DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway Measures: a Summary of Available Research April 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway Measures: a Summary of Available Research April 2014 Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway Measures: A Summary of Available Research April 2014 Jill Mead Charlie Zegeer Max Bushell For: Federal Highway Administration DTFH61-11-H-00024 www.pedbikeinfo.org Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Section 1: Along the Roadway ................................................................................................................... 10 Section 1.1: Sidewalks, Walkways, and Paved Shoulders ...................................................................... 10 References ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Section 1.2: Street Furniture/Walking Environment ........................................................................... 12 Section 2: At Crossing Locations ............................................................................................................... 12 Section 2.1: Curb Ramps ........................................................................................................................ 12 Section 2.2: Marked Crosswalks and Enhancements ............................................................................. 12 Marked Crosswalks ............................................................................................................................ 12 References ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Crosswalk Enhancements ................................................................................................................... 22 References ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Section 2.3: Curb Extensions ................................................................................................................. 27 References ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Section 2.4: Crossing Islands .................................................................................................................. 29 References ........................................................................................................................................... 33 Section 2.5: Raised Pedestrian Crossings............................................................................................... 34 References ........................................................................................................................................... 35 Section 2.6: Roadway Lighting Improvements ...................................................................................... 35 References ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Section 2.7: Parking Restrictions ........................................................................................................... 37 Section 2.8: Pedestrian Overpasses/Underpasses ................................................................................. 37 References ........................................................................................................................................... 38 Section 2.9: Automated Pedestrian Detection ....................................................................................... 38 References ........................................................................................................................................... 41 Section 2.10: Leading Pedestrian Intervals............................................................................................ 41 www.pedbikeinfo.org 2 References ........................................................................................................................................... 44 Section 2.11: Advanced Stop Lines & Yield Markings .......................................................................... 45 Section 3: Transit ....................................................................................................................................... 45 References ........................................................................................................................................... 45 Section 3.1: Transit Stop Improvements ............................................................................................... 46 Section 3.2: Access to Transit ................................................................................................................ 46 Section 3.3: Bus Bulbouts ....................................................................................................................... 46 Section 4: Roadway Design ........................................................................................................................ 46 Section 4.1: Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................. 46 References ........................................................................................................................................... 46 Section 4.2: Lane Narrowing (Lane Diets) ............................................................................................. 46 Section 4.3: Lane Reduction (Road Diets) .............................................................................................. 47 References ........................................................................................................................................... 49 Section 4.4: Driveway Improvements .................................................................................................... 49 Section 4.5: Raised Medians ................................................................................................................... 49 Section 4.6: One-Way/Two-Way Street Conversions .......................................................................... 49 Section 4.7: Access Management Design Solutions ............................................................................... 49 Section 4.8: Improved Right-Turn Slip Lane Design ............................................................................ 49 Section 5: Intersection Design ................................................................................................................... 50 Section 5.1: Roundabouts ....................................................................................................................... 50 Visually-Impaired Pedestrians at Roundabouts ................................................................................. 51 Section 5.2: Modified T-Intersections .................................................................................................... 56 Section 5.3: Intersection Median Barriers .............................................................................................. 56 Section 5.4: Curb Radius Reduction ....................................................................................................... 56 Section 5.5: Skewed Intersections .......................................................................................................... 56 Section 5.6: Pedestrian Accommodations at Complex Intersections..................................................... 56 Section 6: Traffic Calming .......................................................................................................................... 56 Section 6.0: Comprehensive Traffic Calming ......................................................................................... 56 References ........................................................................................................................................... 60 Section 6.1: Chokers ............................................................................................................................... 60 Section 6.2: Chicanes .............................................................................................................................. 60 Section 6.3: Mini Circles ......................................................................................................................... 60 www.pedbikeinfo.org 3 Section 6.4: Speed Humps....................................................................................................................... 60 References ........................................................................................................................................... 61 Section 6.5: Speed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Traffic Calming Fact Sheets May 2018 Update Speed Table/Raised Crosswalks
