 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 Las Vegas Blvd / Pecos Rd 3 0 3 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 3" 10 Civic Center Dr ; Hickey Av - Stanley Av 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 CD 11 Hassell Av / Comstock Dr 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■DCD 12 Martin L King Blvd / Carey Av 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 13Carey Av / Belmont St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q. 00 C 14 Las Vegas Blvd / Tonopah Av 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 a 15 Lake Mead Blvd / Rancho Dr 3 0 3 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 o 3 16Losee Rd / Cheyenne Av 3 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■D 17 Las Vegas Blvd / Hamilton St 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 O Total 72 3 69 26 15 28 12 3 9 3 4 2 CD Q. ■D CD C/) C/) CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) Table 12 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of North Las Vegas by Month 3o" 0 # Z one J a n u a ry February March April May June July August September October November December Total 3 CD 1 Lake Mead Blvd : Civic Center Dr - Statz St 0 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 2 3 3 17 8 2 Lake Mead Blvd / Pecos Rd 2 2 0 4 2 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 17 ci' 3 Lake Mead Blvd : Wilkinson Wy - Belmont St 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 0 0 12 3" 4 Lake Mead Blvd / Las Vegas Blvd 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 12 1 3 CD 5 Las Vegas Blvd : Van Der Meer St - Webster St 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 2 0 0 1 0 11 "n 6 Las Vegas Blvd / Bruce St 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 9 c 3. 7 Lake Mead Blvd / Me Daniel St 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 9 3" CD 8 Owens Av : Bruce St - Patricia St 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 9 ■DCD O 9 Las Vegas Blvd / Pecos Rd 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 7 Q. VO C o a 10 Civic Center Dr : Hickey Av - Stanley Av 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 O 3 11Hassell Av / Comstock Dr 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 ■D O 12Martin L King Blvd / Carey Av 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 6 13 Carey Av / Belmont St 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 CD Q. 14 Las Vegas Blvd / Tonopah Av 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 15 Lake Mead Blvd / Rancho Dr 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 ■D 16Losee Rd / Cheyenne Av 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CD 17 Las Vegas Blvd / Hamilton St 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 C/) C/) T otal 7 14 9 11 14 18 14 14 5 14 10 10 140 CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD WC/) Table 13 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of North Las Vegas by day of the week 3o' 0 # Zone Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Total 3 CD 1 Lake Mead Blvd : Civic Center Dr - Statz St 4 3 3 1 3 2 1 17 8 2 Lake Mead Blvd / Pecos Rd 3 1 5 4 2 1 1 17 (O' 3" 3 Lake Mead Blvd : Wilkinson Wy - Belmont St 2 0 1 3 3 0 3 12 1 3 4 Lake Mead Blvd / Las Vegas Blvd 2 4 2 0 2 0 2 12 CD 5 Las Vegas Blvd ; Van Der Meer St - Webster St 3 0 0 1 0 2 5 11 c"n 3. 3" 6 Las Vegas Blvd / Bruce St 0 2 2 0 1 2 2 9 CD CD 7 Lake Mead Blvd / Me Daniel St 0 3 1 1 1 3 0 9 ■D O 8 Owens Av : Bruce St - Patricia St 0 0 4 0 1 2 2 9 CQ. a o 9 Las Vegas Blvd / Pecos Rd 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 7 3 ■D 10 Civic Center Dr : Hickey Av - Stanley Av 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 6 O 11 Hassell Av / Comstock Dr 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 CD Q. 12 Martin L King Blvd / Carey Av 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 6 13 Carey Av / Belmont St 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 5 ■D 14 Las Vegas Blvd / Tonopah Av 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 4 CD 15 Lake Mead Blvd / Rancho Dr 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 C/) C/) 16 Losee Rd / Cheyenne Av 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 17 Las Vegas Blvd / Hamilton St 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 Total 20 20 29 14 18 18 21 140 CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) Table 14 Temporal Characteristics of the Pedestrian Crashes in the City of North Las Vegas by time of the day 3o' 0 # Zone 0 AM -3 AM 3 AM - 6 AM 6 AM - 9 AM 9 AM -12 PM 12 PM - 3 PM 3 PM - 6 PM 6 PM - 9 PM 9 PM - 0 AM Total 3 CD 1 Lake Mead Blvd : Civic Center Dr - Statz St 0 0 0 1 2 8 4 2 17 8 2 Lake Mead Blvd / Pecos Rd 1 0 2 0 3 5 2 4 17 ci' 3 Lake Mead Blvd : Wilkinson Wy - Belmont St 0 1 2 0 1 3 5 0 12 3" 4 Lake Mead Blvd / Las Vegas Blvd 1 0 2 1 3 4 1 0 12 1 3 5 Las Vegas Blvd : Van Der Meer St - Webster S 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 11 CD 6 Las Vegas Blvd / Bruce St 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 9 "n c 3. 7 Lake Mead Blvd / Me Daniel St 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 9 3" CD 8 Owens Av : Bruce St - Patricia St 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 9 CD ■D 9Las Vegas Blvd / Pecos Rd 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 O Q. C 10 Civic Center Dr : Hickey Av - Stanley Av 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 6 a O 11 Hassell Av / Comstock Dr 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 6 3 ■D O 12 Martin L King Blvd / Carey Av 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 6 13 Carey Av / Belmont St 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 5 CD O. 14 Las Vegas Blvd / Tonopah Av 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 15 Lake Mead Blvd / Rancho Dr 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 4 16 Losee Rd / Cheyenne Av 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 ■D CD 17 Las Vegas Blvd / Hamilton St 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 C/) Total 5 2 10 11 16 28 20 14 106 C/) The major contributing factors for these crashes were failure to yield, inattentive driving, and driving under the influence of alcohol. Significant pedestrian actions that resulted in crashes were mid-block crossing, improper crossing at the intersections, running into the roadway and signal violation. Tables 15 show the crashes in each high crash zones by contributing factor and by the type of traffic control. 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) 3o" O Table 15 a) Number of Crashes by Contributing Factor in the High Pedestrian Crashes in the City of North Las Vegas 8 # Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 1 Lake Mead Blvd : Civic Center Dr - Statz St 0 0 0 0 0 001300001000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ci' 2 Lake Mead Blvd / Pecos Rd 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 Lake Mead Blvd : Wilkinson Wy - Belmont St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Lake Mead Blvd / Las Vegas Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Las Vegas Blvd : Van Der Meer St - Webster St 1 0 0 0 0 00010100800000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Las Vegas Blvd / Bruce St 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 Lake Mead Blvd / Me Daniel St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3" CD 8 Owens Av : Bruce St - Patricia St 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■DCD 9 Las Vegas Blvd / Pecos Rd 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 10 Civic Center Dr : Hickey Av - Stanley Av 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 00000000000000 0 1 0 0 0 0 Q. C a 11 Hassell Av / Comstock Dr 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 12 Martin L King Blvd / Carey Av 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 ■D 13 Carey Av / Belmont St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 00000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 O 14 Las Vegas Blvd / Tonopah Av 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Lake Mead Blvd / Rancho Dr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 CD Q. 16Losee Rd / Cheyenne Av 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 17 Las Vegas Blvd / Hamilton St 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 0 1 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 ■D CD C/) C/) CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) 3o" O Table 15 b) Number of Crashes by Contributing Factor in the High Pedestrian Crashes in the City of North Las Vegas 8 # Zone 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 ci' 1 Lake Mead Blvd : Civic Center Dr - Statz St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Lake Mead Blvd / Pecos Rd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Lake Mead Blvd ; Wilkinson Wy - Belmont St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Lake Mead Blvd / Las Vegas Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 000000000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Las Vegas Blvd : Van Der Meer St - Webster St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 Las Vegas Blvd / Brace St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3" CD 7 Lake Mead Blvd / Me Daniel St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■DCD 8 Owens Av : Brace St - Patricia St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 9 Las Vegas Blvd / Pecos Rd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q. C LA 10 Civic Center Dr : Hickey Av - Stanley Av 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 11 Hassell Av / Comstock Dr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 ■D 12 Martin L King Blvd / Carey Av 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 13 Carey Av / Belmont St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 Las Vegas Blvd / Tonopab Av 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD Q. 15 Lake Mead Blvd / Rancbo Dr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Losee Rd / Cheyenne Av 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Las Vegas Blvd / Hamilton St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 ■D T otal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0000000000000 0 1 0 CD C/) C/) Field Observations Six sites were selected from the City of Henderson and thirteen sites from the City of North Las Vegas were identified for detailed evaluation based on field observations data collection. To reduce complexity, intersections with more than the average number of crashes reported have been selected from the high pedestrian crash zones. Data collection was carried out to observe the pedestrian and driver behaviors at the sites and to understand the characteristics of the locations that led to the crash frequency. Data collection efforts were carried out for a period of two months from 14*^ February, 2005 to lEf^ April, 2005 on three days a week, Monday, Thursday and Friday in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Data were collected at each site on a single day. Pedestrian characteristics such as age, ethnicity, and gender were recorded. Also pedestrian crossing direction, pedestrian compliance towards the walk signal, yielding behavior and the purpose of crossing were also observed at the locations both in the morning and afternoon periods. Any evasive action between a pedestrian and a driver that occurs during the crossing maneuver periods is also recorded. The pedestrian crossing behavior and the crosswalk usage are the most important information observed which helped in determining the suitable countermeasures at the locations. Driver characteristics like age, ethnicity and gender were also recorded. Vehicle type, direction of the vehicle movement, driver yielding behavior to pedestrians and the distance where the vehicle is stopped with respect to the stop line were other important data collected. These data help in better understanding of the site characteristics and possible factors that could lead to crashes. These data provide important information to be considered before implementing any strategies to reduce the crashes and enhance 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. safety at these locations in the future. The Figures 37 and 38 show the selected sites for data collection in the City of Henderson and in the City of North Las Vegas respectively. L egen d ^ Selected Sites for Data Collection I _ ] Henderson ... Street Network i I High Pedestrian Crash Zones 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Figure 37 Selected Sites for Data Collection from the High Pedestrian Crash Zones in the City of Henderson 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. r---—é/---- - Legend ★ Selected Sites for Data Collection Street Network High Pedestrian Crash Zones North Las Vegas 0 .3 0.6 Figure 38 Selected Sites for Data Collection from the High Pedestrian Crash Zones in the City of North Las Vegas 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Data collected based on observations at the locations were analyzed to understand the pedestrian and motorist behaviors. The pedestrian data were analyzed to estimate the total number of pedestrians observed, percentage of pedestrians crossing by age, by gender and by ethnicity at each of the locations. The analyses were performed to estimate the same during morning peak hours, afternoon peak hours and in general using the total data. Other important analyses drawn including the following: Percentage of pedestrians • crossing each street • crossing in each direction • obeying the traffic signal • violating the traffic signal • walking on the crosswalk • walking not on the crosswalk • crossing the road at mid-block • yielding for vehicles • trapped in the middle of the road Similarly the vehicular data are analyzed to estimate the percent of total observed vehicles in a day, • by type of the vehicle • by approach street • by vehicular movement, left, through and right • by gender of the driver • by age group (below 18, 18-55, 55 and above) of the driver 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • by ethnicity of the driver • by the stopping distance of the vehicle with respect to the stop line upstream of the crosswalk (ahead of the line, behind the line, on the line or middle of the intersection) City of Henderson Among the observed pedestrians at all the locations male pedestrians accounted for 82 percent of the total. In general the pedestrian traffic was greater during the morning peak hours than the evening peak hours. Approximately 60 percent of the pedestrians were between 19 and 55 years of age. About 60 percent of the pedestrians observed in Henderson were Caucasians. About 69 percent of the observed pedestrians waited for the walk signal before they crossed the street. Eighty percent of the pedestrians yielded for the motorists and 15 percent of them were trapped in the middle while crossing the road. Though very less information was known about the purpose of crossing of the pedestrians, there were a considerable number of child pedestrians going to school, especially during the morning peak hours. However the pedestrian behavior was different for each of the locations and the results vary from each location. 1. Valley Verde Drive and Wigwam Parkway Seventy eight percent of the pedestrians observed were children under the age of 18 years. Most of them were Caucasians and males. Seven percent of the pedestrians did not wait for the walk signal. There is 92 percent usage of the crosswalk by the pedestrians. Almost all of the observed pedestrians yielded for the vehicles and none of them was trapped in the middle. Twenty five percent of 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the observed vehicles turned right. The intersection had the pedestrian countdown signals. 2. Sunset Road and Annie Oakley Drive Seventy eight percent of the observed pedestrians waited for the walk signal before crossing the street. None of them were trapped in the middle and no information could be obtained about their purpose of crossing. Fifty one percent of the motorists stopped behind the yield line and about ten percent of them on the crosswalk. In twenty five percent of the cases the motorist had to take evasive action to avoid striking a pedestrian. 3. Lake Mead Drive and Boulder Highway Sixty seven percent of the observed pedestrians are males. About 71 percent of the pedestrians observed were between 19 and 55 years of age. Twenty percent of the pedestrians were above 55 years of age. Thirty eight percent of the pedestrians did not wait for the walk signal. Twenty percent of the pedestrians were trapped in the middle. Forty four percent of the observed vehicles turned right and twenty eight percent turned left. About, fifty percent of the motorists did not yield to the pedestrians. About five percent of the motorists were under 18 years of age. Nearly sixty one percent of the motorists stopped their vehicle ahead of the stop line. 4. Lake Mead Drive and Ash Street There was a pedestrian fatality recorded at this location in the NDOT crash data base. Very few observations were recorded at the site. There are very few 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. observations were recorded in the afternoon period. A total of 5 pedestrians and 2 vehicles were observed at this location as a whole on a single day. 5. Green Valley Parkway and Warm Springs Road About 33 percent of the pedestrians were under 18 years of age. About 12 percent of the pedestrians were older than 55 years. Ten percent of the pedestrians did not wait for the walk signal before crossing the streets. About five percent of the pedestrians did not use the crosswalk. Seven percent of the observed pedestrians were trapped in the middle. Six percent of the motorist observed did not yield for the pedestrians. Four percent of the motorist stopped upstream of the stop line when pedestrians crossed. 