.‘.. . u; ‘ z Fawmfik u __ Vwrxmafiimwg 36.... Lu...» :fifisflvmn. ”mart... .la 9... :1...‘ 322. .1. . I: w , .- .L hxtidtz! :. $.i . £55: .245; 1. {6t Lam . ..... ...‘-..l :‘i. . :1 . 7p |~lv§n ””01 q. . .13.}? 1 2.... 31d 21,... 5‘ .1311: .a)|......:.)£tlu 2.39.: {It}; . 31‘: in! .f. 23:51?! .8); «A .3 1.. 3.1.. I. it}... .a: 3, {4‘ r)‘ J J (in... T SSSSS ‘IMWWWWWI ‘ 02048 4097 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 11m Wan-9059.14 EVALUATION OF D9330? EVALUATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT By Darcin Akin A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2000 EVALUATION OF This study assesses mess-all operations. pe: ml, Operational analys- iezetrian crossing Optr; meme rale. CfOSSiI‘lg W9 vehicles at signa!;; and preferences was be demoted to polenlral USE sale “ my analysrs. pedeslrra.’ restdy corridor. Moreo we reviewed in order bhin eons. The study site u «xerard section of Grar 335613 in dOWnlown Eas ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT BY Darcin Akin This study assesses pedestrian crossing options from the perspectives of crosswalk operations, pedestrian perceptions and preferences, and pedestrian safety. Operational analyses assisted in the determination of the effectiveness of pedestrian crossing options through the estimation of pedestrian crossing compliance rate, crossing time, level of service, and pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles at signalized intersections. The study of pedestrian perceptions and preferences was based on a user’s survey that was developed and distributed to potential users crossing a divided urban boulevard. Finally, in the safety analysis, pedestrian related crashes were reviewed and summarized for the study corridor. Moreover, historical crash data from the state of Michigan were reviewed in order to evaluate the relative safety of various crossing locations. The study site used in this research was a 1 km (0.63 mi) long divided boulevard section of Grand River Avenue (M—43) between Abbott and Bogue Streets in downtown East Lansing, Michigan. The AADT was approximately 32,000 vehicles per day in both directions. The results from the crossing compliance analysis indicate that a strong correlation exists between the presence of a positive type of traffic control and pedestrian spatial crossing compliance rate. The highest spatial crossing molance was observed Hcif'ier'. the overall CfC icssvali location and 9* ucssrialis was very low :4 its indicates that a mac: he'DONT WALK“ signal II he stgralized intersector servos of pedestrian cros The aralysis indicated that WI limes. thus refine amt for the actual co: ’iEla-ct'ons of pedestrians lien interval were ex; tetrigues. The mOdels y they responses led to :eiestnan ‘ ‘ crossing facililri compliance was observed at the signalized intersection crosswalks (83.13%). However, the overall crossing compliance rate (i.e., compliance with both crosswalk location and pedestrian WALK signal indication) at the signalized crosswalks was very low (42.98%) compared to the observed spatial compliance. This indicates that a majority of pedestrians in the study site do not comply with the “DONT WALK” signal indication. The analysis of pedestrian crossing times at the signalized intersection crosswalks allowed the evaluation of the level of service of pedestrian crossings on the basis of average space per pedestrian. The analysis indicated that existing methodologies overestimated the pedestrian crossing times, thus refinements of such methodologies are recommended to account for the actual conditions in the study corridor. In the conflict study, interactions of pedestrians with right- and left- turning vehicles sharing the same green interval were examined and modeled using regression analysis techniques. The models yielded very satisfactory results. The analysis of the survey responses led to conclusions regarding the acceptability of various pedestrian crossing facilities and treatments by users, and provided important insights into the attitudes and preferences of pedestrians using the study site. The results from the survey analysis support the notion that properly marked pedestrian crossing facilities encourage users to cross at designated crossing locations. Among the various crossing options studied, pedestrian users at the study site perceived the marked midblock crosswalks the most favorable. The crash data at the study site was limited. Thus statistical comparisons were avoided and a detailed investigation was recommended for future research. Q It‘ll” . .y beloved wife, Van; . rig-time supporters mc' beloved princel To my beloved wife, Vahide; my loving mom and dad, Sadiye and Mehmer, my big-time supporters mother- and father-in-law, Ayfer and Mustafa; and my beloved princess and prince, Busra Zeynep and Yavuz. lwould like to ell. atisor and all-time sui'l continuous support. adv/l:- llichgall Slate Universrty ‘vg-oten and will always the academic life. My appreciation ar. trad Lth and Vince arr-tittee and for their as hell. provided significant 'exnmendations. I also v “t Deianment of Civil :rc‘essional help and frier l‘r stay here. Last but not least. I it “at " .i ride. Without her her of my two beloved c I also would like to tartal’y supporting the Millie .. to express m :rrwr ”kw-e ' to the Higher E 33W. ."N'i t6d my five years of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my advisor and all—time supporter Dr. Virginia P. Sisiopiku for her invaluable continuous support, advice and guidance throughout my doctoral education at Michigan State University (MSU). My experience with Dr. Sisiopiku will never be forgotten and will always be remembered as an invaluable experience in my future academic life. My appreciation and gratitude are also extended to Drs. Thomas Maleck, Richard Lyles and Vincent Melfi for serving as members of the guidance committee and for their assistance and professional suggestions. Drs. Lyles and Melfi provided significant contributions to this dissertation with their ideas and recommendations. I also would like to thank the faculty, staff and my friends in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering for offering their professional help and friendship, and for making MSU my second home during my stay here. Last but not least, I would like to express my love and appreciation to my wife, Vahide. Without her love, patience, and constant support as a wife and mother of my two beloved children, I could not have finished this endeavor. I also would like to thank the Michigan Department of Transportation for financially supporting the data collection and analysis of this study. Finally, I would like to express my love to my country, Turkey, and its people; and my gratitude to the Higher Education Council of Turkey (YOK) and GIT, which supported my five years of stay in the US. to pursue my doctoral education. USTOF TABLES............. LIST OF FIGURES ........... LIST OF ABBREVIATION CHAPTER 1 ..................... INTRODUCTION .......... 1.1. Site Description .. 1.2. Study DescriptiOr 1.3. Scope. Purpose 1.4. Contributions of 1 CHAPTERZ..................... OTERATURE REVIEW 2.1. introduction ........ 