    Traffic Calming Fact Sheets May 2018 Update Speed Table/Raised Crosswalks Description: • Long, raised speed humps with a flat section in the middle and ramps on the ends; sometimes constructed with brick or other textured materials on the flat section • If placed at a pedestrian crossing, it is referred to as a raised crosswalk • If placed only in one direction on a road, it is called an offset speed table Applications: • Appropriate for local and collector streets; mid-block or at intersections, with/without crosswalks • Can be used on a one-lane one-way or two-lane two-way street • Not appropriate for roads with 85th percentile speeds of 45 mph or more • Typically long enough for the entire wheelbase of a passenger car to rest on top or within limits of ramps • Work well in combination with textured crosswalks, curb extensions, and curb radius reductions • Can be applied both with and without sidewalks or dedicated bicycle facilities • Typically installed along closed-section roads (i.e. curb and gutter) but feasible on open section (Source: Google Maps, Boulder, Colorado) (Source: Delaware Department of Transportation) ITE/FHWA Traffic Calming EPrimer: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/traffic_calm.cfm Design/Installation Issues: • ITE recommended practice – “Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps” • Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches (reported as high as 6 inches) • Ramps are typically 6 feet long (reported up to 10 feet long) and are either parabolic or linear • Careful design is needed for drainage
    [Show full text]
  • Download The
    DEVELOPMENT OF AN AGENT BASED SIMULATION MODEL FOR PEDESTRIAN INTERACTIONS by MOHAMED HUSSEIN B.Sc., Ain Shams University, 2004 M.Sc., Ain Shams University, 2010 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Civil Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2016 © Mohamed Hussein, 2016 Abstract Developing a solid understanding of pedestrian behavior is important for promoting walking as an active mode of transportation and enhancing pedestrian safety. Computer simulation of pedestrian dynamics has gained recent interest as an important tool in analyzing pedestrian behavior in many applications. As such, this thesis presents the details of the development of a microscopic simulation model that is capable of modeling detailed pedestrian interactions. The model was developed based on the agent-based modeling approach, which outperforms other existing modeling approaches in accounting for the heterogeneity of the pedestrian population and considering the pedestrian intelligence. Key rules that control pedestrian interactions in the model were extracted from a detailed pedestrian behavior study that was conducted using an automated computer vision platform, developed at UBC. The model addressed both uni-directional and bi- directional pedestrian interactions. A comprehensive methodology for calibrating model parameters and validating its results was proposed in the thesis. Model parameters that could be measured from the data were directly calibrated from actual pedestrian trajectories, acquired by means of computer vision. Other parameters were indirectly calibrated using a Genetic Algorithm that aimed at minimizing the error between actual and simulated trajectories. The validation showed that the average error between actual and simulated trajectories was 0.35 meters.
    [Show full text]
  • Know Your Crossings INFORMATION SHEET Facts to Share Puffins, Zebras, Toucans, Pelicans and Equestrian Are All Different Types of Pedestrian Crossings
    Know your crossings INFORMATION SHEET Facts to Share Puffins, zebras, toucans, pelicans and equestrian are all different types of pedestrian crossings. There are also traffic islands and school crossings where you may find a patrol officer who will help school children cross the road. Zebra crossing Puffin crossing The name zebra comes from the black and white stripes The name puffin comes from pedestrian on the road. They have: user friendly intelligence. • Flashing yellow beacons on black and white • Similar to pelican crossings but striped poles. instead of a green and red figure being on the other side of the road, they are next • Zig zag lines approaching the crossing. to you above the push button. • No traffic lights or ‘green figure’ to show when • They have motion detectors to know when someone is waiting to cross and Push button to cross. Wait for signal when they have reached the other side Safety tips of the road. • Because a zebra crossing does not have any traffic Toucan Push button lights or green figure, it is up to the pedestrian to Wait for signal look and listen all around for traffic, to make sure all The name toucan is based on the fact that the traffic has stopped and that it’s safe to cross. ‘two can cross’ - because these are joint pedestrian and cycle crossings. • Zebra crossings with an island in the middle should be treated as two separate crossings. • Similar to puffin crossings, a red and green cycle signal is given, as well as a red and green figure signal, as they allow both cyclists and pedestrians to cross.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Streets Safe
    About WalkBoston WalkBoston plays an important role ensuring walker- CHICANE TREES BIKE friendly/safe designs and has an impressive record LANES of getting cities, towns, state agencies, developers, RAISED institutions, and elected officials to provide for the CROSSWALK needs of walkers. Every additional member helps our message be heard. Join online at walkboston.org. We work to transform communities into more walkable CURB places and reintroduce people to walking as a con- EXTENSION venient, healthy and low-cost transportation choice. People who depend on walking most: lower income, elders, children, people with disabilities, and transit PARKED users especially benefit from our advocacy. CARS SPEED How we can help you CUSHION • Advise on walking improvements for your community. MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK • Provide guidance, moral support, technical assistance. making • Give a variety of presentations on pedestrian design and advocacy. Speed Kills: Small-scale fixes go a long way to slow traffic • Help set up advocacy groups and strengthen them. • Demonstrate how these techniques are working streets The human costs and economic consequences of The tools can be small in scale, relatively inexpensive, across Massachusetts and elsewhere. speed-related crashes are immense. In 2007, about and are easily tested and evaluated. Streets can be 31 percent of all fatal crashes were speeding-related, made safer by putting them on a “road diet,” reducing safe resulting in 13,420 fatalities. In Massachusetts, 15 to speeds and enhancing pedestrian safety. Techniques Thanks to our supporters 20 percent of all road fatality victims are pedestrians. include signage, pavement devices and paint. Physically Nationwide, the economic cost to society of speed- or visually narrowing a standard width lane by 1 foot Striders ing-related crashes is estimated to be $40.4 billion slows cars by 7 miles per hour.