6. Green Valley Parkway and Sunset Road : About 30 percent of the observed pedestrians were under 18 years of age. Fifty six percent of the pedestrians were observed to be African Americans. Thirteen percent of the pedestrians did not wait for the walk signal before crossing. About five percent of the pedestrians observed were trapped in the middle. About 36 percent of the observed vehicular traffic turned right. Five percent of the evasive actions the pedestrian had to make evasive actions to avoid being struck by a motorist. City of North Las Vegas Among the observed pedestrians at all the locations male pedestrians were higher in number and account for 62 percent. In general the pedestrian traffic was more during the morning peak hours than the evening peak hours. Approximately 60 percent of the pedestrians were between 19 and 55 years of age. About 53 percent of the pedestrians 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. observed in North Las Vegas were Hispanic and 22 percent of them were African Americans. About 51 percent of the observed pedestrians waited for the walk signal before they crossed the street. Seventy five percent of the pedestrians yielded for the motorists and 9 percent of them were trapped in the middle while crossing the road. Though little information was known about the purpose of crossing of the pedestrians, there were a considerable number of child pedestrians going to school, especially during the morning peak hours. However the pedestrian behavior was different for each of the locations and the results vary from each location. 1. Carey Avenue and Belmont Street About 80 percent of the pedestrians did not wait for the walk signal to cross the road at this intersection. Fifty eight percent of the pedestrians observed were females and 65 percent of the total pedestrians were children under the age of 18 years. About 77 percent of the pedestrians were Hispanic. There were a few mid- bloek crossings though most of the pedestrians used crosswalk while crossing. This could be due to the presence of Guards helping the children crossing the road. The through traffic on the Carey Avenue is as high as 77 percent. Eighty two percent of the motorists yielded for the pedestrians and about 62 percent of the pedestrians yielded to the drivers. There were more instances, about 15 percent, where the pedestrian had to change his action due to motorist. The major observation at this location is that the crosswalk visibility is poor. The intersection is a round about. Both the streets are 2 lanes in each direction but are restricted to one lane in each direction at the intersection. There is no advance stop line for the vehicles to stop for pedestrians. 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2. Cheyenne Avenue and Losee Road Ninety five percent of the pedestrians observed here were males. Most of the pedestrians were between 19 and 55 years of age. There were a higher percentage of the Caucasian pedestrians especially in the afternoon peak hours. The pick up trucks account for 26 percent of the traffic and 15 percent of the traffic was due to large trucks. Eighty four percent of the motorists were males. Twenty three percent of the pedestrians did not yield to the motorists. Seven percent of the pedestrians were trapped in the middle while crossing the road. 3. Civic Center Drive and Tonopah About 58 percent of the pedestrians observed were under the age of 18 years. The Hispanic pedestrians accounted for 72 percent. Almost 92 percent of the pedestrians used crosswalk, however 3 percent of the pedestrians crossed at mid- bloek. Seventy seven percent of the pedestrians waited for the walk signal to cross the road. 4. Las Vegas Boulevard and Bruce Street About 9 pedestrian crashes were recorded at this intersection in the NDOT crash database. There is no pedestrian crosswalk on one side of the Las Vegas Boulevard. A very large proportion of the pedestrians crossing at this location were males between 19 and 55 years of age. Forty seven percent of the pedestrians observed were African Americans and 38 percent were Hispanic. Eleven percent of the pedestrians did not use the crosswalk at the intersection. About 14 percent of the pedestrians were trapped in the middle. About fifty five percent of the vehicles observed turned right. It is observed that 22 percent of the 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. motorists did not stop on or in advance of the stop line and almost placed the vehicles in the middle of the crosswalk. The percentage of the pedestrians taking evasive actions due to a motorist is 36 and in about 33 percent of the cases motorist had to change his action because of the pedestrian. 5. Las Vegas Boulevard and Peeos Road Forty nine percent of the pedestrians observed were of Hispanic origin. More than 82 percent of the pedestrians waited for the walk signal before crossing the road and 92 percent used crosswalk. About 48 percent of the pedestrians did not yield to the motorists and about 8 percent of them were trapped in the middle of the road. About 22 percent of the motorists turned right and there were considerable conflicts between the turning vehicles and the crossing pedestrians. Thirteen percent of the vehicles did not stop either in advance of or on the yield line for pedestrians. 6. Las Vegas Boulevard and Tonopah Thirty five percent of the pedestrians were Caucasians and twenty percent of them are African Americans. Fifty two percent of the pedestrians were between 19 and 55 years of age. Forty percent of the pedestrians did not wait for the walk signal before crossing. About 37 percent of the pedestrians did not yield for vehicles. 7. Las Vegas Boulevard and Vander Meer Street About 63 percent of the pedestrians observed were Hispanic and 65 percent of them were males. Twenty three percent of them were older than 55 years of age. Fifty percent of the pedestrians used crosswalk. Five percent of the pedestrians crossed to reach the transit stops. Eight percent of total pedestrians were trapped 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in the middle. Very few vehicles were recorded during the observation period. Also only 40 pedestrians were observed crossing at this intersection. Thirteen percent of the observed motorists were older than 55 years of age. 8. Las Vegas Boulevard and Webster Street The total number of crashes occurred in this linear zone, Las Vegas Boulevard from Webster Street to Vander Meer Street is 12 in number. Most of these crashes occurred around these two intersections. Twenty two percent of the pedestrians crossed at mid-block at this location and 34 percent of the pedestrians were trapped in the middle of the road. There were a considerable number of pedestrians crossing to reach the transit bus stops. Very few numbers of vehicles were observed during the study time and hence it is difficult to draw any conclusions about vehicular traffic. 9. Lake Mead Boulevard and Bassler Street About 80 percent of the pedestrians observed were Hispanic. There is no pedestrian crosswalk at this intersection. Fifteen out of the 19 observed vehicles turned right and 6 of them had conflicts with pedestrians. In five of the eases the motorist had to change his action due to the pedestrian. 10. Lake Mead Boulevard and Civic Center Drive There were 17 pedestrian crashes reported in this linear zone on Lake Mead Boulevard between Civic Center Drive and Statz road. Forty eight percent of the pedestrians observed were under 18 years of age. Four percent of the pedestrians were reluctant to use the crosswalk while crossing at the intersection. Seventy five percent of them did not yield to the motorists. About 10 percent of the observed 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. motorists were above 55 years of age. Eighty percent of the motorists did not yield to the pedestrians. The motorists were reluctant to yield to the pedestrians and 80 percent of them did not yield to the pedestrians. 11. Lake Mead Boulevard and Pecos Road: About 32 percent of the pedestrians observed were under 18 years of age. Pedestrians older than 55 years of age account for 7 percent. The Hispanic pedestrians were about 59 percent and the African Americans were about 25 percent of the observed pedestrians. Four percent of the pedestrians were trapped in the middle of the road while crossing. 12. Martin Luther King Boulevard and Carey Avenue Six crashes were reported to have occurred at this intersection from 1998 to 2002. About 36 percent of the observed pedestrians were children going to school. They were helped by crossing guards during the morning peak time. About 2 percent were pedestrians older than 55 years of age. Seventy five percent of the pedestrians observed were African Americans. About four percent of the pedestrians did not use crosswalk and about 2 percent crossed at mid-bloek locations. Nearly sixty percent of the vehicles observed turned right. Thirty percent of the motorists stopped behind the yield line, 33 percent on the yield line, 21 percent ahead of the yield line and about 17 percent stopped in the middle of the crosswalk. About 18 conflicts were observed during the afternoon peak time. In 70 percent of these evasive actions, pedestrians had to make evasive actions to avoid being struck by a motorist.. 13. Owens Avenue and Civic Center Drive 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. About 43 percent of the pedestrians observed were under 18 years of age. Sixty percent of the pedestrians were Hispanic. About 14 percent of them did not wait for the signal to cross the road. About 6 percent of the pedestrians were trapped in the middle of the road while crossing. Almost 98 percent of the motorists yielded for the pedestrians. Selection of Countermeasures The final and important task in the methodology is to select potential pedestrian countermeasures. The selection should be done based on the crash data and field data analyses. The selected countermeasures should also address specific problems at the sites. Aspects like major contributing factors, road functional class, posted speed limits, vulnerable age groups and type of location are important and need to be considered for selection. The problems identified and the remedial countermeasures selected are briefly described below for the sites selected in the City of Henderson and in the City of North Las Vegas. An illustration of the application of the tool is shown in Figure 39. The tool is applied to all of the intersections similarly. City of Henderson 1. Sunset Road and Annie Oakley Drive Twelve pedestrian crashes were reported on Sunset Road between Annie Oakley Drive and Athenian Street. It is found from the data analysis that the driving under the influence of alcohol and inattentive driving were key contributing factor. Other contributing factors include failure to yield and pedestrian being on the roadway. Most of the pedestrians were crossing at the intersection with signal 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. at the time of the erash. Mid-block crossing is also a significant pedestrian action that resulted in many crashes. The pedestrian countdown signal can be an alternative to avoid pedestrians trapping in the middle of the crosswalk. A median refuge can also be established. Advanced yield markings are also recommended to prevent motorists encroaching into the crosswalks. Police enforcement can prevent motorist from consuming alcohol or drugs while driving. High visibility crosswalk is also recommended to encourage pedestrians to use the crosswalk. Crossing guards can be employed to help children at the crosswalk. An illustration of the application of tool for the selection is shown in Figure 39. 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Class Contibuting Factor Predominant Age Group ADT Recommended Countermeasures Intersate Failure to yield ISelow 18 years ------»<=10,000 Warning signs for motorists Freeway D .U l Between 18 and 54 years 10,000-25,000 Eiigb visibility crosswalk Rural Arterial Intersection Excessive Speeding Between 54 and 65 years 25,000 - 50,000 I rowing guards 8 Rural Arterial Midblock Mid-block Crossing Above 65 years > 50,000 Police eid'urccinents Urban Artcnal Intersection Inattentive Driving None None Portable speed trailers ci' Urban Arterial Midblock Inattentive Pedestrians Speed humps Local Street Iraproprt Turning Median refuge Collector Street Violation of Signals Danish offset None Pedestrians with Disabilities In-roadway knock down signs None In-pavement flashing lighting system Raised median 3 3" Advance yield markings CD Advance stop bars ■DCD Pedestrian countdown signal O Warning sign for pedestrians Q. Smart lighting C a ITS automatic pedestrian detection system 3O Auditory pedestrian signal "O Roving Eyes O None CD Q. Figure 39. Identification of Countermeasures at Sunset and Annie Oakley using the Decision Support Tool ■D CD C/) C/) 2. Valley Verde Drive and Wigwam Parkway In-attentive driving and failure to yield were the factors that led to the crashes at this intersection. The pedestrians were in the middle of the roadway at the time of the crashes. Also pedestrians crossed diagonally and were found to be crossing against signal. So to alert the drivers about the pedestrians, advance warning signs can be deployed. However pedestrian count-down signals were deployed. 3. Lake Mead Drive and Boulder Highway Failure to yield was the major contributing factor for pedestrian crashes at this location. Significant pedestrian actions which resulted in crashes were crossing at intersection against the signal and crossing at mid-block. A pedestrian on wheel chair and a pedestrian on skate boards were involved in two of the crashes which occurred at this intersection. Recommended countermeasures at this location are advanced yield markings, warning sign for motorists and countdown signals. To enhance the safety of physically impaired pedestrians ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices and longer pedestrian phases can also be considered. About 50 percent of the traffic turned right so no Right Turn on Red may be a possibility.. 4. Lake Mead Drive and Ash Street Very few pedestrians’ observations were recorded at this location during data collection. Vehicular traffic was also low. But this intersection had a pedestrian fatality in the past. It is likely that crashes occur due to un-expected presence of the pedestrians at this location. There is no crosswalk at this location. Pedestrian walk signal and a high visibility crosswalk can help reduce the crashes. I ll Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5. Green Valley Parkway and Warm Springs Road The key contributing factors at this location were failure to yield and in attentive driving. It is found from the observations that about 11 percent of the pedestrians did not wait for the signal. It can be understood that the pedestrians were probably impatient to wait for the signal and to use the crosswalk. High visibility crosswalk, advanced yield markings and countdown timers are recommended to address problems at this location. 6. Green Valley Parkway and Sunset Road It is observed that many motorists were reluctant to stop the vehicles on or in advance of the yield line. The countermeasures recommended are median refuge. The countdown signal has already been installed. To further enhance the safety at this location advanced yield markings, ITS no Right Turn on Red (RTOR) and median refuge are recommended. City of North Las Vegas 1. Carey Avenue and Belmont Street A majority of the crashes at this intersection were due to failure to yield and due to unexpected pedestrians on the roadway. To avoid conflicts due to the unexpected pedestrians advance warning signs for drivers can be installed. It is observed in the field study that a few pedestrians did not use the crosswalk. Hence a high visibility crosswalk can be a solution. Also about 84 percent of the observed pedestrians violated signals. Therefore enlarged pedestrian signal heads can motivate them to use the pedestrian signals. By making turning vehicles yield to pedestrians, crashes due to improper yielding can be avoided. 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2. Cheyenne Avenue and Losee Road In-attentive driving and failure to yield were key factors that led to the crashes at this intersection. Further, pedestrians being trapped in the middle of the roadway would be of concern. So to alert the drivers about the pedestrians, advance warning signs can be deployed. Also it is found that most of the motorists do not stop behind the yield line so advance yield markings are recommended. 3. Civic Center Drive and Tonopah Avenue It is found from the crash data analysis that drivers under the influence of alcohol and inattentive driving were major contributing factors for pedestrian crashes. To address these problems ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices can be deployed. A pedestrian countdown signal can also be an alternative to minimize pedestrians trapped in the middle of the crosswalk. Advanced yield markings are also recommended to prevent motorists encroaching onto the crosswalks. Police enforcement can reduce the diving under the influence of alcohol or drugs problem. 4. Las Vegas Boulevard and Bruce Street One of the four roads at this intersection is a very minor road and hence this intersection acts more like T-intersection. There were no crosswalks on one side of the road. It is observed that a large number of pedestrians cross at mid-block to reach the transit stop. High visibility crosswalk, advance warning signs for motorists and Danish offset can serve as suitable countermeasures at this intersection. 5. Las Vegas Boulevard and Pecos Road 113 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Driving under the influence of alcohol, speeding, failure to yield are significant actions of the motorists which resulted in crashes at this location. It is observed that the motorists were reluctant to stop the vehicle downstream of the yield line at the intersection. Pedestrian countdown signals, warning signs for motorists, portable speed monitoring trailer and advance yield markings are the countermeasures recommended to enhance safety at this intersection. 