2.2. Operational Stud TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................. xiv CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 1.1. Site Description ...................................................................................... 2 1.2. Study Description ................................................................................... 4 1.3. Scope, Purpose and Objectives of the Study ......................................... 5 1.4. Contributions of the Research to the State of the Art ............................. 7 CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................... 9 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 9 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 9 2.2. Operational Studies of Pedestrian Crosswalks ...................................... 9 2.2.1. Pedestrian Compliance, Behavior and Attitudes ............................ 10 2.2.1.1. Definition of “Pedestrian Compliance” ..................................... 10 2.2.1.2. Compliance in Pedestrian Crosswalks .................................... 12 2.2.1.3. Pedestrian Behaviors and Attitudes ........................................ 13 2.2.2. Pedestrian Level of Service and Crossing Time at Signalized Crosswalks ..................................................................................... 14 2.2.2.1. Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) at Signalized Crosswalks .15 2.2.2.1 .1. Quantitative LOS of Pedestrian Facilities .......................... 15 2.2.2.1.2. Qualitative LOS of Pedestrian Facilities ............................ 18 2.2.2.2. Pedestrian Crossing Times at Signalized Crosswalks ............ 19 2.2.2.2.1. 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Models ................ 19 2.2.2.2.2. MUTCD Model .................................................................. 21 2.2.2.2.3. Pignataro Model ................................................................ 22 2.2.2.2.4. Discussion ......................................................................... 22 2.2.2.2.5. lTE Model .......................................................................... 22 22.2.2.6. Virkler and Guell Model ..................................................... 23 2.2.2.2.7. Discussion ......................................................................... 24 2.2.3. Pedestrian Walking/Crossing Speed and Start-up Time ................ 25 2.2.4. Turning Vehicle Pedestrian-Conflicts and Crashes ........................ 30 2.2.4.1. Turning Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts ...................................... 30 2.2.4.2. Turning Vehicle-Pedestrian Accidents .................................... 32 2.2.5. Pedestrian Signs, Signals and Alternative Signal Schemes ........... 33 2.2.5.1. Pedestrians Signs and Signals ................................................ 33 2.2.5.2. Alternative Pedestrian Signal Schemes .................................. 38 2.3. Pedestrian Perception and Preference Studies ................................... 39 vi 2.4. Pedestrian Sale. 241. Pedestrian S.I 2.5. Summary and 0: CHAPTER 3 OPERATIONAL ANAL‘r' 0F PEDESTRIAN COP.“ 3.1. Introduction ...... 3.2. Methodology ..... 3.2.1. Crosswaik lr‘ 3.2.2. Pedestrian 0 3.2.2.1. Spatial C ' 3.2.2.2. Tempora 3.2.2.3. Overall C 3.3. Data Collection . 3.3.1. Study Sectrcr 3.3.2. Data Correctic 3.4. Analysis and Res 3.4.1. Pedestrian Cr 3.4.1.1. Marked 3. 3.4.1.2. Non-strip 3.4.1.3. Unsignat. 3.4.1.4. Signal'ze 34.1.4.1. Spat. 3.4.1.4.2. Tem; 34.1.4.3. Over 3.4.2. Observed Pic 34.3. Effects of Fe. 3.4.3.1. Elle-ct of 2.4. Pedestrian Safety Studies .................................................................... 41 2.4.1. Pedestrian Safety in Crosswalks .................................................... 43 2.5. Summary and Conclusions .................................................................. 44 CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................... 46 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OPTIONS: STUDY OF PEDESTRIAN COMPLIANCE AND BEHAVIOR ....................................... 46 3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 46 3.2. Methodology ........................................................................................ 50 3.2.1. Crosswalk Influence Area (CIA) ..................................................... 50 3.2.2. Pedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates (PCCR) ........................... 52 3.2.2.1. Spatial Crossing Compliance Rate (SCCR) ............................ 53 3.2.2.2. Temporal Crossing Compliance Rate (1’ CCR) ........................ 54 3.2.2.3. Overall Crossing Compliance Rate (OCCR) ........................... 55 3.3. Data Collection .................................................................................... 57 3.3.1. Study Sections ............................................................................... 59 3.3.2. Data Collection Dates and Times ................................................... 60 3.4. Analysis and Results ........................................................................... 65 3.4.1. Pedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates (PCCR) ........................... 65 3.4.1.1. Marked Midblock Crosswalks (MMCW) .................................. 66 3.4.1.2. Non-striped Midblock Crosswalks (NSMCW) .......................... 68 3.4.1.3. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalks (USICW) ...................... 71 3.4.1.4. Signalized Intersection Crosswalks (SICW) ............................ 73 3.4.1.4.1. Spatial Crossing Compliance Rates at the SICWs ............ 73 3.4.1.4.2. Temporal Crossing Compliance Rates at the SICWs ....... 76 3.4.1.4.3. Overall Crossing Compliance Rates at the SICWs ........... 79 3.4.2. Observed Flows on Pedestrian Paths Leading to the Crosswalks .82 3.4.3. Effects of Features of the Crosswalks on Crossing Compliance ....85 3.4.3.1. Effect of Crosswalk Markings (Stripes) on Crossing Compliance ................................................................................................ 86 3.4.3.2. Effect of Median Shelters on Crossing Compliance ................ 87 3.4.3.3. Effect of Pedestrian Signal on Crossing Compliance .............. 88 3.5. Summary and Conclusions .................................................................. 89 3.6. Recommendations for Future Research .............................................. 91 CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................... 92 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: MEASUREMENT, ESTIMATION, AND APPLICATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TIMES, AND PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CROSSWALKS ..... 92 4.1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 92 4.2. Methodology ........................................................................................ 93 4.2.1. Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) at Signalized Crosswalks ........ 93 4.2.1.1. Pedestrian LOS for the Maximum Surge Condition ................. 95 4.2.1.2. Estimating the Decrement to LOS Due to Turning Vehicles....96 4.2.2. Validation of Existing Methodologies to Calculate Pedestrian Crossing Time ............................................................................... 97 4.3. Data Collection .................................................................................... 