    [Show full text]
  • "Judicial Corruption"
    16/06/2017 Gmail - "JUDICIAL CORRUPTION" William Finnerty <[email protected]> "JUDICIAL CORRUPTION" William Finnerty <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:10 PM To: "First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster LL.B. MLA" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Northern Ireland Justice Department, Case Ref: COR/1248/2016" <private.office@justice- ni.x.gsi.gov.uk>, Northern Ireland Justice Minister Claire Sugden MLA <[email protected]>, Northern Ireland Minister For Finance Máirtín Ó Muilleoir MLA <[email protected]>, Northern Ireland Minister for Health Michelle O'Neill MLA <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Lawyer Paul J. O'Kane LL.B." <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Aoife McShane LL.B." <[email protected]>, Lawyer Rory McShane <[email protected]>, Lawyer Mary Doherty <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Ronan McGuigan, LL.B. Solicitor Advocate" <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Jacqueline Malone LL.B. Solicitor Advocate" <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Louise Moley LL.B." <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Ann Marie Featherstone LL.B. LL.M." <[email protected]>, Sheila McGuigan <[email protected]>, McGuigan Malone Solicitors <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Ronan Haughey of ML White Solicitors Ltd, Newry, Northern Ireland" <[email protected]>, "John Mackell, Director of Client (Solicitor)
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Four Pedestrian Facility Recommendations
    CHAPTER FOUR PEDESTRIAN FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter recommends two types of Recommendations included in this chapter are infrastructure improvements: planning-level design concepts. This means that the recommendations are guided by the »» Design concepts for six example plan goals and informed by existing conditions, locations; and prioritized missing best practices, and opportunities identified sidewalk links in the City. The during field work. Additional engineering example location recommendations analysis and field work is needed before show how a mix of treatments can proceeding with project implementation. improve the pedestrian network in a defined area. Recommended Example Locations treatments include sidewalks, pedestrian crossing facilities, and bus Six locations were identified for field work in stop improvements. order to develop conceptual recommendations »» A prioritized list of sidewalk projects. to improve pedestrian safety and comfort. Sidewalk projects are scored and These “example locations” were identified from ranked using the new method several sources, including the demand and recommended in Chapter 3. needs analysis, public input, and input from the City’s technical team. Appendix C provides 76 DECEMBER 2012 sample comments from CommunityWalk of the design concepts are described in around each example location. Chapter 3, Best Practices, Design Standards and Sidewalks. Overall, recommended design The example locations are typical of pedestrian concepts are intended to achieve one or more of conditions in many areas of the City. Thus, the following objectives: these design concepts recommended can be applied elsewhere in the City. The example locations are not in any priority order. Many Ensure ADA compliance. Ensure sufficient crossing time. All sidewalks and intersection features meet Adjust signal timing to ensure pedestrians have at standards set by PROWAAG, NCDOT and the City of least 3.5 feet per second to cross the street.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Safety on Rural Highways
    FHWA-SA-04-008 September 2004 Technical Report Pedestrian Safety on Rural Highways Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-SA-04-008 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date (Update) Pedestrian Safety on Rural Highways September 2004 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Written By 8. Performing Organization Report No. J. W. Hall, J. D. Brogan, and M. Kondreddi 9. Performing Organization Name and Address (Update Report) 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Civil Engineering, MSC01 1070 University of New Mexico 11. Contract or Grant No. Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes AOTR: D. Smith (HSA-30); T. Redmon (HSA-20); 16. Abstract Although pedestrian fatalities have decreased by 16 percent over the past decade, the United States experienced nearly 4,749 pedestrian fatalities in 2003. The conventional wisdom has been that this is primarily an urban problem, where pedestrians are subject to numerous conflicts with vehicular traffic. The fact that 28 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur in rural areas has largely been ignored, despite the fact that pedestrian impacts in rural areas, while relatively rare, are much more likely to result in fatalities or serious injuries. The research described in this paper sought to identify the characteristics of rural pedestrian fatalities in ten states with above-average rates of rural 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Streets FACT SHEET 2.0