6. Las Vegas Boulevard and Tonopah Avenue Pedestrian countdown signals, median refuge can prevent the pedestrians being trapped in the middle as was oberved at this location. Warning signs for motorists and advance yield markings can reduce conflicts between the vehicles and the pedestrians. They could also when deployed reduce the crashes due to failure to yield at this location. 7. Las Vegas Boulevard and Vander Meer Street About fifty percent of the pedestrians are observed to violate the signal. Hence enlarged pedestrian signal heads and high visibility crosswalk can be deployed. Also turning vehicles yield to pedestrians and advance warning signs for motorists are also recommended to reduce driver error. 8. Las Vegas Boulevard and Webster Street This is a staggered T- intersection, and many pedestrians were observed to be trapped in the middle. A Danish offset could be deployed to reduce this problem. Other countermeasures recommended are turning vehicles yield to pedestrian sign, advance warning sign for motorists. ITS no right turn on red (RTOR) sign is 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recommended due to the heavy right turning traffic at both the staggered legs of the intersection. 9. Lake Mead and Bassler Street Improper turning led to some crashes at this location in the past. So no RTOR and turning vehicles yield to pedestrians are the signs recommended to address this issue. Also this intersection does not have a crosswalk. Hence high visibility crosswalk should be deployed. To further reduce the risk enlarged pedestrian heads or pedestrian countdown timers can be installed. 10. Lake Mead and Civic Center Drive The problems encountered at this intersection are similar to that of the location discussed above except that there is a crosswalk. So pedestrian countdown signal, turning vehicles yield to pedestrians, no RTOR and warning sign for motorists are the countermeasures recommended. In addition crossing guards can be employed to help the numerous child pedestrians. 11. Lake Mead and Pecos Road In-attentive driving, driving under the influence of alcohol and excessive speeding are the major problems at this site. It is reported that pedestrians were also in attentive at the time of the crash. To address these problems collectively, ITS automatic pedestrian detection devices can be deployed. Portable speed monitoring trailers are recommended to reduce the vehicle speeds. 12. Martin Luther King Boulevard and Carey Avenue It is observed that not many of the motorists stop their vehicles downstream of the yield line at the intersection. To prevent this behavior of the motorists, advance 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. yield markings are recommended. It is observed that about sixty percent of the traffic turned right, In addition to this, warning signs for motorists and enlarged pedestrian signal heads can be employed to alleviate the common problems of failure to yield and pedestrians crossing without signal. 13. Owens Avenue and Civic Center Drive: The major problems recorded and observed at this intersection are failure to yield, driving under the influence of alcohol Advance warning for motorists and pedestrian countdown signals are the countermeasures recommended to enhance safety at this intersection. 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary A decision support tree / matrix was developed in this thesis to identify pedestrian countermeasures and to develop an automated tool incorporating the matrix. The matrix is useful for safety engineers and planners in identifying the countermeasures to enhance pedestrian safety. The matrix helps transportation professionals and safety engineers in deciding the treatments to address specific pedestrian safety concerns. The selection is based on road functional classes, contributing factors, location type, speed limits, vulnerable age groups and average daily traffic. The tool will help to expedite the decision making process to select appropriate countermeasures. The study also recommended a methodology with sequential tasks which should be carried out before deciding on the treatments. An automated tool was developed in Microsoft Excel using Visual Basic Applications. The tool is user-friendly and it takes advantage of the available data. Case studies were carried out in the City of Henderson and in the City of North Las Vegas. Six high crash locations from the City of Henderson and thirteen high crash locations from the City of North Las Vegas were selected for the case studies. Crash data and real data were analyzed to determine the contributing factors at these 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. high crash locations. The results from the analyses were used to identify appropriate countermeasures from the matrix. Recommendations Incorporation of other factors such as pedestrian population, landuse factors are recommended in the analyses of pedestrian safety as the landuse play an important role in attraeting pedestrian trips. For example. Las Vegas and Carson City, though hoth in the State of Nevada require different pedestrian treatments and enhancements owing to the different land uses. Evaluation of the performance and cost-effectiveness of the countermeasures is recommended for further research. The impacts of the countermeasures on levels of service for the pedestrian and motorists also warrant further investigation. Microsoft Excel was used to develop the automated tool using the Visual Basic Applications. The tool required very large number of macros to be written in Excel. These affected the performance of the computer and effectiveness of the tool. So, it is recommended that the tool be developed as a web-based tool using internet applicable software. It is recommended to modify the tool to enable the user to save the result or the output in the desired format. It is also recommended to incorporate crash data in the tool and to automate the production of spatial distribution maps based on the input crash data. A tool which automatically identifies the factors such as contributing factors, pedestrian actions, given a crash database would expedite the process of crash analyses. 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Development of a tool which estimates the pedestrian trips in a day, given the characteristics of the location is recommended for future research. Such tool would help in the selection of appropriate countermeasures without carrying out the actual data collection. A tool which can automate the crash data analyses, pedestrian estimation and selection of appropriate countermeasures based on the given characteristics of a location will expedite the pedestrian safety analyses and can be applicable to any location in any City. 119 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES 1. Traffic Safety Facts (2003). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Washington, D C. (http:/7www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSAyTSF2003/809769.pdf). 2. Sando, T., Mussa, R., Wu. H., Sobanjo, J., Spainhonr.L(2004). A Cost-Effective GIS Safety Analysis Tool for Improving Highway Safety. 30^ International Traffic Records Forum, Nashvilles, Tennesee. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering. 3. Federal Highway Administration., US Department of Transportation (2000). GIS Tools for Improving Pedestrian and Bike Safety. Report No. FHWA-RD-00-153. Tumer-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, VA. 4. NHTSA (1998). Zone Guide for Pedestrian Safety Shows How To Make Systematic Improvements. Traffic Tech, Issue 181, HS-042 731, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D C. 5. Pulugurtha, S., Vanjeeswaran, K., Uddaraju, M (2004). Development of Criteria to Identify and Rank High Pedestrian Crash Locations. Research report submitted to the Nevada Department of Transportation. Transportation Research Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 6. Vanjeeswaran, K (2004). Development of an Automated GIS Tool to Identify and Rank High Pedestrian Crash Zones. M.S.E Thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV. 7. Souleyrette, R., Kamyab, A., Hans, Zachary, Knapp, K., Khattak, A., Basavaraju,R (2001). Systematic Identification of High Crash Locations. Research report for IOWA DOT Project TR-442. CTRL, IOWA State University, Aines, Iowa 8. Ragland, D., Markowitz, F., MacLeod, K (2003). An Intensive Pedestrian Safety Engineering Study Using Computerized Crash Analysis, Institute of Transportation Studies. Traffic Safety Center, University of California, Berkeley. 9. University of Florida Transportation Research Center, Pedestrian Safety Engineering and Intelligent Transportation Systems - Based Countermeasures Program for Reduced Pedestrian Fatalities, Injuries, Conflicts and Other 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10. Surrogate Measures; Final Problem Identification, Countermeasure Selection and Outreach and Awareness Report. December 2002. 11. Transportation Research Center, University of Florida (2002). Final Problem Identification, Countermeasure Selection, and Outreach and Awareness Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 12. Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada Las Vegas (2004). Implementation Plan and Conceptual Design: Pedestrian Safety and Intelligent Transportations System-Based Countermeasures Program for Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injuries, Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measure. Las Vegas. 13. Karkee, Ganesh (2005). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Countermeasures to Enhance Pedestrian Safety. Ph.D Dissertation. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. November. University of Nevada Las Vegas. Las Vegas, NV. 14. Nambisan, S.S., Pulugurtha, S.S., Vasudevan, V., & Karkee, G. (2004). Field data collection and analysis to support the selection of countermeasures for the Las Vegas FHWA Pedestrian Safety Program. Conference Proceedings: 8* International Conference on Application of Advanced Technologies in Transportation Engineering. Beijing, China, May 26-28, 2004. 15. Pulugurtha, S.S., and S.S. Nambisan (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of Countdown Timers to Enhance Pedestrian Safety in the Las Vegas Area. ITE Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Lake Buena Vista, FL, August 1-4. 16. Pulugurtha, S.S and S.S. Nambisan (2004). Effectiveness of Pedestrian Countdown Timers to Enhance Safety in Las Vegas. Institute of Transportation Engineers District 6 Annual Meeting, Sacramento, CA. June 21-23. 17. Pulugurtha, S.S and S.S. Nambisan (2002). Pedestrian Safety and Intelligent Transportation System-Based Countermeasures Program for Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injuries, Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures, Phase 1 Final Technical Report. Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada Las Vegas. 18. Wayne, Cottrell (200). Evaluating and Improving Pedestrian Safety in Utah. Project report submitted to Utah Department of Transportation. Report No. UT - 02.10. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Utah. 19. Pucher, John, and Lewis Dijkstra (2000). Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe, Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No.3, summer 2000. 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20. Mantri, K.R. (2005). Evaluation of Pedestrian Countdown Signals in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area. MSE Thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. December. University of Nevada Las Vegas. Las Vegas, NV. 21. Huang, H.F., and M.J Cynecki, (2000). The Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrians and Motorist Behavior. Federal Highway Administration. Report No.FHWA-RD-00-104. Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 22. Hughes, R., Huang, Herman., Zegeer, C., Cynecki, M (2001). Evaluation of Automated Pedestrian Detection At Signalized Intersections. Federal Highway Administration. Report No. FHWA-RD-00-097. Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 23. Nitzburg, M., Knoblauch, R.L (2001). An Evaluation of High-Visibility Crosswalk Treatments- Clearwater, Florida. Federal Highway Administration. Report No.FHWA-RD-00-105. [Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC]. 24. Knoblauch, R.L., Nitzburg, M., Seifert, R.F (2001). Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies: Sacramento, California; Richmond, Virginia; Buffalo, New York; Stillwater, Minnesota. Federal Highway Administration. Report No. FHWA-RD- 00-103. [Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.] 25. Huang, H., Zegeer, C., Nassi, R and Fairfax, B (2000). The Effects of Innovative Pedestrian Signs at Unsignalized Locations: A Tale of Three Treatments. Federal Highway Administration. Report No.FHWA-RD-00-098.[Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.] 26. Knoblauch, R.L., Raymond, P (2000). The Effect of Crosswalk Markings on Vehicle Speeds in Maryland, Virginia and Arizona. Federal Highway Administration. Report No. FHWA-RD-99. [Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.] 27. Huang, Herman., Zegeer, C (2001). An Evaluation of Illuminated Pedestrian Push Buttons in Windsor, Ontario. Federal Highway Administration. Report No. FHWA-RD-00-102. [Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.] 28. Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J.E., McCusker, D (n.d). Advanced Yield Markings Reduce Motor Vehicle/ Pedestrian Conflicts at Multilane Crosswalks With an Uncontrolled Approach. 29. Leaf, W.A., and D. F. Preusser (1999) Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries. DOT HS-809 021: Final Report, U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30. Anderson, R.W.G., McLean, A.J., Farmer, M.J.B., Lee, B.H and Brooks, C.G (1997). Vehicle Travel Speeds and The Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No.5, pp. 667-674. [NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, The University of Adelaide, Australia.] 31. Dixon, M.A., Alvarez, J.A., Rodriguez, J., Jacko, J.A (1997). The Effect of Speed Reducing Peripherals on Motorists’ Behavior at Pedestrian Crossings. Computers ind. Engng Vol.33. Nos 1-2, pp.205-208, 1997. 32. Hoque, S.M., Hassan, T., Waresh, A (2005). Effects of Pedestrian Underpass on Traffic Flow Characteristics. CD-ROM 84* Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, National Research Council, Washington D C, January 2005. Paper No. 05-2003. [Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangaldesh.] 33. Karkee,G.J., Nambisan S.S., Pulugurtha S.S. (2005). Effectiveness of an in pavement flashing light system. Presented at the 2005 ITE District 6 Annual Meeting CD-ROM. ITE District 6. Kalispell, Montana. 34. Karkee, G.J., Nambisan, S.S., Pulugurtha, S.S (2005). An evaluation of the effectiveness of an in-pavement flashing light system. Presented at the 2005 ITE Fall Transportation conference, October 20-21, Las Vegas, Nevada. 35. Varheliyi (1998). Driver’s Speed Behavior at a Zebra Crossing: A Case-Study. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol 30, No.6, pp 731-743. 36. Bechtel, A.K., Geyer, J., Ragland, D.R (2003). A Review of ITS-Based Pedestrian Injury Countermeasures. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California. UCB-TSC-RR-2003-09, Berkeley, CA. 37. Hughes, R., Huang, H., Zegeer, C., Cynecki, M (2001). Evaluation of Automated Pedestrian Detection At Signalized Intersections. Federal Highway Administration. Report No. FHWA-RD-00-097. [Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.] 38. U.S Department of Justice, Americans with Disabilities Act ADA Guide for Small Towns. First Print, March 2000. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/smtown.htm. Accessed on October 3"^"^, 2005. 39. Bentzen, B.L., Barlow, J.M., Franck, L (2000). Addressing Barriers to Blind Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections. 40. Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J.E., Van Houten, J., Retting, R (1997). Using Auditory Pedestrian Signals to Reduce Pedestrian and Vehicle Conflicts. 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Transportation Research Record, Journal of Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press. 1578. Paper No. 971401. 41. Hall, J., Kondreddi, M., Brogan, J (2003). Improving Pedestrian Safety on Rural Highways. Transportation Research Board. CD-Rom of 8H* Annual Meeting. Paper No.TRB 04-4746., [Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,] 42. Ivan, J., Garder, P., Zajac, S (2001). Finding Strategies to Improve Pedestrian Safety in Rural Areas. Final Report submitted to US Department of Transportation by University of Connecticut and University of Maine. Project UCNR 12-7. 43. Johnson, C D. Pedestrian Fatalities on Interstate Highways, Characteristics and Countermeasures. Transportation Research Record, Journal of Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press. 1578, Paper No.970712. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington D C. 44. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Report Summary - Pedestrian fatalities on interstate highways. 45. Campbell, B., Zegeer, C., Huang, H., Cynecki, M (2004). A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in United States and Abroad. Federal Highway Administration. Report No. FHWA-RD-03-042. Highway Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 46. Guerrier, J.H., Jolibois Jr, S.C (1998). The Safety of Elderly Pedestrians at Five Urban Intersections in Miami. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42"^ Annual Meeting, October 5-9, 1998, Chicago, Illinois. 47. Lococo, S.L., Byington, S., Harkey, D (2001). Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians. Federal Highway Administration.. Report No. FHWA-RD-0I-05I. 48. King, M.R. Calming New York City Intersections. Transportation Research Board Circular. Circular No. E-CO 19. 49. Schieber, R., Vegega, M (2001). National Strategies for Advancing Child Pedestrian Safety. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 50. Assailly, J (1997). Characterization and Prevention of Child Pedestrian Accidents; An Overview. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. Vol 18, pp 257- 262, ISSN-0193-3973. 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51. Gliewe, R., Limbourg, M., Pappritz, B (1998). German Examples of Safer Routes to School. Proceedings of Conference on Road Safety Education in York, June 1998. [Department of Traffic Education, University of Essen, Essen.] 52. Collins, D., Kearns, R (2004). Geographies of inequality: Child Pedestrian Injury and Walking School Buses in Auckland, New Zealand. Social Science and Medicine, Vol 60, Pp 61-69.[Department of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.] 53. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/index.cfm. Accessed on February 23"^^, 2005. 54. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Pedestrian Safety Campaign. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_program/pedcampaign/. Accessed on February 24*, 2005. 55. ESRI ArcGIS 9 Desktop Help Guide. 56. Microsoft Excel 2003 System Requirements. http://www.microsoft.com/office/excel/prodinfo/sysreq.mspx. Accessed on December 27th, 2005. 57. System Requirements for Visual Basic Applications. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp7urU/library/en- us/vbcon98/html/vbconsystemrequirementsforvisualbasicapplications.asp. Accessed on December 27*, 2005. 58. ESRI Software: ArcGIS System Requirements. http://www.esriuk.com/products/ArcGIS/svstem requirements.asp?pid=87 Accessed on December 27*, 2005. 59. Adobe Reader System Requirements. http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/acrrsvstemreqs.html. Accessed on December 27th, 2005. 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "OCD O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Counteimeasures Class Factor group I n Rural : 10,000 Ad\'ance school warning signs, crossing Advance school warning signs, crossing guards Arterial 0-18 guards and police enforcement police enforcement and advance vield markings Failure -J Intersection 8 to —I n . 10,000- yield 25,000 m I\* Adt'ance school warning signs, crossing Advance school warning signs, crossmg guards (O' m . 25,000- guards police enforcement, advance >ield police enforcement, ad\*ance >ie!d marking 50,000 markings and portable speed trailer and portable speed trailer TV. > 50,000 I <= 10.000 I 11 Ad\^ance warning signs, raised crosswalk and Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, 3. 18-54 3 " police enforcement police enforcement, advance yield marking, CD II. 10,000- advance stop bars 25,000 ■DCD ni IV O in. 25.000- Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, Q. 50,000 police enforcement, advance yield marking. police enforcement, ad^vance yield marking, C K> ad\-ance stop bars advance stop bars a IV. > 50.000 3o "O o I. <= 10,000 I II Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, Advance ivaming signs, raised crosswalk, II. 10,000- police enforcement aiW advanced shield police enforcement, advance yield marking, CD 54-65 25,000 markings ads-ance stop bars Q. m . 25,000- i n I\’ 50,000 Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, police enforcement, advance yield marking, police enforcement, advance yield marking, IV. > 50,000 advance stop bars advance stop bars ■D CD I. 10,000 I n C/) Ads'ance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, C/) police enforcement and advanced >ield police enforcement and adv anced yield II. 10,000- markings markings and advance stop bars 25,000 m . 25,000- m IV 50,000 Ad\^ance warning signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, police enforcement and advanced yield police enforcement and adv^ced yield IV. > 50,000 markings and advance stoo bars markings and advance stoo bars Decision Support Tree to Addiess Failure to Yield at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I n I. <= 10,000 Crossing guards, raised median, pedestrian Crossing guards, raised median, pedestrian A rtenal countdown signal countdown signal, warning sign for motonsts Pedestrian Intersection 8 n. 10,000- m n ' roadway / 25,000 Crossing guards, raised median, pedestrian Crossing guards, raised median, pedestrian Pedestrian countdown signal, warning sign for countdown signal, warning sign for motorists ci' 111 the m 25,000- motonsts trapped in 50,000 tile middle / improper n- > 50,000 usage of crosswalk 3 I. <=10,000 I II 3 " 1 8 -5 4 Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal, CD n. 10.000- and warning sign for motorists 25,000 ■DCD n i IV O m . 2 5 ,0 0 0 - Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal Q. 50.000 and ivarmng sign for motorists And wammg sign for motorists C a OO IV. > 50,000 O 3 ■D O II : 10,000 Raised median, pedestnan countdown signal, Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal, advance wammg sign for motorists, leaàng advance warning sign for motonsts, leading II. 10.000- CD 54-65 pede.stnan phase pedestrian phase Q. 25,000 TV m . 25.000- m Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal, Raised median, pedestrian coimtdown signal, 50,000 adi^ance warning sign for motorists. leading advance warning sign for motorists, leading ■D TV. > 50,000 pedestrian phase, smart lightening pedestrian phase, smart lightening CD (/)' III C/) Raised median, pedestnan countdown signal. Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal. o I <= 10.000 advance warning sign for motorists, leading advance warning sign for motonsts, leading pedestrian phase pedestrian phase, smart lightening >= 65 n . 10,000- 25.000 n i IV n i. 2 5 .0 0 0 - Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal. Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal. sn non advance wammg sign for motorists, leading advance warning sign for motorists, leading pedestnan phase, smart Iigiitemng pedestrian phase, smart lightening > 50,000 Decision Support Tree to Address Pedestiians Trapped in the Middle at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) Functional Cootiibuting Age ADT Potential Countermeasures 3o" Class Factor group O I n Rural : 10.000 School zone improvements, advance School zone improvements, advance warning Arterial 0-18 wammg signs for drivers, m-roadway signs for drivers, m-roadway knock down signs Uncontrolled Intersection knock down signs 8 pedestrian II. 10.000- population 25,000 in IV School zone improvements, advance School zone improvements, advance warning ci' in. 25,000- warning signs for drivers, in-roadway signs tor drivers, in-roadway knock down 50,000 knock down signs signs, pedestrian channelization TV > 50,000 : 10.000 I 0 3 Advance warning sign for drivers, in- Advance warning sign for drivers, in 3 " CD II. 10,000- roadway knock down signs roadway knock down signs 25,000 CD 0 1 IV ■D m . 25.000- Advance warning sign for drivers, in- Advance warning sign for drivers, in O 50,000 Q. roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestnan C K) channelization channelization a I \ > 50,000 O 3 ■D O I 0 I. = 10,000 Ach'ance wammg sign for drivers, in- Advance warning sign for drivers, in- roadway knock down signs roadway knock down signs II. 10,000- CD Q. 25 000 10 I\' Advance warning sign for diivers. in- .Advance warning sign for drivers, in- .25.000- 01 roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadw^y knock down signs, pedestnan 50 000 diannelization, pedestrian overpass or channelization, pedestnan overpass or rv undemass underpass ■D > 50,000 CD I 0 C/) I = 10,000 C/) Advance warning sign for dnvers, in- Advance warning sign for drivers, in- 0 10.000 - roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestnan 25 000 overpass or underpass overpass or underpass 01 . 25.000 - 0 1 IV nnn Advance warning sign for driven, in- Advance warning sign for drivers, in- I\' . > 50,000 roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestnan overoass or imderoass overoass or underpass Decision Support Tree to Addr ess Uncontrolled Pedestrian Population at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I II Rural I. <= 10,000 High \isibilit>' crosswalk, enlarged School zone improvements, high \nisibilit>^ Artenal 0-18 pedestrian signal heads crosswalk, crossing guards, enlarged pedestrian Liattentiv^ Intersection signal heads 8 pedestrians n . 10,000- 25,000 i n R' ci' High \isibility crosswalk, warning sign for High risibility crosswalk, advance warning ni. 25,000- motorists, crossing guards, enlarged sign for motonsts, crossing guards, enlarged 50,000 pedestrian signal heads pedestrian signal heads TV > 50,000 3 I <= 10,000 I U 3 " High visibilit)^ crosswalk, enlarged High visibility crosswalk, warning sign for CD U 10,000- pedestrian signal heads motonsts, enlarged pedestrian signal heads 25,000 ■DCD in IV O m. 25 ,0 0 0 - High visibilit}'^ crosswalk, advance warning High visibility crosswalk, advance warning Q. 50,000 sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal sign for motorists, enlarged pedestnan signal C U) heads heads a O IV. > 50.000 O 3 ■D I n O I. <= 10,000 High \isibilit>' crosswalk, advance wammg High visibility crosswalk, advance warning sign for motorists, enlarged pedestnan signal sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal II. 10.000- heads heads CD 25,000 Q. III IV m. 25.000- High visibility crosswalk, advance warning High visibility’ crosswalk, advance warning 50,000 sign for motorists, enlarged pedestnan signal sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal heads heads, smart lightening T \\ > 50,000 ■D CD I II I 10,000 High visibility’ crosswalk. ad\^nce warning High visibility crosswalk, advance warning C/) sign for motonsts, smart Iigiitemng, enlarged C/) sign for motorists, smart lightening, enlarged >= 65 n. 10,000- pedestrian signal heads pedestrian signal heads 25,000 m . 25,000 - m T\' <:n nnn High visibility' crosswalk, advance warning High visibility’ crosswalk, advance warning sign for motorists, smart lightening, enlarged sign for motonsts, smart lightening, enlarged W > 50.000 oedestrian sigmd heads oedestrian sisnal heads Decision Support Tree to Address Inattentive Pedestrians at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I II Rural I. <= 10.000 School zone improvements, warning sign School zone improvements, warning sign for Artenal for motorists, high nsibiiitj’ crosswalk, motorists, high visibilit)' crosswalk, crossing Inattentive Intersection crossing guards guards and police enforcement 8 drivers n 10.000 25.000 i n I\’ School zone impro'vements, warning sign School zone improvements, warning sign for ci' m . 25,000 for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, motonsts, high visibility crosswalk, crossmg 50.000 crossing guards and police enforcement guards and police enforcement and smart IV. > 50.000 lishtenins : 10,000 I n 3 Warning sign for motonsts, higli Msibilit>' 3 " Warning sign for motorists CD n 10,000- crosswalk, police enforcement 25,000 CD n i IV ■D m . 25,000- Advance wammg sign for motonsts, high Ad\’ance wammg sign for motorists, high O 50.000 Q. visibility crosswalk, poUce enforcement visibility' crosswalk, police enforcement C a IV. > 50,000 O 3 ■D I n O I. <=10,000 Advance warning sign for motonsts, lugh Advance warning sign for motorists, high risibility crosswalk, police enforcement visibility crosswalk, police enforcement II. 10.000- 25,000 CD n i IV Q. Advance warning sign for motonsts, high Ad\'ance warning sign for motorists, higli in . 25.000 - visibility crosswalk, police enforcement, visibility crosswalk, police enforcement, 50,000 smart lightening smart lightening n \ > 50,000 ■D CD I n I <=10.000 Advance warning sign for motonsts, Ingh Advance warning sign for motorists, high C/) visibility crosswalk, police enforcement, visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement, C/) n. 10,000- smart lightening smart lightening 25,000 in . 25,000 ■ m I\ sn non Advance warning sign for motonsts, high Advance warning sign for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, police enforcement, visibility crosswalk, police enforcement, TV. > 50.000 smart lishtenins smart lishtenins Decision Support Tree to Address Inattentive Driving at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) FuncHonal Contrlbntlng ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I n Interstate I. := 10.000 Restriction o f pedestrian entrance, advance Restnction o f pedestrian entrance, advance Inattentive warning sign for pedestrians to look for warning sign for pedestnans to look for vehicles, visibility' improvements Freetvav ♦ pedilestrians vehicles, visibilits’ improvements 8 n . 10.000- 25.000 ci' m rv m . 25.000 - Pedestrian bridge. Pedestrian overpass and Pedestrian bridge. Pedestrian overpass and 50,000 underpass underpass rv. > 50.000 I. 10.000 I n 3 Restriction o f pedestrian entrance, advance Restnction of pedestrian entrance, advance 3 " 18- warning sign for pedestrians to look for warning sign for pedestrians to look for CD 54 n . 10.000- vehicles, sisibility impros'ements vehicles, visibility improvements 25.000 ■DCD m n O ra. 25,000- Pedestrian bridge. Pedestrian overpass and Pedestrian bridge. Pedestrian overpass and Q. 50,000 underpass underpass C U) a S3 O > 50,000 3 ■D I n O Restriction o f pedestnan entrance, advance Restriction o f pedestrian entrance, advance I. •-= 10.000 warning sign for pedestrians to look for wammg sign for pedestrians to look for vehicles, visibility in^ovements vehicles, visibility improvements CD Q. n . 10.000- m rv^ 25 000 Pedestnan bridge. Pedestrian overpass and Pedestrian bridge. Pedestrian overpass and underpass underpass m .25.000- 50 000 ■D CD n > 50,000 I n C/) Restriction o f pedestnan entrance, advance C/) Restnction of pedestrian entrance, advance I. <= 10.000 warning sign for pedestrians to look for warning sign for pedestrians to look for vehicles, visibilitv imnrovements vehicles, visibility imnrovements n. 10,000 m r v 25.000 Pedestrian bridge, Pedestnan overpass and Pedestrian bridge. Pedestrian overpass and in. 25.000- underpass underpass 50.000 50.000 Decision Support Tree to Address In attentive Pedestrians on Interstates Freeways CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) W Functional Contributing ADT Potential Countermeasures Factor 3o" Class group O I II Interstate : 10.000 Advance warning signs for drivers, reducing Advance warning signs for drivers, reducing speed limit speed limit / Inattentive 8 Freewav ' Drivers n. 10.000- 25.000 r a n ci' in. 25,000- .Advance warning signs for drivers, reducmg Advance warning signs for drivers, reducing 50.000 speed limit, pedestrian bridges speed limit, pedestrian bridges n v > 50,000 I. <= 10,000 I II 3 •Advance warning signs for drivers, reducing Advance wammg signs for drivers, reducing 3 " 18- speed limit speed limit CD 54 n. 10.000- 25,000 CD r a T\ ■D ra. 25.000- Advance warning signs for drivers, reducing Advance wammg signs for drivers, reducing O speed limit, pedestrian bridges Q. 50.000 speed lunit, pedestrian bridges C U> a W r \ > 50.000 O 3 ■D I n O Advance warning signs for dnvers. reducing Advance wammg signs for drivers, reducing I. <= 10.000 speed linut speed limit CD Q. II. 10.000- in IV 25.000 Advance warning signs for drivers, reducing Advance wammg signs for drivers, reducing speed lunit, pedestrian bridges speed limit, pedestrian bridges r a . 25.000 - 50,000 ■D 15 •’ 50.000 CD I H C/) Advance wammg signs for dnvers. reducing Advance wammg signs for drivers, reducing C/) I. <= 10.000 speed limit speed limit H 10.000- m rv 25.000 •Advance ivarmng signs for drivers, reducing Advance warning signs for drivers, reducmg r a . 25.000 - speed limit, pedestnan bndges. and speed limit, pedestrian bndges. pedestrian 50.000 pedestrian restriction restriction 50.000 Decision Support Tree to Address Inattentive Driving on Interstates ■ Freeways CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I n I. <= 10.000 Warning sign for motorists, pedestrian Warning sign for motonsts, pedestrian Artenal crosswalk, pedesffian walk signal, crossing crosswalk, pedestnan walk signal, crossing D.C.I Intersection guards, police enforcement guards, police enforcement 8 n . 10.000 25.000 15 r a ci' Advance wammg sign for motonsts. pedestrian ra 23.000 Advance warning sign for motonsts, 50.000 pedestrian walk signal, crossing guards, walk signal, crossing guards and police enforcement 15' > 50.000 and police enforcement I. <= 10.000 I n 3 Warning sign for motorists, pedestrian walk Warning sign for motorists, pedestrian walk 3" signal and police enforcement signal and police enforcement (D n . 10.0 0 0 - 25,000 (D T3 O r a . 25,000 - r a 15- Q. 50.000 Advance wammg sign for motorists, Advance warning sign for motonsts, C pedestnan walk signal and police pedestrian walk signal and police a 15" ; 50.000 enforcement enforcement 3o T3 O : 10,000 I n Wammg sign for motorists, pedestrian Wammg sign for motorists, pedestrian (D 54-65 countdown signal and police enforcement countdown signal and police enforcement Q. n . 10,000- 25,000 ni. 25,000- r a 15 50,000 Advance warning sign for motonsts, Advance warning sign for motorists, pedestrian countdown signal and police pedestnan countdown signal and police T3 (D n > 50.000 enforcement enforcement (/) I n (/) : 10.000 Advance wammg sign for motonsts. Ach'auct warning sign for motorists, pedestrian countdown signal and police pedestrian countdown signal and police n . 10.000- enforcement enforcement 25.000 i n n ' r a . 