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. Published reports of the Joint Transportation Research Program are available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/ NOTICE DepartmentThe contents of of Transportation this report reflect or the the Federal views of Highway the authors, Administration. who are responsible The report for does the not facts constitute and the accuracya standard, of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Indiana specification, or regulation. COPYRIGHT Copyright 2015 by Purdue University. All rights reserved. Print ISBN: 978-1-62260-342-8 ePUB ISBN: 978-1-62260-343-5 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/IN/JTRP‐2015/03 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Selection of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments at Controlled and Uncontrolled Locations January 2015 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Suleiman Ashur, Mohammad Alhassan FHWA/IN/JTRP‐2015/03 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Joint Transportation Research Program Purdue University 550 Stadium Mall Drive West Lafayette, IN 47907‐2051 11. Contract or Grant No. SPR‐3723 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Indiana Department of Transportation State Office Building Final Report 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Designers and traffic engineers have to make decisions on selecting a pedestrian treatment whenever designing a new pedestrian facility or retrofitting an existing one. The goal is either to provide or improve pedestrian safety at pedestrian crossing facilities, including controlled locations of signalized intersections and approaches with stop and yield signs, and uncontrolled locations of intersections and midblock sites. Currently, the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) has limited resources on pedestrian treatment selection that does not take into consideration key elements such as number of lanes and the existence of a raised median. Therefore, there is a need to find a more detailed and comprehensive approach to providing guidelines when deciding on a pedestrian crossing treatment. The approach has to be practical and can be easily utilized by traffic and design engineers, planners, and other constituents. Most of the State DOTs developed their guidelines on pedestrian crossing treatment based on several resources. However, the 2002 FHWA‐RD‐01‐075 study titled “Safety Effects of Marked Vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations” was adopted by several states either “as is,” with some modifications, or referenced as a source on pedestrian crosswalk selection. State DOTs mainly use standards and guidelines from the National MUTCD, Part 3 and NCHRP Report 672 for roundabout crosswalk markings. In general, there are no clear warrants for grade separation treatment. In addition, there is a need for a national and comprehensive study to develop practical guidelines on pedestrian crossing treatments, especially on multilane roadways, complex intersections, and when the speed is 45 mph or more. This study proposed guidelines on crosswalk markings and treatment selection of pedestrian crossings based on a synthesis of federal and state reports, guidelines, design manuals, polices, and other relevant publications. It is recommended to adopt these guidelines as a reference for pedestrian treatment selection at INDOT. The results of a survey on pedestrian crossing treatments indicate that the most effective and most frequently used treatments by the different states represented in the survey are advanced signs, crosswalk signs and pavement markings, countdown displays at signalized intersections, curb extensions, high‐visibility signs and markings, and median refuge islands. The least effective and least frequently used treatments are automated detection, in‐roadway warning lights, overhead flashing beacons (passive), pedestrian crossing flags, pedestrian railings, and split midblock signals. In addition, the main recommendation on high‐speed divided highway pedestrian crossings is to provide enough time for pedestrian to cross the entire width of the intersection without a median whenever there is a demand. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement pedestrian crossing treatments, controlled pedestrian crossing, uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, marked crosswalks, midblock No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the crossing, high‐speed divided highway pedestrian crossing, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. marked and unmarked crosswalks, controlled and uncontrolled locations 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 55 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8‐69) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . There is a need for a national and comprehensive study to develop practical guidelines on pedestrian crossing treatments, especially SELECTION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING on multilane roadways, complex intersections, and when the speed TREATMENTS AT CONTROLLED AND is 45 mph or more. UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS A survey was conducted online on pedestrian crossing treatments and high-speed divided highways and a total of 21 subjects completed the survey fully. The results of the survey indicate that the treatments most frequently used by the different states Introduction represented in the survey are advanced signs, crosswalk signs and Designers and traffic engineers have to make decisions on selecting a pavement markings, countdown displays at signalized pedestrian treatment whenever designing a new pedestrian facility or intersection, high-visibility signs and markings, curb extensions, retrofitting an existing one. The goal is either to provide or improve and median refuge islands. The least frequently used treatments pedestrian safety at pedestrian crossing facilities, including controlled include in-roadway warning lights, pedestrian railings, overhead locations of signalized intersections and approaches with stop and yield flashing beacons (passive), split midblock signals, and pedestrian crossing flags. signs, and uncontrolled locations of intersections and midblock sites. Currently, the only source of pedestrian treatment selection for Indiana The top choices among all subjects for future treatments were Department of Transportation (INDOT) is 51–7 O in the INDOT countdown displays at signalized intersection, crosswalk signs and (2013) Design Manual. The information in the current is general, pavement markings, high-visibility signs and markings, and limited, and does not take into consideration key elements such as the median refuge islands. The least frequently selected treatments for number of lanes and the existence of a raised median. Therefore, there is future projects were in-roadway warning lights and pedestrian crossing flags. a need to find a more detailed and comprehensive approach to providing . guidelines when deciding on a pedestrian crossing treatment. The The top five most effective pedestrian treatments ranked by approach has to be practical and can be easily utilized by traffic and subjects are countdown displays at signalized intersections, design engineers, planners, and other constituents.