    Complete Streets FACT SHEET 2.0 Since the NYSAMPO Complete Streets Fact Sheet was published in 2012, additional needs have been identified. They are addressed in this addendum. The original Complete Streets Fact Sheet can be found at www.nysmpos.org MORE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE HOW CAN COMPLETE STREETS BE IMPLEMENTED ADOPTED COMPLETE STREETS IN SIMPLIFIED PAVING PROJECTS? ORDINANCES AND POLICIES A focus on managing infrastructure assets at a time of A number of additional New limited capital funding has resulted in many jurisdictions, York municipalities have officially from local to State, doing simplified or maintenance paving recognized the importance of work. Such projects may entail a simple overlay, or mill and considering Complete Streets resurfacing, and is generally limited to “working between elements in street design and the curbs or shoulders”. road improvement projects Complete Streets necessarily reflect their location. through the adoption of local ordinances or policies. Most use An urban street that is curbed will require different language that is similar in content treatments than a suburban or rural roadway that has paved to the New York State law. shoulders but no sidewalks. There is no single approach to designing Complete Streets. Since any list is quickly outdated, readers are referred to the New While this places limits on the range of Complete Streets elements that can be employed, there is still a great deal York State Department of that can be done. Often changing pavement markings Transportation’s Complete alone can improve the experience of all roadway users. Streets web page: There are other low cost improvements that may be outside the scope of simplified paving, but worthy of consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Safety Act of 1973
    * * PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY STUDY Highway Safety Act of 1973 * (Section 214) Of T t ^. STATES Of a^ * MARCH 1975 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY * ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 * PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY STUDY Highway Safety Act of 1973 (Section 214) MARCH 1975 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 CONTENTS Page SECTION I: SYNOPSIS A. Introduction .............................................. 1 B. Executive Summary ......................................... 2 C. Background .............................................. 4 D. Study Methodology ......................................... 7 E. Congressional Recommendations ................................ 12 SECTION II: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Introduction .............................................. 13 A. Review and Evaluation of State and Local Ordinances, Regulations, and Laws Pertaining to Pedestrian Safety .................................. 14 B. Review and Evaluation of Enforcement Policies, Procedures, Methods, Practices and Capabilities for Enforcing Pedestrian Rules ................ 35 C. Relationship Between Alcohol and Pedestrian Safety ................... 36 D. Evaluation of Ways and Means of Improving Pedestrian Safety Programs ...... 43 E. Analysis of Present Funding Allocation of Pedestrian Safety Programs and an Assessment of the Capabilities of Federal, State and Local Governments to Fund Such Activities and Programs .................... 45 F. Findings ................................................59
    [Show full text]
  • Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3)
    Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3) Email Comment Topic Comment # The recommendations in this submission expand on this principle and support the overall Transportation Action Plan goals of designing transportation to achieve the aims of Minneapolis 2040, address climate change, reduce traffic fatalities and injuries, and improve racial and economic equity. In line with these goals, our most significant recommendations for the Prospect Park area are to • Invest in the protected bike network: extending the Greenway over the River, and building the Prospect Park Trail along railroad right-of- way • Transform University Avenue and Washington Avenues • Complete the Grand Rounds and use the Granary corridor to redirect truck traffic Priorities for transportation improvements in Prospect Park 1. Improve pedestrian infrastructure throughout the community including safe