25.000 - Advance warning sign for motorists, Ad\"ance warning sign for motorists, 50 000 pedestrian countdown signal and police pedestrian countdown signal and police n > 50,000 enforcement enforcement Decision Support Tree to Address D.U.I at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) Functional Contributing Ago ADT Potontiai Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group I n Rural I. 10.000 Advance school warning signs, crossing Advance school warning signs, crossing guards Artenal guards and police enforcemenr and police enforcement Excessive Intersection 8 Speedmg n . 10,000 - 25,000 i n n ci' m . 25,000 - Advance school warning signs, crossing Advance school warning signs, crossing guards 50.000 guards and police enforcemenr and and police enforcement and portable speed portable speed trailer trailer r \ > 50,000 "n I. •:= 10.000 I n c .Advance warning signs, raised crosssvalk and Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and 3 . 18-54 3" police enforcement police enforcement n . 10,000- CD * —» 25,000 CD r a 15’ m . 25,000- Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and 50,000 police enforcement police enforcement 1 = r\'. > 50,000 1 O 3 "O I. <= 10.000 I n 3" Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and n . 10.000- smart lightening and police enforcement police enforcement 25.000 54-65 CD Q. n i . 25.000 - r a IV ♦ — ► 50.000 Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk. Advance w arning signs, raised crosswalk. 1—H smart lightenmg and police enforcement smart lightening and police enforcement 3" n > 50,000 O "8 I . « 10,000 1 n Advance warning signs, raised crosstvalk, Adv ance warning signs, raised crosswalk, 3 t/) smart lightening and police enforcement smart lightening and police enforcement t/) >= 65 n . 10,000- o 25.000 r a rv 3 ra. 25.000- .Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, 50.000 smart lightening and police enforcement smart lightening and pohce enforcement > 50,000 Decision Support Tree to Address Excessive Speeding at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) Fanctional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group I n Rural I. <= 10.000 Ach ance school warning signs, crossing Advance school warning signs, crossmg guards Arterial 0-18 police enforcement and advance yield markings Faihire > guards and police enforcement Intersection 8 to — 1 n. 10.000 - yield 25,000 m IV Advance school warning signs, crossmg Advance school warning signs, crossing guards ci' m 25,000 - guards police enforcement, advance yield police enforcement, advance yield markings 50.000 markings and portable speed trailer and portable speed trailer r \ 50,000 ■n I. « = 10,000 1 n c Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, 3 . 18-54 police enforcement police enforcement, advance yield markmg. 3" n . 10,000- CD ♦ — ► advance stop bars 25.000 CD in n m . 25,000- Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, 50,000 police enforcement, advance yield marking. police enforcement, advance yield markmg. advance stop bars advance stop bars n " > 50.000 1-^1 S o 3 "O I. <= 10,000 I n o 3" Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, -Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, n . 10,000- police enforcement and advanced yield police enforcement, advance yield marking, 1—H 54-65 25,000 markings advance sM^ bars CD Q. * in. 25,000- m TV $ 1—H 50,000 Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, police enforcement, advance yield marking. pohce enforcement, advance yield marking. n > 50,000 c advance stop bars advance stop bars "O CD I. <= 10.000 I n 1 Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Ad\-ance waming signs, raised crosswalk. (/) police enforcement and advanced >ield pohce enforcement and advanced yield :■= 65 n . 10.000 - o ' markings markmgs and advance stop bars 3 25.000 m 25.000 - m TV 50.000 Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, Adi-ance waming signs, raised crosswalk, police enforcement and advanced yield pohce enforcement and advanced yield 1\ > 50,000 markings and advance ston bars markings and advance ston bars ...... Decision Support Tree to Address Failure to Yield at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functioaal Contribntins Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I n Rural I. 10,000 Crossmg guards, raised median, pedestrian Crossing guards, raised median, pedestrian Artcnal countdown signal countdown signal waming sign for motonsts Pedestrian lûîer&cction in 8 n 10,000- m n roadway / 25.000 Crossing guards, raised median, pedestrian Crossing guards, raised median, pedestrian Pedestrian countdown signal, waming sign for countdown signal w ammg sign for motonsts ci' in the in . 25.000 motorists trapped m 50,000 the middle / improper 50.000 usage o f crosswalk 3. I <-= 10.000 I n 3 " Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal CD n 10,000- and waming sign for motorists 25.000 CD m TV ■D m . 25,000 Raised median, pedestnan countdown signal Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal O 30.000 Q. W and warning sign for motorists And waming sign for motorists C a r \ > 50,000 O 3 ■D O I H I. -= 10,000 Raised median, pedestnan countdown signal Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal n. 10,000- advance wammg sign for motorists, leading adi ance warning sign for motorists, leading CD pedestnan phase pedestrian phase Q. 25,000 m . 25.000 HI r v Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal, Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal 50.000 advance wammg sign for motonsts, leading advance warning sign for motorists, leading pedestrian phase, smart lightenmg pedestrian phase, smart lightenmg ■D TV. > 50.000 CD I n C/) C/) Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal I <:= 10.000 advance waming sign for motonsts, leading advance warmng sign for motorists, leading pedestrian phase pedestrian phase, smart lightening n. 10,000- 25,000 i n rv m. 23.000- Raised median, pedestrian countdoivn signal, Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal 50 mo advance waming sign for motorists, leading advance waming sign for motorists, leading pedestnan phase, smart lightenmg pedestrian phase, smart lightenmg 50.000 Decision Support Tree to Address Pedestrians Trapped in the Middle at Rural Arterial Intei'sections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group I II Rural 1. < = 10,000 School zone inqjrovements, advance School zone improvements, advance warning Arterial w arning signs for dnvers, in-roadway signs for drivers, in-roadway knock down signs Uncontrolled Intersection knock down signs 8 ' pedestrian n . 10.000- population 25,000 r a n School zone improvements, advance School zone improvements, advance waming ci' r a . 25.000 - warning signs for drivers, in-roadway signs for drivers, in-roadway knock down 50,000 knock down signs signs, pedestrian chaimelization I \-.> 50,000 I. <= 10,000 I n 3 18- Advance wammg sign for drivers, in- Advance wammg sign for drivers, in 3" 54 (D n. 10,000- roadway knock down signs roadway knock down signs 25,000 (D III IV T 3 ra. 25,000- Advance wammg sign for drivers, m- Advance warning sign for drivers, in- O 50.000 roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestrian Q. W channelization channelization aC 00 lY > 50,000 o 3 T 3 I n O I. 10,000 Advance waming sign for drivers, in Advance waming sign for dnvers, in- roadway knock down signs roadway knock down signs 5 4 - n. 10.000- (D 25.000 n Q. 65 ra Advance wammg sign for drivers, m- Advance warning sign for dris ers. in- ra . 25.000 - roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestnan 50,000 chaimelization, pedestrian overpass or chaimelization. pedestnan overpass or n ’, > 50.000 undemass underoass T 3 (D I n (/) I. -= 10.000 (/) Advance wammg sign for drivers, m- Advance waming sign for drivers, in n 10.000- roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestnan 25 000 overpass or underpass ov erpass or underpass r a 25.000 - r \’ 5(1 non ra .Advance waming sign for drivers, in- Advance warning sign for drivers, in n > 50,000 roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestrian overoass or imderoass overoass or underoass Decision Support Tree to Address Uncontrolled Pedestrian Population at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group 1 n Rural I. •■= 10,000 High visibihty crosswalk, enlarged School zone improvements, high visibility Anerial 0-lS crosswalk, crossing guards, enlarged pedestrian Inattentive pedestnan signal heads Interseciion signal heads 8 pedestnans I— n. 10,000- 25.000 i n TV’ High visibility crosswalk, warning sign for High visibility crosswalk, advance wammg ci' in . 25,000 - motorists, crossing guards, enlarged sign for motorists crossing guards, enlarged 50,000 pedestrian signal heads pedestrian signal heads n - 50,000 I. ‘'= 10,000 I n 3 High visibility crosswalk, enlarged High visibility crosswalk, warning sign for 3 " (D n . 10,000- pedestrian signal heads motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal heads 25,000 (D m TV T3 m . 25.000- High visibihty crosswalk, adv ance warning High visibihty crosswalk, advance wammg O 50,000 sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal Q. W C VO heads heads a : 50,000 o 3 I T3 n O I. <= 10.000 High visibihty crosswalk, advance waming High visibihty crosswalk, advance warning sign for motorists, enlarged pedestnan signal sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal n . 10,000- heads heads 25,000 (D Q. m n n i. 25.000 - High visibility crosswalk, advance warning High visibility crosswalk, advance wammg 50,000 sign for motonsts, enlarged pedestrian signal sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal heads heads, smart Ughtening r \ > 50,000 T3 (D I n I. • := 10.000 High visibihty' crosswalk, advance waming High visibility crosswalk, advance warning (/) sign for motorists, smart hghterang, enlarged sign for motorists, smart Ughtenmg. enlarged (/) n . 10.000 - pedestrian signal heads pedestrian signal heads 25,000 in. 25,000- m T\ 50 nnn High visibility crosswalk, adv ance waming High visibihty crosswalk, advance warning sign for motorists, smart lightenmg, enlarged sign for motorists, smart Ughtening, enlarged rv. > 50.000 oedestrian smnal heads oedestrian signal heads Decision .Support Tree to Address Inattentive Pedestrians at Rmal Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential C ountermeasures C/) Class Factor group I II Rural I. <= 10.000 School zone improvements, warning sign School zone nnprovements, waming sign for A rterial for motonsts, high visibility crosswalk, motorists, high visibility crosswalk, crossing Inatrentive liitwsection crossmg guards guards and pohce enforcement 8 drivers n . 10.000 - 25,000 m n School zone improvements, warning sign School zone improvements, warmng sign for ci' i n 25.000 - for motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, crossing 50.000 crossing guards and police enforcement guards and pohce enforcement and smart rv. > 50,000 lizhteninz I. ■== 10,000 I n 3 Wammg sign for motorists Warning sign for motonsts. high visibihty 3 " n . 10,000- crosswalk, pohce enforcement CD 25.000 CD HI rv ■D m . 25.000- Advance wammg sign for motorists, high Advance warning sign for motonsts, high O 50,000 visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement v isibihty crosswalk, police enforcement Q. C a è rv. > 50,000 O 3 I n ■D 0.000 Advance wammg sign for motonsts. high Adv ance waming sign for motonsts, high O visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement II. 10,000 25,000 m rv CD Advance n aming sign for motonsts, high Advance warning sign for motonsts, high Q. HI. 25.000 - visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement, v isibihty crosswalk pohce enforcement, 50.000 smart lightening smart hghtening rv , > 50.000 ■D CD I n I <= 10.000 .Advance warmng sign for motorists, higli Advance waming sign for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement, visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement, C/) n . 10,000 - C/) smart lightening smart hghtenmg 25,000 in . 25,000 - i n IV 50 nnn .Advance wammg sign for motonsts. high Adv ance waming sign for motonsts. high visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement, visibihty crosswalk police enforcement, rv. > 50.000 smart hzhtenins .sm art lielttenmg ...... Decision Support Tree to .Address Inattentive Driving at Rm-al Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) Fimctioual Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures 3o ' Class Factor group O I II I. 10.000 School zone in^ovem ents. warning sign School zone improvements, warning sign for Artenal for motorists, high visibility' crosswalk, motorists, high visibility crosswalk, crossing IiE ^ ro p er Intersection crossing guards, warning sign for guards, warning sign for pedestrians to watch 8 II. 10.000- pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles for turmns vehicles. ITS no RTOR sizn 25.000 UI TV (O' in . 2 5 .0 0 0 - School zone improvements, warning sign School zone miprovements. warning sign for 50,000 for motorists, higli visibihty crosswalk, motorists, high visibility crosswalk, crossing crossing guards, warning sign for guards, warning sign for pedestrians to watch r\'. > 50.000 pedestrians to watch for Wming vehicles. for turning vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign ITS no RTOR sign 3. I. <= 10,000 I n 3" Warning sign for motorists, warning sign for Warning sign for motorists, warning sign for CD n . 10,000 - pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles 25,000 CD n i n T3 O m . 25.000- Advance wammg sign for motorists, wammg .Advance warning sign for motorists, wammg Q. 50,000 sign for pedestrian to watch for nirnmg sign for pedestrian to watch for niming C vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign a TV\ > 50,000 3o I n T3 I. <= 10,000 Advance warning sign for motorists, warning ■Advance warning sign for motorists, warning O sign for pedestrian to watch for mmmg sign for pedestrian to watch for turning II. 10.000- vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign CD 25.000 m IV Q. Advance wammg sign for motorists, wammg Advance wammg sign for motorists, waming in . 25,000 - sign for pedestrian to watch for turning sign for pedestrian to watch for turning 50,000 vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign I \’. > 50.000 T3 CD I II I. 10.000 Advance warning sign for motorists, waming Advance warning sign for motorists, waming (/) sign for pedestrian to watch for turning sign for pedestrian to watch for turning (/) II. 10.000 - vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign 25.000 in . 25.000 - i n n sn nm Advance wammg sign for motorists, wammg Advance warning sign for motorists, waming sign for pedestrian to watch for mmmg sign for pedestnan to watch for nuning IV. > 50.000 vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign Decision Support Tree to Address Improper Turning at Rural Aileiial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) W Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures 3o' Class Factor group O : 10,000 Rural 0 - lS I H Artenal Pedestrians Crossing guards, auditory pedestrian signal Crossmg guards, advance waming sign for 8 Intersection with n. 10,000- motorists, auditory pedestrian signal disabilities 25,000 UI n -, ci' m 25,000 - Crossing guards, advance warning sign for Crossing guards, advance waming sign for 50,000 motorists, auditory pedestnan signal motorists, auditory pedestrian signal rv. > 50,000 3 I. <= 10,000 I U 3 " 18- Auditory pedestrian signal Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory CD 54 n. 10,000- pedestrian signal 25,000 CD in rv ■D m . 25,000- Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory Advance wammg sign for motorists, auditory O 50.000 Q. pedestrian signal pedestnan signal C a n V 50.000 O 3 ■D I n I. <= 10,0(X) Advance waming sign for motorists, auditoiy •Advance wammg sign for motorists, auditory O pedestrian signal pedestrian signal U. 10.000- CD 5 4 - 25,000 in rv Q. 65 Advance wammg sign for motorists, auditoiy Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory ra. 25.000- pedestrian signal pedestnan signal 50,000 rv. > 50,000 ■D CD 1 n I. 10,000 Auditory pedestrian signal Ads ance waming sign for motorists, auditory C/) pedestnan signal n . 10.000- C/) m IV 65 25,000 Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory UI. 25,000 - pedestrian signal pedestrian signal 50 non IV. > 50.000 Decision Support Tree to Addiess Pedestiians with Disabilities at Rural Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contribnting Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I n Rural I. <= 10,000 Warning sign for motorists, pedestrian Wammg sign for motorists, pedestrian Artenal crosswalk, crossing guards, police crosswalk, crossing guards, police enforcement D.U.I Midblock enforcement 8 n . 10,000 - 25.000 ci' i n n m . 2 5 .0 0 0 - Advance waming sign for motorists, pedestrian Advance warning sign for motorists, 50.000 pedestrian crosswalk , crossing guards, and walk signal, crossing guards and police n . > 50.000 police enforcement enforcement I. <= 10,000 I n 3 Warning sign for motorists, pedestrian walk Warning sign for motorists, pedestrian walk 3" 18-54 (D signal and police enforcement signal and police enforcement n . 10.000- (D 25,000 T3 O in . 2 5 .0 0 0 - n i TV Q. C 50,000 Advance waming sign for motonsts, ■\dvance waming sign for motorists, U) pedestrian crosswalk and police enforcement pedestrian crosswalk and police enforcement a n > 50,000 3o T3 O I. <= 10,000 I n Wammg sign for motorists, pedestrian .Advance warning sign for motorists, (D Q. 54-65 crossw alk, police enforcement and median pedestnan crosswalk, police enforcement and II. 10.000- refuge median refuge 25,000 in . 25,000- in rv Advance wammg sign for motorists, 50.000 Advance warning sign for motorists, T3 pedestrian crosswalk, police enforcement and pedestnan crosswalk, police enforcement and (D IV. ;• 50,000 median refuge median refuge (/) (/) I n I. <= 10,000 Advance waming sign for motorists, Advance warning sign for motorists, pedestrian countdown signal and police pedestnan countdown signal and police n . 