98 vii 4.4. Analysis and Res 4.4.1. Validation o. 1 4.4.2. Evaluation of 4.4.3. Pedestrian LC 4.4.3.1. Calcutatt Conditror 4.4.3.2. Estimatrn 4.5. Summary and Cc 4.6. Recommendatror CHAPTERS ..................... OPERATIONAL ANALY :NTERACTIONS AT SC 51. Introduction 5.2. Methodology ..... 5.2.1. Definition of P 5.22. Modeling of P 5.3. Data Collection . 5.4. Analysis and Res 5.4.1. Right-turning 5.4.2.Le11-tuming V 5.5. Summary and CC - Recommendatior CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS OF PEDEST 6.1. Introduction ....... 6.2. Methodology ..... .21. Survey Desig- 63. Data Collection 5' . Analysis and Resl 6.4.1. 0 ' TL 6 ally and QC: .4 6.4 C .1.2. Assessrr I 6.4.1.3. utters; 6.4.2. NonUsers 6.5.. .Srmilarities Be o.- o a... 4.4. Analysis and Results ......................................................................... 102 4.4.1. Validation of Existing Models to Estimate Pedestrian Crossing Time .................................................................................................... 102 4.4.2. Evaluation of Signal Settings ........................................................ 106 4.4.3. Pedestrian LOS Estimation .......................................................... 109 4.4.3.1. Calculation of Level of Service for the Maximum Surge Condition .............................................................................. 111 4.4.3.2. Estimating the Decrement to LOS Due to Turning Vehicles..112 4.5. Summary and Conclusions ................................................................ 114 4.6. Recommendations for Future Research ............................................ 116 CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................................... 117 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: PEDESTRIAN AND TURNING-VEHICLE INTERACTIONS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CROSSWALKS .......... 117 5.1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 117 5.2. Methodology ...................................................................................... 118 5.2.1. Definition of Potential Conflict and Potential Conflict Area ........... 119 5.2.2. Modeling of Potential Conflicts with Turning Vehicles .................. 120 5.3. Data Collection .................................................................................. 121 5.4. Analysis and Results ......................................................................... 123 5.4.1. Right-turning Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts ................................... 124 5.4.2. Left-tuming Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts ..................................... 127 5.5. Summary and Conclusions ................................................................ 131 5.6. Recommendations for Future Research ............................................ 133 CHAPTER 6 ..................................................................................................... 134 ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIANS’ PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES ..... 134 6.1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 134 6.2. Methodology ...................................................................................... 134 6.2.1. Survey Design .............................................................................. 135 6.3. Data Collection and Reduction .......................................................... 136 6.4. Analysis and Results ......................................................................... 140 6.4.1. Daily and Occasional Users ......................................................... 141 6.4.1.1. Users’ Crossing Patterns ....................................................... 141 6.4.1.2. Assessment of Factors Affecting Pedestrian Crossing Choices .............................................................................................. 144 6.4.1.3. Users’ Perceptions With Respect to Right-of—Way and Safety .............................................................................................. 148 6.4.2. Non-Users .................................................................................... 150 6.4.3. Similarities Between Pedestrian Movement and Perception Data152 6.5. Summary and Conclusions, and Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................................... 154 CHAPTER 7 - ................................................ 157 SA FETY ANALYSIS OF CROSSING OPTIONS ........................................... 157 7.1 . Introduction ........................................................................................ 157 7.2. Methodology ...................................................................................... 158 viii 1.2.1. Before-and; 1.2.2. Safety Anal) 1.3. Analysis and Re 7.3.1. Analysis of PI 1.32. Analysis 01 PI 7.3.3. Safety Anal, J 7.3.3.1. Compar 7.3.3.2. An Alter'|l 1.4. Summary and C CHAPTERB .................... SUMMARY. CONCLUS RESEARCH ................. 8.1.Summary and C: 81.1. Chapter 3 8.1.2. Chapter 4 813 Chapter 5 8.1.4. Chapter 6 8.1.5. Chapter 7 8.2. Recommendabor 8.2.1. Chapter 3 8.2.2. Chapter 4 8.2.3. Chapter 5 8.2.4. Chapter 6 82.5. Chapter 7 . BIBLIOGRAPHY ............ ”PENDICES ................ APPENDIX A: entities... Midblock Cross ”PENDIX c: pea; APPENDIX opeae Uns ' APPEND'DDEleed lr 7.2.1. Before-and-After Analysis ............................................................ 158 7.2.2. Safety Analysis of Crossing Options ............................................ 159 7.3. Analysis and Results ......................................................................... 159 7.3.1. Analysis of Pedestrian Crash Data for the Study Site .................. 159 7.3.2. Analysis of Pedestrian Crash Data for the State of Michigan ....... 163 7.3.3. Safety Analysis of Crossing Options ............................................ 168 7.3.3.1. Comparison of Crash Rates .................................................. 169 7.3.3.2. An Alternative Method for Calculation of Crash Rates .......... 171 7.4. Summary and Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................................................... 172 CHAPTER 8 ..................................................................................................... 174 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 174 8.1. Summary and Conclusions ................................................................ 174 8.1.1. Chapter 3 ..................................................................................... 174 8.1.2. Chapter 4 ..................................................................................... 175 8.1.3. Chapter 5 ..................................................................................... 177 8.1.4. Chapter 6 ..................................................................................... 178 8.1.5. Chapter 7 ..................................................................................... 180 8.2. Recommendations for Future Research ............................................ 181 8.2.1. Chapter 3 ..................................................................................... 