crossings of University Avenue SE (Bedford, Malcolm, 29th and 27th), Franklin Avenue SE (Bedford, Seymour) and 27th Avenue SE (Essex, Luxton Park to Huron pedestrian overpass). We encourage the city to narrow residential intersections, particularly in Bicycling, the Tower Hill sub-neighborhood where streets do not meet at right Walking, 1 angles, and crossing distances are significantly longer than needed. Additional Planters and plastic delineators could be used to achieve this ahead of Comments reconstruction. Maintenance and improvements should focus on public safety, adequate lighting and landscape upkeep. Throughout the neighborhood residents have cited safety (particularly at night), sidewalk disrepair, narrowness, snow and ice issues, and have expressed support for full ADA compliance. 2. Complete the Minneapolis Grand Rounds and the Granary Corridor (see Map 2) to enhance community access to city and regional parks and trails as well as to adjoining neighborhoods.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments at Controlled and Uncontrolled Locations
    JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PURDUE UNIVERSITY Selection of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments at Controlled and Uncontrolled Locations Suleiman Ashur Mohammad Alhassan SPR-3723 • Report Number: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2015/03 • DOI: 10.5703/1288284315522 RECOMMENDED CITATION Ashur, S., & Alhassan, M. (2015). Selection of pedestrian crossing treatments at controlled and uncontrolled locations (Joint Transportation Research Program Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2015/03). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315522 AUTHORS Suleiman Ashur, PhD, PE Professor of Civil Engineering and Program Coordinator Department of Engineering Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne (260) 481-6080 [email protected] Corresponding Author Mohammad Alhassan, PhD Associate Professor of Civil Engineering and Program Coordinator Department of Engineering Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would acknowledge the help and support provided by the following individuals throughout the study: served as the Project Administrator; and the SAC committee members: Michael Holowaty, Jessica Kruger, and Greg RichardsDana Plattner, from INDOT,who requested Rick Drumm the study from andthe FHWA, served and as the Hardisk Business Shah Owner; from American Shuo Li of Structurepoint, INDOT’s Research Inc. The Office, authors who also acknowledge the assistance of the following students: Jerry Brown, Allee Carlasgrad, Austin Eichman, Elizabeth McClamrock, and Paul Robinson. The authors are thankful for the assistance of Naseera Azad in proofreading the draft of the report. JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM The Joint Transportation Research Program serves as a vehicle for INDOT collaboration with higher education institutions and industry in Indiana to facilitate innovation that results in continuous improvement in the planning, https://engineering.purdue.edu/JTRP/index_html design, construction, operation, management and economic efficiency of the Indiana transportation infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Economic Review 2015
    STUDENT ECONOMIC REVIEW 2015 UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN TRINITY COLLEGE PRESIDENT Professor John o’h agan DePartment of economics , t rinity college Dublin PATRONS Professor PhiliP lane heaD of DePartment of economics , t rinity college Dublin Drtara mitchell DePartment of economics , t rinity college Dublin Dr ronan lyons DePartment of economics , t rinity college Dublin Dr michael Wycherley DePartment of economics , t rinity college Dublin i THE STUDENT ECONOMIC REVIEW VOL . XXIX Published by the student economic review, c/o Department of economics, trinity college, Dublin 2 republic of ireland. all rights reserved. copyright © contributors to the student economic review 2015 all views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or sponsors. this journal claims no special rights or privileges. all correspondence or complaints should be addressed to: the editor, student economic review, c/o Department of economics, trinity college, Dublin 2, republic of ireland. Printed by brunswick Press ltd. the ser logo was created by Paul Kenny in 2003. Photography by andrew murphy, aisling crabbe and gearóid gibbs cover by séamus o’beirne the student economic review is also available online at http://www.tcd.ie/economics/ser ii SPONSORS THE STUDENT ECONOMIC REVIEW WOULD LIKE TO SINCERELY THANK ALL OF OUR SPONSORS FOR THEIR CONTINUED SUPPORT MAIN SPONSORS mr harry hartforD mrVinay nair SPONSORS mr alan gray borD na móna ms aoife cunningham iii THE STUDENT ECONOMIC REVIEW VOL . XXIX THE STUDENT ECONOMIC
    [Show full text]