10,000 - enforcement and median refuge enforcement and median refuge 25 000 m n m . 25,000 - Advance warning sign for motorists, •Advance wammg sign for motorists, 50000 pedestrian cotmtdown signal and police pedestrian cotmtdown signal and police I\ > 50,000 enforcement and median refuge enforcement and median refiige CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group I n Rural I. <= 10.000 Ath-ance school waming signs, crossing Advance school wammg signs, crossing guards Artenal guards and police enforcement and police enforcement Excessive Midblock 8 Speeding n. 10,000- 25.000 r a n ci' ra. 25,000 - .advance school waming signs, crossing Advance school W'aming signs, crossing guards 50,000 guards and police enforcement and and police enforcement and portable speed portable speed trailer trailer n > 50,000 I. ■;= 10,000 I n Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk and 18-54 3 police enforcement and portable speed trailer police enforcement and portable speed trailer 3 " CD n . 10,000- 25,000 CD i n l \ ' ■D ra. 25,000- .Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk and Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and O 50,000 police enforcement, portable speed trailer police enforcement, portable speed trailer Q. C and speed humps and speed humps a n > 50.000 O 3 I n "O I. <= 10.000 Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk and Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk and O police enforcement, portable speed trailer police enforcement, portable speed trailer n . 10,00 0 - 25,000 and speed humps and speed humps 54-65 CD in 25,000 - r a n Q. 50.000 Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk and Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk and 50.000 police enforcement, portable speed trailer pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer and speed humps and speed humps ■D I II CD I. -:= 10.000 Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk and Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and police enforcement, jiortable speed trailer police enforcement, portable speed trailer and speed bumps and speed humps C/) n . 10,00 0 - C/) 25.000 r a IV III. 25,000 - Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and 50.000 police enforcement, portable speed trailer police enforcement, portable speed trailer and speed humps and speed humps n > 50.000 Decision Support Tree to Address Excessive Speeding at Mid-block Locations on Riual Arteiials CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contribntinj Age ADT Potential Countenueasures Class Factor group I n Rural I. <= 10.000 Advance school waming signs, crossing Advance school wanung signs, crossing guards Arterial 0-18 guards and median refuge adr ance yield markings and median refage Faihue Midblock 8 to — 1 n. 10,000- iueld 25,000 m IV ci' •Advance school wammg signs, crossing Advance school warning signs, crossing m 25,000 - guards, portable speed trailer, advance guards, portable speed trailer, advance yield 50.000 yield markings and median refuge markings and median refuge n > 50,000 : 10,000 I n 3 •Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk and Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, 3" IS-54 pohce enforcement advance yield marking, Danish offset (D n . 10,000 - 25,000 (D IV T3 m O m , 25,000 - Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, Q. 50,000 advance yield markmg, Danish offset advance yield markmg, Darush offset C -P^ a LA n > 50,000 3o T3 O I. <= 10,000 I n Wammg signs, raised crosswalk, advanced Wanung signs, raised crosswalk, advance n , 10,000- yield markmgs and median refiige yield markings and Danish offset (D 54-65 25,000 Q. in, 25,000- m IV 50,000 Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, •Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, advance yield marking and Danish offset police enforcement, adt-ance yield marking n 50,000 and Danish offset T3 (D I, <= 10,000 I n (/) •Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, (/) advance yield markmg and Damsh offset advance yield marking and Danish offset n , 10,000- 25,000 m , 25,000 - m rv 50,000 Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, •Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, advance yield markmg and Danish offset pohce enforcement, advance yield markmg n > 50,000 and Danish offset Decision Support Tree to Address Failure to Yield at Mid-block Locations on Rural Arteiials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) W Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Counteimeasures 3o" Class Factor group 0 I II Rural I, <= 10,000 Median refuge and Danish offset Mediaii refiige and Damsh offset 3 0-18 CD Artenal Pedestnan Midblock m 8 II, 10,000 - n i IV roadway 25,000 Median refuge and Danish offset Median refiige and Danish offset ci' Pedestnan 3" in the r a 25,000 - trapped in 50,000 the middle 1 IV > 50,000 3 / improper CD usage o f crosswalk "n 3.c I = 10,000 I II 3 " 18-54 Median refuge and Danish offset Median refiige and Danish offset CD II 10,000- 25 000 ■DCD r a IV O r a ,2 5 ,0 0 0 - Median refuge and Danish offset Median refiige and Danish offset Q. 50 000 C a rv ■ • 50,000 O 3 ■D O : 10,000 I n n , 10,000 - Median refuge and Danish offset Median refuge and Danish offset CD 54-65 Q. 25,000 r a IV ra. 25,000 - Median refiige and Danish offset Median refiige and Danish offset 50,000 ■D IV. > 50,000 CD C/) C/) I, <= 10,000 I II Median refuge and Danish offset Median refuge and Danish offset ■'= 65 n . 10.000 - 25,000 IIIIV III, 25,000 - Median refuge and Danish offset Median refuge and Danish offset 50 non IV, > 50,000 Decision Support Tree to Address Pedestrians Trapped in the Middle at Mid-block Locations on Rural Aiterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) W Functioual Confribafing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures 3o" Class Factor group O I n : 10.000 In-roadu*ay knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish Artenal 0-18 offset offset Uncontrolled Midblock 8 pedestrian n . 10.000 - population 25,000 r a ci' In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish r a . 25,000 - offset, ad\*ance warning sign for motorists offset, acK-ance waming sign for motorists 50,000 r v > 50,000 3 I. ■- = 10,000 I n 3 " 18- In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish CD 54 II. 10,000 - offset offset 25.000 ■DCD r a n - O r a . 25,000 - In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish Q. 50,000 offset, adv ance wanung sign for motonsts offset, advTtnce waming sign for motonsts C a IV. > 50,000 O 3 ■D O I n I. <= 10.000 In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish offset offset II. 10,000 - CD 54- Q. 25,000 65 i n TV In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish ra. 25,000- offset and adv ance waming sign for offset and advance waming sign for 50,000 motorists motorists ■D rv . > 50,000 CD C/) I. <= 10.000 1 n C/) In-roadway knock doism signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish n . 10,000 offset offset 25,000 ra. 25,000 r a n 50 non In-roadw ay knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish 50,000 offset and advance warning sign for offset and adv ance warning sign for motorists motorists Decision Support Tree to Address Uncontrolled Pedestrian Population at Mid-block Locations on Riual Aiterials CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group I II Rural I. 10,000 High visibility' crosswalk, raised crosswalk High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, 0-18 Artenal waming for pedestrians to look for vehicles Inattentrre Midblock 8 pedestrians n . 10,000 - 25,000 r a n High nsibihty crosswalk, raised High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, ci' in , 25.000 - crosswalk, warning for pedestnans to look warning for pedestrians to look for vehicles and 50,000 for vehicles and warning sign for drivers advance warning sign for drivers r\' > 50.000 I n I. 10,000 High visibility crosswalk and raised High visibihty crosswalk, raised crosswalk, 1 8 - 3 crosswalk warning sign for pedestrians to look for 3" 54 (D n. 10,000- vehicles 25,000 (D r a IV T3 r a . 25.000 - High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, O 50.000 waming sign for pedestrians to look for warning sign for pedestrians to look for Q. C 4^ vehicles, waming sign for drivers vehicles, advance waming sign for drivers a 00 n 50,000 o 3 I T3 n O I,<= 10.000 High visibility crosswalk and raised High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, crosswalk warning sign for pedestrians to look for n. 10.000- vehicles 25,000 (D 54- Q. 65 r a IV r a . 25,000 - High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk 50,000 wammg sign for pedestrians to look for waming sign for pedestrians to look for vehicles and warning sign for drivers vehicles and advance waming sign for rv . > 50,000 drivers T3 (D I n I. <= 10,000 High visibility crosswalk raised crosswalk High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, (/) and median refuge warning sign for pedestrians to look for (/) n . 10,000 - vehicles and Danish offset 25,000 r a I\- ra. 25,000 - High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, 50 non waming sign for pedestrians to look for waming sign for pedestrians to look for vehicles wanung sign for drivers, and Danish vehicles advance waming sign for drivers, IV. > 50.000 offset and Danish offset Decision Support Tree to Address Inattentive Pedestrians at Mid-block Locations on Riual Aiterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group I n Rural I. <= 10.000 Warning sign for motorists Warning sign for motonsts. high visibility Artenal crosswalk, crossing guards, pohce enforcement Inattentive Midblock 8 drivers n. 10.000 25.000 r a TV Advance warning sign for motonsts, high School zone improvements, ads ance warning ci' m . 25.000 visibihty crosswalk, crossmg guards, sign for motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, 50,000 police enforcement crossing guards and police enforcement 50.000 : 10,000 I n 3 Wammg sign for motorists Warning sign for motonsts, high visibility 3 " CD n. 10,000 - crosswalk. Danish offset 25.000 CD r a n ■D r a . 25,000 - Advance wammg sign for motonsts. high Advance warning sign for motonsts, high O 50,000 Q. visibihty crosswalk, and Danish offset visibihty crosswalk, and Danish offset C a rv. > 50,000 3O "O I n O I, 10,000 Advance wammg sign for motorists, high Advantte wammg sign for motorists, high visibihty crosswalk visibihty crosswalk, Danish offset II 10,000- 25,000 CD HI IV Q. Advance waming sign for motorists, high Advance waming sign for motorists, high r a . 25.000 - visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement and visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement, 50,000 Danish offset Danish offset n ’. > 50,000 ■D CD I H I. <= 10.000 Advance waming sign for motonsts. high Advance waming sign for motorists, high C/) visibihty crosswalk visibility crosswalk, police enforcement, C/) n . 10,000- Damsh offset 25.000 ra. 25,000 - HI n 50 non Advance waming sign for motonsts, high Advance warning sign for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement, visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement, n > 50.000 Danish offset Danish offset Decision Support Tree to Address Inattentive Drivers at Mid-block Locations on Rural Arterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Potential Countermeasures C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Class Factor group I n : 10,000 School zone improvements, waming sign School zone improvements, warning sign for Artenal for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, motorists, high visibility crosswalk, crossing Midblock crossing guards, warning sign for guards, wammg sign for pedestrians to watch n . 10,000- 8 pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles for tmnine vehicles. ITS no RTOR sisn 25,000 m T\ ci' n i. 25,000 - School zone improvements, waming sign School zone improvements, waming sign for 50,000 for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, motorists, high visibility crosswalk, crossmg crossing guards, warning sign for guards, warning sign for pedestrians to watch rv. > 50,000 pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles. for turning vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign ITS no RTOR sign I. <= 10,000 I n 3 18- 3 " Warning sign for motorists, warning sign for Waming sign for motorists, waming sign for CD 54 n. 10,000- pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles pedestrians to watch for tuming vehicles 25,000 CD n i n ■D in. 25,000- Advance warning sign for motorists, waming Advance waming sign for motorists, wanung O 50,000 Q. sign for pedestrian to watch for turning sign for pedestrian to watch for tummg C vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign a IV. > 50.000 O 3 ■D I n I. 10,000 Advance warning sign for motorists, waming Advance waming sign for motorists, waming O sign for pedestrian to watch for tummg sign for pedestrian to watch for tuming n . 10.000- vehicles. ITS no RTOR sien veliicles. ITS no RTOR sien CD 54- 25,000 m TV Q. 65 Advance wanting sign for motorists, wammg Advance waming sign for motorists, waming in . 25,000 - sign for pedestrian to watch for tuming sign for pedestrian to watch for turning 50.000 vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign IV. > 50.000 ■D CD I H I. -t= 10,000 Advance w arning sign for motorists, waming Advance warning sign for motonsts. wammg C/) sign for pedestrian to watch for turning sign for pedestrian to watch for tuming C/) II. 10,000- vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign 25,000 m . 25,000- HI n 50 000 Advance waming sign for motorists, waming Advance wammg sign for motonsts. wammg sign for pedestrian to watch for tuming sign for pedestrian to watch for tuming rv. > 50,000 vehicles. ITS no RTOR sien vehicles. ITS no RTOR sien Decision Support Tree to Address Improper Turning at Mid-block Locations on Rural Arteiials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group 3o" O I. <= 10,000 0-18 1 n Artenal Pedestrians Crossmg guards, auditory pedestrian signal Crossing guards, advance waming sign for 8 Midblock with n. 10.000- motorists, auditory pedestrian signal disabilities 25,000 r a rv, ci' m . 25,000 - Crossing guards, advance waming sign for Crossing guards, advance waming sign for 50,000 motorists, auditory pedestrian signal motorists, auditory pedestrian signal rv. > 50.000 I, 10,000 I II 3 18- Auditory pedeswian signal ■Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory 3 " 54 (D n. 10.000 - pedestrian signal 25,000 (D III IV T3 ra. 25.000- -Advance waming sign for motonsts, auditory- Advance wammg sign for motorists, auditory- O 50.000 pedestrian signal pedestrian signal Q. Ln C a n > 50,000 o 3 I II T3 I. = 10,000 -Advance wammg sign for motorists, auditoiy Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory O pedestrian signal pedestrian signal U . 10,000 - 54- 25,000 r a TV (D Q. 65 -Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory- Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory ra . 25.000 - pedesttian signal pedestrian signal 50.000 r\ > 50,000 T3 (D I n I. • = 10,000 -Auditory pedestrian signal Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory pedestrian signal (/) II. 10,000 - (/) r a TV 65 25,000 Advance wammg sign for motorists, auditory- Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory- ra. 25,000- pedestrian signal pedestrian signal snnno I\ > 50,000 Decision Support Tree to Address Pedestrians with Disabilities at Mid-block Locations on Rural Aiterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Fimctioual ContHbuHng Age Potential Countermeasures C/) ADT Class Factor group I U I. 10,000 Warning sign for motorists, high visibility Wammg sign for motonsts, high visibihty Artenal crosswalk, crossing guards, police crosswalk, crossmg guards, police enforcement D.U.I Intersection enforcement 8 n . 10,000- 25,000 rv m m 2 5 ,0 0 0 - Advance waming sign for motorists, high ci' Advance waming sign for motonsts, high 50,000 visibihty crosswalk, crossing guards, visibility crosswalk, crossing guards, pohce enforcement IV. > 50,000 pohce enforcement I. <= 10.000 I n 3 Wammg sign for motonsts. high visibihty Warning sign for motorists, high visibihty 3 " crosswalk and police enforcement crosswalk and pohce enforcement CD n . 10 .0 0 0 - 25,000 CD ■D m . 2 5 ,0 0 0 - m IV O 50,000 Advance waming sign for motorists, high Advance waming sign for motorists, high Q. LA C bO visibihty crosswalk and police enforcement visibihty crosswalk and police enforcement a r v > 50,000 O 3 ■D O I. = 10,000 I n Warning sign for motorists, high visibihty Wammg sign for motorists, high visibility crosswalk and pohce enforcement crosswalk and pohce enforcement CD Q. n . 10 ,0 0 0 - 25 000 i n 2 5 ,0 0 0 - m a Advance waming sign for motonsts. high Advance waming sign for motorists, high 50 000 risibihty crosswalk and pohce enforcement visibihty crosswalk and pohce enforcement ■D IV > 50,000 CD n C/) I C/) I. <= 10.000 Wammg sign for motorists, high visibility Warning sign for motorists, high visibihty crosswalk and pohce enforcement crosswalk and police enforcement II. 10,000- 5000 m a Advance waming sign for motorists, high Advance waming sign for motorists, high m . 25.000 visibihty crosswalk and pohce enforcement visibihty crosswalk and pohce enforcement 50 OOP 50.000 Decision Support Tree to Address D.U.I at Urban Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I n Urban I. <= 10,000 Advance school waming signs, crossing Advance school wanung signs, crossmg guards Arterial O-IS guards and police enforcement and police enforcement and speed humps Excessive ■ Intersection 8 ' Speeding ■ n . 