181 8.2.2. Chapter 4 ..................................................................................... 181 8.2.3. Chapter 5 ..................................................................................... 182 8.2.4. Chapter 6 ..................................................................................... 183 8.2.5. Chapter 7 ..................................................................................... 184 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 185 APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 193 APPENDIX A: ............................... Summaries of Pedestrian Movement Data .......................................................................................................... 194 APPENDIX BzPedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Marked Midblock Crosswalks ........................................................................ 243 APPENDIX C: Pedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Non-striped Midblock Crosswalks ........................................................................ 247 APPENDIX DzPedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalks .............................................. 250 APPENDIX EzPedestrian Spatial Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Signalized Intersection Crosswalks .................................................. 253 APPENDIX FzPedestrian Temporal Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Signalized Intersection Crosswalks .................................................. 257 APPENDIX GzPedestrian Overall Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Signalized Intersection Crosswalks .................................................. 261 Tacle 3.1. Tacie 3.2. Table 3.3. Table 3.4. ladle 3.5. ’abe 3.6. 'acre 37. 'atée 3.8. The 3.9. Taste 3.10. Table 3.11 . Pedestrian v Pedestrian r Data collect Data collect Descriptive : all the markr: Descriptive s tnped midi] Descriptive - unsigralze: Descriptive s the Signalze Descriptive s the Signa'izg Descriptive s the Signalize Average 0:5 midblock cre DESCI’lptI‘i/e 5 ”OD-Striped 1 Descriptive s CTOSSWBLKS ( Descriptive , Descriptive 3 Summary of Geometric c Signal 11mm Average 99 CTOSSWaIkS. Verage m€ UOSSWBIKS. alicamn C EStImanOn. OmDBTISo, meaSUred E OmDarISO, rcentiteS EMBLUaelOn Table 2.1. Table 2.2. Table 3.1. Table 3.2. Table 3.3. Table 3.4. Table 3.5. Table 3.6. Table 3.7. Table 3.8. Table 3.9. Table 3.10. Table 3.11. Table 3.12. Table 3.13. Table 4.1. Table 4.2. Table 4.3. Table 4.4. LIST OF TABLES Pedestrian level of service on walkways (US 1997 HCM) ............. 18 Pedestrian walking speed (mean) and start-up time (85th percentile) ...................................................................................................... 27 Data collection sessions at Section 1 (Abbott to Division Streets).61 Data collection sessions at Section 2 (Division to Bogue Streets).61 Descriptive statistics of the pedestrian crossing compliance rates- all the marked midblock crosswalks .............................................. 68 Descriptive statistics of the crossing compliance ratesuboth non- striped midblock crosswalks .......................................................... 70 Descriptive statistics of the crossing compliance rates--a|| the unsignalized intersection crosswalks ............................................. 73 Descriptive statistics of the spatial crossing compliance rates--all the signalized intersection crosswalks ........................................... 75 Descriptive statistics of the temporal crossing compliance rates--all the signalized intersection crosswalks ........................................... 78 Descriptive statistics of the overall crossing compliance rates—all the signalized intersection crosswalks ........................................... 81 Average observed crossing compliance rates at the marked midblock crosswalks ...................................................................... 85 Descriptive statistics of the compliance rates—all the striped and non-striped midblock crosswalks ................................................... 86 Descriptive statistics of the compliance rates—ail the midblock crosswalks with and without shelter .............................................. 87 Descriptive statistics of the spatial crossing compliance rates-—all the signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks ............... 88 Descriptive statistics of the pedestrian crossing compliance rates- summary of all the study crosswalks ............................................. 89 Geometric characteristics of the signalized intersection crosswalks ...................................................................................................... 98 Signal timings at the signalized intersection crosswalks ............... 99 Average pedestrian volume data at the signalized intersection crosswalks ..................................................................................... 99 Average measured pedestrian crossing times at the signalized crosswalks ................................................................................... 101 Validation of the methodologies for pedestrian crossing time estimation .................................................................................... 104 Comparison of the length of pedestrian interval against the average measured pedestrian crossing times ........................................... 107 Comparison of the length of pedestrian interval against the 85th percentiles of pedestrian crossing times ..................................... 108 Evaluation of the length of existing clearance intervals ............... 109 Pedestrian level of service estimationuvehicular traffic off-peak conditions .................................................................................... 1 10 Table 4.18. Table 4.11. Table 4.12. ’able 4.13. ’aple 4.14. 'apie 5.1. ’ahie 5.3. Table 5.4. Table 5.5. "aae 6.1. ’razie 6.2. Tat-1e 6.3. ’azle 1.1. Tazte 1,2, are 7.3. Table 7.4 Pedestrian . conditions. Pedestrian . condition-vi;- Pedestnan .. condition-ix Decrements traffic off-pe Decrements traffic PM p5 Potential rig' study inte's»: Potential le‘: intersection Linear regre: Linear regre. Classificatso' total potenca Effect of age Effect of gen Summary of Pedestrian c Pedestrian Ii Pedestrian I. PBdestrian ii Table 4.10. Table 4.11. Table 4.12. Table 4.13. Table 4.14. Tabb51 Tabbaz Tabb53. TabBSA. Tabb55. Table 6.1. Table 6.2. Table 6.3. Table 7.1 . Table 7.2. Table 7.3. Table 7.4. Pedestrian level of service estimation—vehicular traffic PM peak conditions .................................................................................... 1 1 1 Pedestrian level of service estimation for the maximum surge condition—vehicular traffic off-peak conditions ............................. 112 Pedestrian level of service estimation for the maximum surge condition—vehicular traffic PM peak conditions ........................... 112 Decrements to crosswalk LOS due to turning vehiclesuvehicular traffic off-peak conditions ............................................................ 113 Decrements to crosswalk LOS due to turning vehicles--vehicular traffic PM peak conditions ........................................................... 113 Potential right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts (RTVPC) in the study intersection crosswalks ...................................................... 122 Potential left-tum vehicle-pedestrian conflicts (LTVPC) in the study intersection crosswalks ................................................................ 123 Linear regression analysis results for the RTVPC model ............ 126 Linear regression analysis results for the LTVPC model ............. 129 Classification of the signalized intersection crosswalks based on total potential turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts ....................... 131 Effect of age on survey responses .............................................. 147 Effect of gender on survey responses ......................................... 148 Summary of the responses of the surveyed users ...................... 150 Pedestrian crash data for the study site ...................................... 160 Pedestrian total crashes in the state of Michigan ........................ 163 Pedestrian fatality crashes in the state of Michigan ..................... 163 Pedestrian injury crashes in the state of Michigan ...................... 164 xi Figure 1.1. 5193821. tigi‘le 2.2. Iigure 2.3. Figure 3.1.3. Ogre 3.1.b. Figi'e 3.2. figi'e 3.3. fgre 3.4. figire 3.5. ‘gire 3.6. :33? 3.7. :._4.,_ .a 34.1.3190 Fire- 4:1 seer @3551. Site map. Time-spaceI Time-space Time-space A scheme a A scheme 2 Definition 0 Definition c Positions 0‘- River Avert-i Sample da‘. crosswaiks Sample Ca: intersection Pedestrian crosswalks Pedestrian. marked mi: F’edestrian midblock c Pedestrian cTOsta‘ik Pradestnar interSectic P€destriar LDLBTSect,C SpatlaL Crr Crosswalk Spattat Cr: lmerSECtic 9destria intP'sectii Pedestria SLgnaLlZe( . edeSitria mTEfSeCu Pdesbi; SlgnaitZe. ' OIUmeS . Q‘UmES Ime‘SDz BLCUIatI lg‘L‘L‘Itir LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Site map ......................................................................................... 3 Figure 2.1. Time-space diagram for HCM approach ...................................... 17 Figure 2.2. Time-space diagram for a single pedestrian ................................ 21 Figure 2.3. Time-space diagram for a one-way platoon ................................. 23 Figure 3.1.a. A scheme of the study site: section 1 ........................................... 47 Figure 3.1.b. A scheme of the study site: section 2 ........................................... 48 Figure 3.2. Definition of crosswalk influence area .......................................... 51 Figure 3.3. Definition of crosswalk area for calculation of PCCR ................... 53 Figure 3.4. Positions of cameras located on the sidewalks along the Grand River Avenue ............................................................................... 58 Figure 3.5. Sample data summary sheet for marked and non-striped midblock crosswalks ................................................................................... 63 Figure 3.6. Sample data summary sheet for signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks ................................................................ 64 Figure 3.7. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates of all the marked midblock crosswalks-all data collection sessions ....................................... 66 Figure 3.8. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates--MSU Student Union marked midblock crosswalk ......................................................... 67 Figure 3.9. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates of all the non-striped midblock crosswalks-all data collection sessions ......................... 69 Figure 3.10. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates--2"d non-striped midblock crosswalk ..................................................................................... 70 Figure 3.11. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates of all the unsignalized intersection crosswalksnall data collection sessions ................... 72 Figure 3.12. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates-Charles St unsignalized intersection crosswalk .................................................................. 72 Figure 3.13. Spatial crossing compliance rates of all the signalized intersection . crosswalks-all data collection sessions ....................................... 74 F'Qure 3.14. Spatial crossing compliance rates—Abbott St signalized . intersection crosswalk .................................................................. 75 F '9 Lire 3.15. Pedestrian temporal crossing compliance rates of all the signalized _ intersection crosswalks—all data collection sessions ................... 76 Fr'Qi-u‘e 3.16. Pedestrian temporal crossing compliance rates-Division St F' signalized intersection crosswalk ................................................. 77 '9 U Fe 3.17. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance rates of all the signalized F - intersection crosswalks-all data collection sessions ..................... 79 '9 U Fe 3.18. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance rates—Division St F'. signalized intersection crosswalk ................................................. 80 F i 9 u re 3.19.a. Volumes in pedestrian crosswalks and paths in section 1 ........... 83 Fig I...- re 3.19.b. Volumes in pedestrian crosswalks and paths in section 2 ........... 84 Fig L1 re 4.1. Time-space diagram for HCM approach ...................................... 95 Fig L; re 4.2. Calculation of average crossing time in the crosswalks ............. 100 u r e 5.1. Right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflict area on a crosswalk ........ 119 xii k figure 52. figure 5.3. figure 5.4. ‘igure 5.5. Pigure 5.6. Figure 5.7. figure 5.8. figure 6.1. Figure 6.2. figure 6.3. 41981364. figure 6.5. heiress. Live 6.7. tetra 6.8. ITitre 7.1. Figure 72 Five 7.3a. FRI-Te 7,31,. :3349 T43 38-19 74b. 39‘”? 75a. See 75b. Left-tum yr? Relationsr . right-tum ‘4 Relationsi‘ pedestrian RBLBTIOOSC‘ I right-tum \‘I RELaCIOflSt‘ turn VBTTICL: Relationsr pedestrian Relationsr left-turn veI Grand RIVEI Typical per; Typical per: Frequency Main Teas: Distance to cross at a c Presence 0 to cross at . Existence C CO cross at E Total. all irj Summary 0L PEGEStflan Percentage pedestrian Percentage. PedBStflan Pementage Figure 5.2. Left-tum vehicle-pedestrian conflict area on a crosswalk ........... 120 Figure 5.3. Relationship between right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and right-turn vehicle volume at the signalized intersection crosswalks ................................................................................................... 124 Figure 5.4. Relationship between right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and pedestrian volume at the signalized intersection crosswalks ..... 125 Figure 5.5. Relationship between right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, and right-turn vehicle and pedestrian volumes .................................. 126 Figure 5.6. Relationship between left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and left- turn vehicle volume at the signalized intersection crosswalks....127 Figure 5.7. Relationship between left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and pedestrian volume at the signalized intersection crosswalks ..... 