10,000- 25,000 in IV ci' m 25,000 - Advance school warning signs, crossing Advance school warning signs, crossmg guards 50,000 guards and police enforcement, portable and police enforcement and portable speed speed trailer and speed humps trailer and speed bumps rv. > 50,000 I. <= 10,000 I n 3 Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk and 3" 18-54 police enforcement, speed humps pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer (D n. 10,000- 25,000 (D T3 i n r\ O m . 25,000 - Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and Adv-ance waming signs, raised crosswalk Q. 50,000 pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer C a rv. > 50,000 3o T3 I II O I, <= 10,000 Wammg signs, raised crosswalk, smart Advance wanung signs, raised crosswalk, smart lighting, pohce enforcement and II. 10,000- hghtmg and police enforcement and speed 25.000 humps portable speed trailer (D 54-65 Q. n i. 25,000 - m n 50,000 Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, rv. > 50,000 smart hghting. police enforcement and smart lighting, pohce enforcement and portable speed trailer portable speed trailer T3 (D I. <= 10,000 I n Waming signs, raised crosswalk, smart Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, (/) (/) hghtmg and pohce enforcement and speed smart hghting. pohce enforcement and n . 10,000- humps portable speed trailer 25 000 i n 25,000 - n i IV Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, 50 000 smart hghting, pohce enforcement and smart hghting, pohce enforcement and r v > 50,000 oortable soeed trailer p.omble ..Speed trailer Decision Support Tree to Address Excessive Speeding at Urban Artenal Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Potential Countermeasures C/) Functionai Contributing Age ADT CU%% Factor group I II Urban I. <= 10.000 Advance school warning signs, crossing Advance school waming signs, crossmg guards Artenal 0-1 s gnards and police enforcement, advance and pohce enforcement, advance stop bars, Failure —» Intersection stop bars, advance yield markmgs advance yield markings 8 to -, n . 10.000- y ie ld 25.000 r a IV Advance school waming signs, crossmg Advance school waming signs, crossing guards ci' m . 25,000- gnards and police enforcement, advance and police enforcement, advance stop bars, 50,000 stop bars, advance yield markings, portable advance yield markings, portable speed trailer rv’. > 50,000 soeed trailer I. <= 10,000 I n 3 Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, 3 " pohce enforcement pohce enforcement, advance yield marking, CD n. 10,000- advance stop bars 25,000 CD r a n ■D ra. 25.000- Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Adv ance waming signs, raised crosswalk, O 50,000 Q. pohce enforcement, advance yield marking, pohce enforcement, advance yield marking, C advance stop bars advance stop bars a > 50,000 3O "O O I. <= 10.000 I n Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, n . 10.000 - pohce enforcement and advanced yield pohce enforcement, advance yield marking, CD 54-65 25.000 markings advance stop bars Q. — ► r a . 25.000 - r a IV 50.000 Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk. Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk. pohce enforcement, advance >ield marking. pohce enforcement, adv ance >ield marking. rv . 50,000 advance stop bars advance stop bars ■D CD I. 10,000 I n C/) Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, C/) pohce enforcement and advanced >ield pohce enforcement and advanced yield >= 65 n . 10.000- m.arkings markmgs and advance stop bars 25.000 — ► r a . 25,000 - r a r v 50.000 Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, pohce enforcement and advanced >ield pohce enforcement and advanced yield > 50.000 markings and advance ston bars markings and advance stoo bars Decision Support Tree to Address Failure to Yield at Urban Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Functiouül CoBtiibnHcg Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group I n Urban I. <= 10,000 Crossing ginids. raised median, pedestrian Crossmg guards, raised median, pedestrian Artenal countdown signal countdown signal, warning sign for motorists Pedestnan Intersection 8 U. 10.000- n i IV roadway / 25,000 Crossing guards, raised median, pedestrian Crossing guards, raised median, pedestrian Pedestnan countdown signal, wammg sign for cotmtdown signal, advance wammg sign for ci' in tlie in . 25.000 - motorists motorists trapped m 50,000 the middle n 50,000 • improper usage o f crosswalk I. <= 10.000 I n 3 Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal Raised median, pedestrian cotmtdown signal, 3 " CD n . 10,000- and waming sign for motorists 25.000 CD III n ■D m . 25,000- Raised median, pedestrian cotmtdown signal Raised median, pedestrian cotmtdown signal O 50,000 Q. and waming sign for motonsts and advance warmng sign for motorists C LA a IV. > 50,000 O 3 ■D I II O I. •:= 10,000 Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal, Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal, advance warning sign for motorists, leading advance warning sign for motorists, leadmg U. 10,000- pedestrian phase pedestrian phase CD 54-65 Q. 25,000 n III. 25.000- r a Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal, 50,000 Raised median, pedestrian comitdotvn signal, advance warning sign for motorists, leading advance warning sign for motorists, leadmg rv . 50.000 pedestrian phase, smart lighting pedestrian phase, smart lighting ■D CD I n C/) C/) Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal, Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal I. <= 10.000 advance waming sign for motorists, leading advance warning sign for motorists, leading pedestnan phase pedestnan phase, smart lighting n . 10.000- 25,000 r a n m . 25.000- Raised median, pedestrian countdown signal, Raised median, pedestrian cotmtdown signal sn non advance warning sign for motorists, leading advance wammg sign for motonsts. leading pedestrian phase, smart lighting pedestnan phase, smart lighting n 50,000 Decision Support Tree to Address Pedestnans Trapped in the Middle at Urban Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Funrtional Contributing Age Class Factor group I n Urban I. <= 10,000 Schtxjl zone improvements, advance School zone improvements, advance waming Arterial waming signs for drivers, in-roadway signs for drivers, in-roadway knock down signs Uncontrolled Intersection knock down signs 8 pedestrian n . 10.000- population 25,000 i n rv School zone improvements, advance School zone improvements, advance waming ci' r a . 25.000 - waming signs for drivers, in-roadway signs for drivers, in-roadway knock down 50.000 knock down signs signs, pedestrian channelization n > 50.000 I. <= 10.000 I n 3 Advance warmng sign for drivers, in Advance waming sign for drivers, in 3 " (D n . 10.000- roadway knock down signs roadway knock down signs 25.000 (D r a n T3 ra. 25.000- •Advance warmng sign for drivers, m- Adv ance waming sign for drivers, in O 50,000 Q. roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestnan C Ui channelization chaimelization a a\ n > 50.000 o 3 T3 O I n : 10.000 •Advance warmng sign for drivers, in Advance warmng sign for drivers, in roadway knock tlown signs roadway knock down signs n . 10,000 - (D Q. 25.000 r a n •Advance warmng sign for drivers, in Advance warning sign for drivers, in- r a . 25,000 - roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestrian 50.000 channelization, pedestrian overpass or channelization, pedestnan overpass or n * 50.000 undemass undemass T3 (D (/) I. <= 10.000 I n (/) •Advance warning sign for drivers, in- Advance warning sign for drivers, in- n . 10.000- roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestrian 25.000 overpass or underpass overpass or tmderpass ra. 25,000 - r a lA 50 non •Advance wammg sign for drivers, in Advance warning sign for drivers, in r\'. > 50.000 roadway knock down signs, pedestrian roadway knock down signs, pedestrian overoass or undemass ovemass or tindemass Decision Support Tree to Address Uncontrolled Pedestrian Population at Urban Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Fnnctional Cantribnting Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group I n Urban I. <= 10,000 High visibility' crosswalk, enlarged School zone improvements, higli visibility Artenal pedestrian signal heads crosswalk, crossing guards, enlarged pedestrian Inattentive Intersection signal heads 8 pedestrians n . 10,000- 25,000 III lA' High visibility crosswalk, waming sign for High visibility crosswalk, advance warning ci' in . 2 5 ,0 0 0 - motorists, crossing guards, enlarged sign for motorists, crossing guards, enlarged 50,000 pedestrian signal heads, ITS automatic pedestnan signal heads. ITS automatic IV. 50,000 pedestrian detection pedestrian detection I n : 10.000 High visibihty crosswalk, enlarged High visibihty crosswalk, warning sign for 3 motonsts. enlarged pedestrian signal heads. 3 " pedestrian signal heads (D n. 10,000- ITS automatic pedestrian detection device 25,000 (D m lA T3 n i 2 5 ,0 0 0 - High visibihty crosswalk, advance waming High visibihty crosswalk, advance warning O 50,000 sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal Q. Lf\ heads. ITS automatic pedestrian detection heads. ITS automatic pedesuian detection C IV. > 50.000 a device device o 3 I H T3 I. <= 10,000 High visibihty crosswalk, advance waming High visibihty crosswalk, advance waming O sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal n . 10.000- heads heads. ITS automatic pedestrian detection 25.000 (D HI Q. lA i n 25.000 - High visibihty crosswalk, advance waming High visibihty crosswalk, advance warning 50.000 sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal sign for motorists, enlarged pedestrian signal heads. ITS automatic pedestrian detection heads, smart hghtening. ITS automatic lA > 50,000 device nedestnan detection device T3 (D I H I. <= 10,000 High visibihty crosswalk, advance warning High visibility crosswalk, advance waming (/) sign for motorists, smart hghtenmg. enlarged sign for motorists, smart hghtenmg. enlarged (/) >= (55 n . 10.000- pedestrian signal heads pedestrian signal heads, ITS automatic 25.000 pedestrian detection device in . 25.000 - m lA so non High visibihty crosswalk, advance waming High visibility crosswalk, advance waming lA > 50,000 sign for motorists, smart hghtenmg. enlarged sign for motorists, smart hghtening. enlarged pedestrian signal heads, ITS automatic pedestrian signal heads. ITS automatic pedestrian detection device pedestrian detection device Decision Support Tree to -Address Inattentive Pedestrians at Urban Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Potential Countermeasures C/) Fanctional Contributing Age ADT Class Factor group I n Urban I. ‘•= 10,000 School zone improvement,, warning Mgn School zone improvements, warning sign for Artenal for motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, crossmg Inattentive Intersection crossing guards guards and pohce enforcement 8 drivers n 10.000 - 25,000 III r \ School zone improvements, advance School zone urgirovements. advance wammg ci' in . 25,000- waming sign for motonsts. high visibility sign for motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, 50,000 crosswalk, crossing guards and police crossing guards and pohce enforcement and IV. > 50,000 enforcement, advance stoo bars smart hshtenine. advance stoo bars I n 3 I. <= 10.000 Wammg sign for motorists Warning sign for motorists, high visibility 3 " crosswalk, police enforcement, advance stop CD n . 10,000- bars 25,000 CD i n lA ■D in . 25.000- Advance w ammg sign for motorists, high Advance wammg sign for motorists, liigh O 50.000 Q. Ul visibihty crosswalk, police enforcement, visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement, C advance stop bars advance stop bars a 00 n > 50,000 O 3 I n ■D -Advance waming sign for motonsts, high -Advance wammg sign for motonsts. high I <= 10,000 O visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement, advance stop bars n . 10,000- CD 25.000 i n lA Q. -Advance waming sign for motonsts, high Advance warning sign for motorists, high m . 25 .0 0 0 - visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement, visibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement, 50.000 smart hghtning. advanced stop bars smart hghtning. advanced stop bars 50.000 ■D CD I n 1. '•:= 10.000 -Advance wammg sign for motonsts. high Advance rvarniug sign for motorists, high C/) risibility crosswalk, pohce enforcement, visibihty crossrvalk. pohce enforcement, C/) II 10,000- smart lightning smart hghtning. advance stop bars 25,000 in . 25,000- m lA nnn Advance warning sign for motonsts. high Advance rvaming sign for motorists, high risibility crossrvalk. police enforcement, risibility crossrvalk. police enforcement, ÏV. > 50,000 smart hghtening. advance stop bars smart hghtening. advance stop bar Decision Support Tree to Address Inattentive Drivers at Urban Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functionnl Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I II Urban I. <= 10.000 School zone improvements, warning sign School zone improvements, warning sign for Artenal for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, crossing Improper Intersection crossing guards, wammg sign for guards, wammg sign for pedestrians to watch n . 10,000- 8 pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles for tumina vehicles. ITS no RTOR sien 25,000 i n IV ci' m . 25,000 - School zone improvements, warning sign School zone improvements, waming sign for 50,000 for motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, crossing crossing guards, warning sign for guards, waming sign for pedestrians to watch n*. > 50.000 pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles. for turning vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign ITS no RTOR sign I. - - 10.000 I n 3 18- 3 " Waming sign for motorists, warmng sign for Warning sign for motorists, waming sign for (D 54 n . 10.000- pedestrians to watch for niming vehicles pedestnans to watch for niming vehicles 25.000 (D m n T3 O m . 25.000- Advance warning sign for motorists, wammg Advance waming sign for motorists, wammg Q. 50.000 sign for pedestrian to watch for tummg sign for pedestrian to watch for tuming C so vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign a n > 50.000 o 3 n T3 I Advance wanung sign for motorists, waming O : 10.000 Advance waming sign for motorists, wammg sign for pedestrian to watch for tummg sign for pedestrian to watch for tiuning II. 10.000- vehicles. ITS no RTOR sien vehicles. ITS no RTOR sisn (D 54- 25,000 m lA Q. 65 •Advance waming sign for motorists, wammg Advance wammg sign for motorists, waming in 25.000- sign for pedestrian to watch for tummg sign for pedestrian to watch for tuming 50.000 vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign IV. ■- 50.000 T3 (D I n I. <= 10.000 Advance warning sign for motorists, waming Advance waming sign for motonsts. warning (/) sign for pedestrian to watch for tummg sign for pedestrian to watch for tummg (/) n. 10.000- vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign 25,000 m . 25.000- m lA- 5 0 0 0 0 Advance wanung sign for motorists, wammg Advance wammg sign for motonsts. warmng sign for pedestrian to watch for niming sign for pedestrian to watch for tuming r \ > 50,000 vehicles. ITS no RTOR sien vehicles. ITS no RTOR sism Decision Support Tree to Address Itnproper Turning at Urban Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor gi-oup Uiban I. <= 10,000 1 Arterial O-IS n Pedestrians Crossing guards, auditory pedestrian signal Crossing guards, advance warning sign for Intersection 8 with n. 10,000- motorists, auditory pedestrian signal disabilities 25,000 m IV, Crossing guards, advance warning sign for Crossing guards, advance warning sign for (O' m . 25.000 - 50,000 motorists, auditory pedestrian signal motorists, auditory pedestrian signal n > 50.000 I n Auditory pedestrian signal Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory I. ' = 10.000 3. pedestnan signal. ITS automatic pedestrian 3 " detection device CD n . 10.000- 25.000 CD n i IV ■D n i 25.000- Advance waming sign for motonsts. auditory Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory O 50.000 pedestrian signal. ITS automatic pedestrian pedestrian signal. ITS automatic pedestrian Q. C S detection device detection device a rv > 50.000 O 3 I n ■D I. <= 10,000 Advance waming sign for motonsts. auditory Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory O pedestrian signal pedestrian signal, ITS automatic pedestrian n . 10,000- detection device 25.000 n i n CD Q. Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory m . 25.000 - pedestrian signal. ITS automatic pedestrian pedestnan signal. ITS automatic pedestrian 50.000 detection device detection device > 50.000 ■D I n CD Auditory pedestrian signal Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory I. •-'= 10.000 pedestrian signal. ITS automatic pedestrian C/) n . 10.000- detection device C/) m I\ 25.000 Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory m . 25.000 - pedestrian signal. ITS automatic pedestrian pedestnan signal. ITS automatic pedestrian 50 000 detection device detection device n > 50.000 Decision Suppoit Tree le Address Pedestrians with Disabilities at Urban Arterial Intersections CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Fimctionai Contribating Age ADT Potectial Counfermeasures Cl.iss Facfor group I II Urban I <= 10,000 Warning sign for motorists, pedestrian Wammg sign for motonsts, pedestrian Arterial crosswallc, crossing guards, police crosswalk, crossing guards, police enforcement. D.U.I 3-#" Ivüdblock enforcement In-pavement flashing light system 8 n . 10,000- 25,000 m TV ci' ni. 25,000- Advance waming sign for motorists, .Advance warning sign for motonsts, pedestrian 50,000 pedestrian crosswalk, crossing guards, walk signal, crossing guards and police enforcement, and in-pavement flasliing light n > 50,000 police enforcement and in-pavement system flashing lighis.YMem...... I. •:= 10.000 I n Wanung sign for motonsts. pedestrian walk Warning sign for motorists, pedestrian walk 3 18-54 3 " signal and police enforcement signal police enforcement and in-pavement CD n . 