128 Figure 5.8. Relationship between left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, and left-turn vehicle and pedestrian volumes .................................... 130 Figure 6.1. Grand River Avenue Pedestrian Survey .................................... 137 Figure 6.2. Typical pedestrian crossing locations ......................................... 141 Figure 6.3. Typical pedestrian crossing conditions ....................................... 142 Figure 6.4. Frequency of crossing at a non-designated crossing location... 143 Figure 6.5. Main reasons to cross at a non-designated crossing location....144 Figure 6.6. Distance to a desired location influences pedestrians’ decision to cross at a certain location .......................................................... 145 Figure 6.7. Presence of a midblock crosswalk influences pedestrians’ decision to cross at a certain location ...................................................... 146 Figure 6.8. Existence of a pedestrian signal influences pedestrians’ decision to cross at a certain location ...................................................... 146 Figure 7.1. Total, all injury and pedestrian crashes on the study section ..... 161 Figure 7.2. Summary of pedestrian crashes in Michigan (1994-1998) ......... 164 Figure 7.3.a. Pedestrian total crashes from 1994 to 1998 .............................. 165 Figure 7.3.b. Percentages of pedestrian total crashes from 1994 to 1998 ...... 165 Figure 7.4.a. Pedestrian fatal crashes from 1994 to 1998 ............................... 166 Figure 7.4.b. Percentages of pedestrian fatal crashes from 1994 to 1998 ...... 167 Figure 7.5.a. Pedestrian injury crashes from 1994 to 1998 ............................. 167 Figure 7.5.b. Percentages of pedestrian injury crashes from 1994 to 1998168 xiii MOT: ADI/T: ADPT: ANOVA; 8W. PARS: [83M LIST 0 Annual alleles" Average daily L crosswalk per : Average daily p entering 3 C105: Analysis of var i Crosswalk area Central busines Confidence inte Crosswalk ITTTiO‘l Pedestrian initie Pedestrian red Degree of freer Fatality analysi crashes in the Involve a fatal 1 Walk interval 1' Highway Cape ransnonatioi Institute of Tie PedeSTrian CTC Level of seryir AADT: A DVT: A DPT: PARS: HCM: I TE: L : LCM: L 08: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS and NOTATIONS Annual average daily traffic (vehicle/day, pedestrian/day). Average daily vehicular traffic (average number of vehicles entering a crosswalk per day). Average daily pedestrian traffic (average number of pedestrians entering a crosswalk per day). : Analysis of variance. Crosswalk area (see Figure 3.3 for definition). Central business district. Confidence interval. Crosswalk influence area (see Figure 3.2 for definition). Pedestrian initial start-up delay (sec). Pedestrian red (DON’T WALK) interval (sec). Degree of freedom. Fatality analysis reporting system. FARS contains data on all vehicle crashes in the United States that occur on a public roadway and involve a fatality in the crash. Walk interval (sec) (see Figure 4.1 for definition). Highway Capacity Manual. In this text, HCM, is used for the 1997 US Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, published by Transportation Research Board. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Pedestrian crossing distance (m). Length of crosswalk influence area (m). Level of service. LOS denotes quantitative, qualitative, or both service levels of traffic facilities (highways, crosswalks, pedestrian and bicycle paths, etc.) xiv 18: Late starters a' pedestrian clef: up completing " ill/PC: Number of left- intersection cr: 11W: Left-tumingve' It: Average space MIICW: Marked midblc._ 115: Average space (m‘i’ped). MUTCD The Manual on LI. Number 01 wati a signal interva l‘SMCW. Non-striped mi midblock cross (markings) on ' easy access fc OCCR: Overall crossrr simultaneously crosswalk. Th: (see Equation P, Number of re; pm Pedestrian cri pedestrians v.- pedestrian crc p3. - Potential cent of Perlestrians an . ‘ VA. - Potential cont COlltlrcts with - 333R p edestrian cr. PEDESITIans) 11.. I at T OTBI nUn-i Clo .ber SSWalk. L. 8: Late starters are the pedestrians who start to cross during the pedestrian clearance interval (flashing DON’T WALK signal) and end up completing their crossing usually during pedestrian red interval. L, TVPC: Number of left-turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts in signalized intersection crosswalks (conflicts/hr). L, TVV: Left-tuming vehicle volume at signalized intersections (veh/hr) MC: Average space per pedestrian in crosswalks (m2/ped). MMCW: Marked midblock crosswalks. Ms: Average space per pedestrian for the maximum surge condition (m2/ped). MUTCD: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. N: Number of walkers in a platoon of pedestrians crossing together during a signal interval. NSMCW: Non-striped midblock crosswalks. There are two of this kind of midblock crosswalks in the study site. They do not have stripes (markings) on the pavement, and the curbs and median are not cut for easy access for bicyclists and pedestrians in wheelchair. OCCR: Overall crossing compliance rate. Percentage of pedestrians who simultaneously comply with the location and the signal of a pedestrian crosswalk. This definition envelops spatial and temporal compliances (see Equation 3.4 for formulation). P: Number of reported pedestrian-vehicle crashes per year. PCCR: Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%), i.e., percentage of pedestrians who comply with the location and the signal (if any) of a pedestrian crosswalk. PC: Potential conflict. Defined as the number of potential conflict situations of pedestrians with turning vehicles sharing the same green interval. PCA: Potential conflict area. Defined in Figures 5.1 and 2 for pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles at signalized intersections. PCR: Pedestrian crash rate (pedestrian accidents per million vehicles and/or pedestrians). PCA: Total number of pedestrians (per hour) in the crosswalk area (CA) of a crosswalk. xv P3: P32 PSI/R \'— PSII’SIZ F’.’ Total number c crosswalk (p82 Number of pea (pedi'hr). Number of peer pedestrian WA Partial sneake' DON'T WALK ;~_ intersections. T cross a portion indication whie their crossing “ pedestrian WA. Partial sneake' Pedestrian cias turn vehicle phg acurbside to tr. while vehicles i (Dom the media Signal Ifldicatigr Number of pedp (DEG/hf) pEllestrian poiL Number of righs intersecti0n crc Right‘turning VI and Complete c DBCI DON'T WALK : 0 Comply Wi‘ Within the Cross Signalized IDLE! SlgfiIfiCanCe. Pei/41 Total number of pedestrians in the crosswalk influence area (CIA) of a crosswalk (ped/hr). Pt: Number of pedestrians who cross within the crosswalk area, CA, (ped/hr). Pu: Number of pedestrians who comply with both crossing location and pedestrian WALK signal indication (ped/hr). PS(VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) are pedestrians crossing during the DON’T WALK signal while vehicles are passing by at signalized intersections. These are risk takers. Pedestrians Classified as PS(VR) cross a portion of the roadway during pedestrian DON’T WALK signal indication while vehicles in both directions are in motion, and complete their crossing (from the median to the opposite curbside) usually during pedestrian WALK signal indication. PS(VS): Partial sneakers ( vehicles stopped). This definition is applied to pedestrian classifications at signalized intersections under lead/lag left- turn vehicle phasing only. Pedestrians classified as PS(VS) cross from a curbside to the median during the DON’T WALK signal indication while vehicles in this direction are stopped , and complete their crossing (from the median to the opposite curbside) during pedestrian WALK signal indication. P—r: Number of pedestrians who comply with the WALK signal indication (ped/hr). PV: Pedestrian volume in crosswalks (ped/hr). RTVPC: Number of right turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts in signalized intersection crosswalks (conflicts/hr). RTVV: Right-turning vehicle volume in signalized intersections (veh/hr). RU: Regular users (pedestrians who start crossing during the WALK signal and complete crossing before the signal turns to DON’T WALK). 