10,000- flashing system 25,000 ■DCD O ni. 25,000- n i n Q. 50,000 Advance waming sign for motorists, Advance waming sign for motorists, C pedestnan crosswalk , police enforcement pedestnan crosswalk, police enforcement and a n > 50.000 and in pavement flashing system in pavements flashing system 3O "O O I - = 10,000 I n Wammg sign for motorists, pedestrian Advance waming sign for motorists, crosswalk, police enforcement and median CD pedestrian crosswalk, police enforcement and Q. n 10,000- refuge median refiige 25,000 m 25,000 - in n 50.000 .Advance wammg sign for motonsts. Advance warning sign for motorists, pedestrian crosswalk, police enforcement and pedestnan crosswalk, police enforcement and ■D n > 50,000 median refuze median refiize CD I C/) n C/) I. 10,000 .Advance waming sign for motonsts, Advance warmng sign for motorists, pedestrian countdown signal and pohce pedestrian countdown signal and pohce n . 10,000- enforcement and median refiige enforcement and median refiige 25,000 m IV ni. 25,000- Advance warning sign for motorists, Advance warning sign for motorists, JSO.OOO pedestrian countdown signal and police pedestrian countdown signal and pohce r \ > 50,000 enforcement and median refiize enforcement and median refiize Decision Support Tree to Address D.U.I at Mid-block Locations on Urban Aiterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contribnting; Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Cia55 Facfor group I II Urban I. 10,000 Ath'aoce school warmng signs, crossing Advance school warning signs, crossmg guards Arterial guards and police enforcemenr and pohce enforcement Midblock 8 Speeding n . 10,000- 25,000 ci' r a IV i n , 25,000 - Advance school warning signs, crossing Advance school waming signs, crossing guards 50.000 guards and police enforcement and and pohce enforcement and portable speed portable speed trailer trailer n > 50,000 I. ■= 10.000 I n 3 Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warmng signs, raised crosswalk and 3 " police enforcement and portable speed trailer CD pohce enforcement and portable speed trailer n . 10.000- CD 25,000 ■D r a IV O III 25 ,0 0 0 - Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and Ads-ance warning signs, raised crosswalk and Q. 50.000 pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer C and speed humps and speed humps a rv > 50,000 O 3 ■D I n O I. <= 10.000 Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk and pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer n . 10.000 - 25,000 and speed humps and speed htuups CD >4-03 Q. r a 25.000 m IV 50,000 Advance w arning signs, raised crosswalk and Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and 50.000 pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer and speed humps and speed hun^s ■D CD I n I. 10,000 .Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk and Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and police enforcement, portable speed trailer pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer C/) and speed himips and speed humps C/) n . 10,000- 25.000 HI r \ ra , 25,000 - Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk and Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk and 50,000 pohce enforcement, portable speed trailer police enforcement, portable speed trailer and speed humps and speed humps rv. - 50.000 Decision Support Tree to Address Excessive Speeding at Mid-block Locations on Urban Arterials CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I n Urban I. <= 10.000 Ad\*ance school warning signs, crossing Advance school waming signs, crossing guards Artenal guards and median refiige advance yield markings in-pavement flashing Failure 8 Midblock U. 10,000- light system 25.000 n i IV ci' Advance school wammg signs, crossing Advance school warning signs, crossing m . 25 ,0 0 0 - guards, portable speed trailer, advance guards, portable speed trailer, advance yield 50,000 yield markmgs and in-pavement flashing markings and m-pavement flash lighting n > >0.000 light svstem svstem I. <= 10.000 I n 3 Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk and Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, 3 " police enforcement advance yield marking, Danish offset CD n . 10.000- 25,000 CD ■D m r v O m . 25,000- Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, Q. 50,000 advance yield markmg, in-pavement flash advance yield markmg, in-pavement flash C 0\ u> lightmg system lighting system a n > 50,000 3O "O O I. <= 10.000 I II Warning signs, raised crosswalk, advanced Wammg signs, raised crosswalk, advance U 10,000- yield markings and median refuge yield markings and Danish offset CD 54-65 25.000 Q. m 25,000 - m rv 50,000 Advance waming signs, raised crosswalk, -Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, advance yield marking and Danish offset police enforcement, advance yield marking 50.000 and Danish offset ■D CD I. <= 10.000 I n C/) Advance wammg signs, raised crosswalk, Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, C/) advance yield marking and Damsh offset advance yield marking and Danish offset n 10.000 - 25.000 ID. 25,000- m r v 50,000 Advance warning signs, raised crosswalk, -Vdvance warning signs, raised crosswalk, advance yield marking and Danish offset police enforcement, adv ance yield markmg n > 50.000 and Danish offset Decision Support Tree to Address Failure to Yield at Mid-block Locations on Urban Arterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) W F unctional Contribnfiug Age ADT Potential Countermeasures 3o" Class Facfor group 0 I n 3 Urban I. *--= 10,000 Median refuge and Danish offset Median refuge and Damsh offset CD Artenal 0-18 Pedestnan Midblock 8 in n . 10,000- m rv roadway 25.000 Median refuge and Danish offset Median refiige and Danish offset ci' Pedestnan 3 " in the in . 25,000 - trapped in 50,000 1 the middle 3 / improper r\-.> 50,000 CD usage o f crosswalk "n c 3. I .' = 10,000 I II 3 " 18-54 Median refiige and Danish offset Median refuge and Danish offset CD n 10,000- CD 25,000 ■D i n r v O n i 25.000 - Median refuge and Danish offset Median refiige and Danish offset Q. 50,000 C a O r v > 50.000 3 ■D O 1. <= 10,000 1 n Median refuge and Danish offset Median refuge and Damsh offset CD 54-65 n. 10,000- Q. 25,000 in . 25,000 - m rv 50.000 Median refiige and Danish offset Median refuge and Danish offset ■D n > 50,000 CD C/) C/) I. - 10,000 I II Median refiige and Danish offset Median refuge and Danish offset >= 65 II. 10,000 - 25,000 m r v ni. 25,000- Median refuge and Danish offset Median refuge and Danish offset 50 non r\ > 50,000 Decision Support Tree to Address Pedestrian Trapped in the Middle at Mid-block Locations on Urban Aiterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) W Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures 3o" Class Factor group O I II Urban I. <= 10.000 In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish Artenal 0-lS offset offset Uncontrolled Midblock 8 pedestrian n . 10.000- population 25.000 r a rv ci' In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish m . 25.000 - offset, advance waming sign for motorists offset, advance warning sign for motorists 50,000 rv. > 50,000 3 I. <= 10.000 I n 3" 18- In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish (D 54 n . 10,000- offset offset (D 25,000 T3 r a rv O in. 25,000- In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish Q. 50,000 C a s offset, advance waming sign for motorists offset, advance wammg sign for motorists a It' > 50,000 3o T3 O I n I <= 10.000 lu-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish offset offset (D n . 10,000- Q. 54- 65 25,000 r a n In-roadwav knock down signs and Danish In-roadwav knock down signs and Danish m . 25.000 - offset and advance waming sign for offset and advance warning sign for 50,000 motorists motorists rv . > 50,000 T3 (D (/) I, <= 10,000 I II (/) In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish n . 10,000- offset offset 25,000 r a . 25,000 - r a rv 50 000 In-roadway knock down signs and Danish In-roadway knock down signs and Danish IV > 50,000 offset and advance warning sign for offset and advance wammg sign for motorists motorists Decision Support Tree to Address Uucontrolled Pedestrian Population at Mid-block Locations on Urban .Arterials CD ■D O Q. C g Q. ■D CD C/) C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I II Urban I <:= 10,000 High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, Arterial Inattentive warning for pedestrians to look for vehicles Midbiock 8 pedestrians U. 10,000- 25.000 m n (O' High risibility crosswalk, raised High visibihty crosswalk, raised crosswalk, n i. 2 5 .0 0 0 - crosswalk, warning for pedestrians to look warning for pedestrians to look for vehicles and 50,000 for vehicles and warning sign for drivers ads ance warning sign for drivers n*. > 50,000 I II 3. I • = 10,000 High visibihty crosswalk and raised High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, 3 " crosswalk warning sign for pedestrians to look for CD II 10,000- vehicles 25,000 ■DCD m IV O III 2 5 ,0 0 0 - High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, High visibihty crosswalk, raised crosswalk, Q. ON 50,000 warning sign for pedestrians to look for warning sign for pedestrians to look for C ON vehicles, warning sign for drivers vehicles, advance warning sign for drivers a IV > 50,000 3o "O I II o I '<= 10.000 High visibility crosswalk and raised High visibihty crosswalk, raised crosswalk, crosswalk warning sign for pedestrians to look for n 10.000- vehicles CD 25.000 Q. m n m . 25.000- Higli visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, High visibihty crosswalk, raised crosswalk, 50,000 warning sign for pedestrians to look for warning sign for pedestrians to look for vehicles and warning sign for drivers vehicles and advance warning sign for • 50.000 drivers ■D CD I II I. ‘'= 10.000 High visibihty crosswalk, raised crosswalk High visibihty crosswalk, raised crosswalk, C/) and median refuge warning sign for pedestrians to look for C/) n . 10,000- vehicles and Danish offset 25.000 m IV m . 25 .0 0 0 - High V isibihty crosswalk, raised crosswalk, High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, nm warning sign for pedestrians to look for warning sign for pedestrians to look for vehicles warning sign for drivers, and Danish vehicles advance warning sign for drivers, rv*. > 50.000 offset and Danish offset Decision Support Tree to Address Inattentive Pedestrians at Mid-block Locations on Urban Arterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) C/) FuocHonal Contributing Âge ADT Potential Countermeasures Class Factor group I n U rb an I. <= 10,000 Wammg sign for motorists Warning sign for motorists, higli visibility A rterial Inattentive crosswalk, crossing guards, police enforcement M id b io c k 8 d n v e rs II. 10,000- 25,000 ra r\ Advance warning sign for motorists, high School zone improvements, advance warning ci' n i. 25,000 - visibility crosswalk, crossing guards, sign for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, 50,000 pohce enforcement crossmg guards and pohce enforcement IV. 50,000 3 I. < = 10.000 I n 3 " Warning sign for motorists Warning sign for motorists, high visibility CD n . 10.000 crosswalk, Danish offset 25,000 ■DCD m n ’ m . 25.000- Advance wammg sign for motorists, high Advance warning sign for motoruts, high O 50.000 Q. ON visibility crosswalk, and Damsh offset visibility crosswalk, and Danish offset C a 50.000 O 3 ■D I II O I. -:= 10.000 Advance warning sign for motorists, high Advance warning sign for motorists, high visibility crosswalk visibility crosswalk, Danish offset n . 10.000- CD 25,000 m n Q. Advance wammg sign for motorists, higli Advance warning sign for motorists, high m 25.000- visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement and visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement, 50.000 Danish offset Danish offset 50,000 ■D CD I n I. <= 10,000 Advance warning sign for motorists, high Advance warning sign for motorists, high C/) visibihty crosswalk visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement, C/) >= 65 n . 10,000 - Danish offset 25,000 ni. 25,000- m r \' sn non Advance warning sign for motorists, high Advance warning sign for motorists, high visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement, visibihty crosswalk, pohce enforcement, I \’, > 50,000 Danish offset Danish offset Decision Support Tree to Address Inattentive Drivers at Mid-block Locations on Urban Arterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD C/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures C/) Class Factor group I n Urban I. <= 10.000 School zone inçirovenients. warning sign School zone improvements, warning sign for A rterial 0-18 for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, motorists, high visibility crosswalk, crossing Im p ro p e r Midblock — ► crossing guards, warning sign for guards, warning sign for pedestrians to watch n . 10.000- pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles for turning vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign 8 25,000 n i n n i. 2 5 ,0 0 0 - School zone improvements, warning sign School zone improvements, warning sign for ci' 50,000 for motorists, high visibility crosswalk, motorists, high visibility crosswalk, crossing crossing guards, warning sign for guards, wanung sign for pedestrians to watch n > 50,000 pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles, for turning vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign ITS no RTOR sign I. •— 10,000 I n 3 IS- Warning sign for motorists, warning sign for Warning sign for motorists, warning sign for 3" 54 n . 10,000- pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles (D 25.000 m n (D ni. 25,000- T3 Advance w arning sign for motorists, warning Advance wammg sign for motorists, warning O 50,000 sign for pedestrian to watch for turamg sign for pedestrian to watch for turning Q. ON vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign aC 00 n ' > 50.000 o 3 I n T3 I. <= 10,000 Advance warning sign for motorists, waming Advance warning sign for motorists, waming O sign for pedestrian to watch for tiiming sign for pedestrian to watch for turning n. 10,000 - vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles. ITS no RTOR siaii 54- 25,000 m TV’ (D 65 Advance waming sign for motorists, waming Advance waming sign for motorists, waming Q. m 25 ,0 0 0 - sign for pedestrian to watch for turning sign for pedestrian to watch for turning 50,000 vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign TV, > 50,000 T3 I n (D I, ;= 10,000 Advance wammg sign for motorists, waming Advance waming sign for motorists, waming sign for pedestrian to watch for turning sign for pedestrian to watch for turning (/) n . 10,000- vehicles. ITS no RTOR sign vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign (/) 25 000 i n 25,000- m TV in nnn .Advance waming sign for motorists, waming Advance wammg sign for motorists, waming sign for pedestrian to watch for turning sign for pedestrian to w'atch for tuming r \ > 50.000 vehicles, ITS no RTOR sign veliicles. ITS no RTOR sign Decision .Support Tree to -Address Improper Turning at Mid-block Locations on Urban Arterials CD ■D O Q. C 8 Q. ■D CD WC/) Functional Contributing Age ADT Potential Countermeasures 3o" Class Factor group O U rb an I. 10,000 I 3 A rterial 0-18 II CD Pedestrians Crossing guards, auditory pedestrian signal Crossmg guards, advance warning sign for Midblock 8 with n. 10,000- motorists, auditory pedestrian signal disabilities 25,000 ra I\, ci' in . 25,000 - Crossing guards, adi-ance waming sign for Crossmg guards, advance waming sign for 50,000 motorists, auditory pedestrian signal motorists, auditory pedestrian signal O I \’. > 50,000 3. I. •:= 10.000 I n 3 " 18- Auditory pedestrian signal Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory CD 54 n , 10,000- pedestrian signal 25,000 CD m rv ■D ni. 25,000- Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory O 50,000 Q. pedestrian signal pedestrian signal C a n - ^ 50,000 O 3 I n ■D I,<= 10,000 Advance wammg sign for motorists, auditory Advance wammg sign for motorists, auditory O pedestrian signal pedestrian signal II 10,000- 25,000 CD 54- III rv Q. 65 Advance wammg sign for motorists, auditory Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory n i, 25,000 - pedestrian signal pedestrian signal 50,000 IV. > 50,000 ■D CD I n I, < := 10,000 .Auditors' pedestrian signal Advance waming sign for motorists, auditory C/) pedestnan signal n 10.000 - C/) HI rv 65 25,000 .Advance wanung sign for motorists, auditory Advance warning sign for motorists, auditory m . 25,000- snnm pedestnan signal pedestrian signal IV. > 50.000 Decision Support Tree to .A.ddress Pedestrians with Disabilities at Mid-block Locations on Urban Arterials VITA Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas Madhuri Uddaraju Local Address: 6930 S Paradise Road, # 2074 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Home Address: Flat C-2, Sri Ramakrishna Building, Sarpavaram Junction, Kakinada Andhra Pradesh, India 533003 Degrees: Bachelor of Technology, Civil Engineering, 2003 Jawaharlal Technological University, Kakinada Andhra Pradesh, India - 533003 Publications: Methods to Rank High Pedestrian Crash Locations, a research paper presented at the 84**’ Annual Transportation Meeting of Transportation Research Board at Washington D C, January, 2005. Co-author is Dr. Srinivas Pulugurtha. Thesis Title: A Decision Support Tool to Identify Countermeasures for Pedestrian Safety Thesis Examination Committee: Chairperson, Dr. Shashi Nambisan, Ph.D. Committee Member; Dr. Mohamed Kaseko, Ph.D Committee Member; Dr. Srinivas Pulugurtha, Ph.D Graduate Faculty Representative, Dr. Ashok Singh, Ph.D. 170 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.