8: Sneakers (pedestrians cross the entire length of the street during the DON’T WALK signal). SC CR. Spatial crossing compliance rate (%). Percentage of pedestrians in CIA who comply with the crosswalks location, start and complete crossing within the crosswalk area (see Equation 3.2 for formulation). 3’ C W: Signalized intersection crosswalks. 8’9: Significance. xvi I; TCCR. TS: TIPC: USICW: nitr- Pedestrian crc: Temporal cros CA who comp crossing delf‘i. DON'T WALK Crosswalk time: (mi-seci’cycle Number of tur'“ Turning vehicle} Pedestrian crc- Undgnahzedir Twoway ie‘t-tc Total incoming IPPOI’CyCIe). Maximum ours. Twoway VBDIC‘ Crosswalk Widti Average pedes Width). TCCR: Pedestrian crossing time (sec). Temporal crossing compliance rate (%). Percentage of pedestrians in CA who comply with the pedestrian WALK signal indication, start crossing during the WALK signal and complete before the steady DON’T WALK signal (see Equation 3.3 for formulation). Crosswalk time-space available to pedestrians during one cycle length (mz-sec/cycle). Number of turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts (conflicts/hr). Turning vehicle volume in signalized intersections (veh/hr), Pedestrian crossing speed (m/sec). Unsignalized intersection crosswalks. Two-way left-turn. Total incoming and outgoing pedestrians volume in a crosswalk (ped/cycle). Maximum number of pedestrians in a crosswalk. Two-way vehicular volume on a stretch of a road (veh/hr). Crosswalk width (m). Average pedestrian headway in a crosswalk (sec/ped/m of crosswalk width). xvii Crosswalks 58W iron vehicular traffic in crosswalks. esDECiaAIY Crosswalks need to be same to the users in pedestrians from vehicu the crosswalks are 8) safety. Traffic engineers PATIO insight into the tenors crosswalk design 335 analysis 01 Pedestriar agaide for future pede he I L' iii: '.'i€f‘ii$ that are favorr Ira-1; L3 aIOI'] Of various tyr- Plan - .. environment. Peg! 2v ,. "MIA 0P9rations. Dal El‘ef ‘ i m “I ban crosswa‘ir Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Crosswalks serve the crossing needs of pedestrians and separate them from vehicular traffic in high volume urban corridors. The availability of pedestrian crosswalks, especially in urbanized areas, is vital for pedestrian activities. Crosswalks need to be safe and convenient, and provide an acceptable level of service to the users in the competitive urban environment. The separation of pedestrians from vehicular traffic and the provision of acceptable level of service in the crosswalks are expected to increase pedestrian crossing compliance and safety. Traffic engineers and transportation planners are always desirous of gaining insight into the compliance of pedestrian crossing at locations with various crosswalk designs and pedestrian treatments. lnforrnation obtained from the analysis of pedestrians’ preferences, behaviors and attitudes can be used as a guide for future pedestrian planning projects through the identification of treatments that are favored by pedestrians. This study presents results from the evaluation of various types of pedestrian crosswalks and their features in an urban environment. Pedestrian crossing options are assessed with respect to crosswalk operations, pedestrian perceptions and preferences, and pedestrian safety in urban crosswalks. 1.1. Site Description Data used I“ Am E I iidowntown East Lars corridor at the north UCL. he oentral busrness d: section is a l-km (0.63-i| Streets. The annual a"- vehicles. The site map is Grand River Avenue his 1894 through 1995 to crosswalks. pedestrian crosswalk medians and tryouts conflicts betwe Sand River Avenue ont any the east side of thr only one that maint 1 .1. Site Description Data used in this study were collected on a section of Grand River Avenue in downtown East Lansing, Michigan. Grand River Avenue is an east-west corridor at the north boundary of Michigan State University (MSU) campus and the central business district (CBD) of the city of East Lansing. The selected section is a 1-km (0.63-ml.) long divided boulevard between Abbott and Bogue Streets. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) is approximately 32,000 vehicles. The site map is presented in Figure 1.1. The study section is the part of Grand River Avenue highlighted on the map. This section was renovated from 1 994 through 1995 to include well-marked pedestrian crosswalks, midblock crosswalks, pedestrian signs and shelters at the median, brick paving at crosswalk medians and curbs, and physical barriers). With the new crosswalk layouts, conflicts between pedestrians and left-turning vehicles turning from Grand River Avenue onto cross streets are reduced by locating the crosswalks at only the east side of the intersections. The Collingwood Street intersection was the only one that maintained crosswalks on both sides of the intersection. The signalization work aimed at improving signal timing and phasing schemes was completed in 1996. The corridor has four signalized intersections, two of which are cross- intersectlons, and the other two are T-intersections without a south leg. One of the cross-intersections has crosswalks on both sides of the intersection, and the Others have only one on the east side of the intersection. In addition, there are “"0 unsignalized intersections that have a crosswalk on only one side of the .ntersection. Both on! south leg. Furthermc stdy corridor. two of d‘physical structures midblock crosswalks. the pavement and the pedestrians with whee inQNKST " on C a 3 .;_~ m § 9 < 2 5 ~ '7‘ 9. c o 9% S ‘4‘- 0 j 23 g E ~93» .f' < 0 ,VQEyCI‘ lfl E ‘6 “T C .P/f‘“: intersection. Both unsignalized intersections are T-type intersections without a south leg. Furthermore, four marked midblock crosswalks are located in the study corridor, two of which have shelters at the median (shelters are kiosk type of physical structures located on the median). Finally, there are two non-striped midblock crosswalks, which have a paved median, but no crosswalk stripes on the pavement and they also have no curb cuts designed to allow easy access for pedestrians with wheelchair and bicyclists. Michigan State University \ S a cuvr ‘\r T—I-F‘ . S adlum 9 II W chm: I n L “\E m 010“ MIpQuostoom. Inc.; 0 1009 Navigation Tochnobqiost. —__ Figure 1.1. Site map 11, smdy Description In this study. I? evaluated from the PETS aid preferences. and I ncfuded the study 0‘ crosswalks, pedestrian pedestrian conflicts wilt-l Ftestrians at the signa The data used oesenratron of DGGest acsswalks and other It “TDiiance. Pedestrian 1 .2. Study Description In this study, pedestrian crosswalks in an urban environment were evaluated from the perspectives of crosswalk operations, pedestrian perceptions and preferences, and pedestrian safety. Operational analyses performed included the study of pedestrian crossing compliance with all types of crosswalks, pedestrian crossing time and crosswalk level of service, and pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles sharing the same green interval with pedestrians at the signalized intersection crosswalks in the study site. The data used in the Operational analyses were collected by direct observation of pedestrian movements using video cameras. Pedestrian crosswalks and other features were evaluated based on pedestrian crossing compliance. Pedestrian crossing times and turning-vehicle pedestrian conflict data were used to evaluate pedestrian signal timings and signal phasing. Pedestrian perception and preference data were collected through a survey distributed electronically to potential users of the study site. Responses from "frequent users" were used to determine pedestrian perceptions and preferences toward various pedestrian facilities available in the study site To gain an insight on pedestrian safety, historical crash data for the years 1 988 to 1998 were reviewed and analyzed. In addition, pedestrian crash data for the entire state of Michigan over a 5-year period (1994-1998) were reviewed. The data were stratified by type of crossing location in order to determine the relative Safety of pedestrian crossing options (signalized, unsignalized, and midblock Crossing locations). 1.3. Scope. WW“ 3' The scope 01 1" iiiard the use or sort?“ and non-striped midblci. dressing related treatrre Such treatments incluc midblock crosswalk loca The purpose of tr environment. In order dertfied and addresses 1. determine pg. crosswalks in t 2. determine per CTOSSWBIkS. ar Settings basec 3' e"(amine and pedestrians a: turning VehiCIE- 4 ' anaIYZe pedesI DedeSt’ian treal Skirt/9y; and 1 .3. Scope, Purpose and Objectives of the Study The scope of this study covers the analysis of pedestrian compliance toward the use of signalized intersection and unsignalized intersection, marked and non-striped midblock crosswalks. Moreover, the effect of other pedestrian crossing related treatments on pedestrian crossing compliance was considered. Such treatments included pedestrian signals, signs, and median shelters at midblock crosswalk locations. The purpose of the study is to assess pedestrian crosswalks in an urban environment. In order to meet the purpose, the following objectives were identified and addressed: 1. determine pedestrian crossing compliance for various types of crosswalks in the study site; determine pedestrian levels of service at signalized intersection crosswalks, and test the appropriateness of pedestrian signal timing settings based on measured pedestrian crossing times; examine and model interactions between turning vehicles and pedestrians at signalized intersection crosswalks based on potential turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts; analyze pedestrians’ preferences and perceptions toward various pedestrian treatments in the study area by collecting data via a user’s survey; and 5. evaluale the r |ocatlon5 [335 data. In achieving Obie along the study site USl pedestrian movements. and which settings we objectives provides an r improve it. Especially tr iptlematic locations in locations that impose a r mental wzth turning vehr: esessment of the varic. have a good potentia *ptemented in other :iaraCt eristics. Conclusions to b; MIA sliganh “'9 the current iron. IWOdate pedestria Silver th *\v~ ,. ratio it Of D€destriar iéssm I ent of the effect ’yn remtents. T 5. evaluate the relative safety of the various types of pedestrian crossing locations based upon site specific and statewide pedestrian crash data. In achieving objectives 1 through 3, pedestrian movement data collected along the study site using video cameras were utilized. By direct observation of pedestrian movements, it was possible to determine where pedestrians crossed and which settings were favored by the users. Accomplishment of these objectives provides an insight on pedestrian crossing compliance and ways to improve it. Especially the achievement of objective 3 can be used to identify problematic locations in terms of pedestrian-turning vehicle conflicts, i.e., the locations that impose a relatively high risk to pedestrians sharing the same green interval with turning vehicles and that may need improvements. Furthermore, the assessment of the various pedestrian treatments will pinpoint the solutions that have a good potential to increase pedestrian crossing compliance when implemented in other locations with similar geometric, traffic and user characteristics. Conclusions to be drawn from the analysis of objectives 2 and 3 can enhance the current understanding of theories and practices used to accommodate pedestrian needs and can suggest ways to improve them. Moreover, the analyses related to objective 2 will provide means for the estimation of pedestrian level of service at signalized intersections and the assessment of the effectiveness of signal settings to meet minimum pedestrian crossing requirements. The achievement of objective 4 will identify preferences and perceptions of pea: pedestrian treatments. i safety at the various crc This document is Chatter 2. a literature lessrlbed above. OblEC I Otectives4 and S are : alt the chapters and ma” 1.4. Contributions of th Existing pedest' terspechves: 1. operat. .. I Study. and 3. pedestrian titheartare to be made ’ "1 Operational Crossing Comp types of CTOSSV the crossing 10, 99destrian Cros tempera] and O o The mm of "Cr defined fOr pert and perceptions of pedestrian users toward the various crossing options and pedestrian treatments. Finally, objective 5 will provide an insight on pedestrian safety at the various crossing locations. This document is organized in chapters following the study objectives. In chapter 2, a literature review is presented with respect to the objectives described above. Objectives 1 through 3 are addressed in chapters 3, 4 and 5. Objectives 4 and 5 are presented in chapters 6 and 7, respectively. Summary of all the chapters and main conclusions is offered in chapter 8. 1.4. Contributions of the Research to the State of the Art Existing pedestrian crossing options were evaluated from three perspectives: 1. operational analysis, 2. pedestrian preference and perception study, and 3. pedestrian safety analysis. The following contributions to the state of the art are to be made by this study: 0 In operational analysis of crosswalks, the calculation of “pedestrian crossing compliance” is clearly formulated and defined for common types of crosswalks in terms of percent of pedestrians who comply with the crossing location and/or pedestrian signal indications. Furthermore, pedestrian crossing compliance is categorized and analyzed as spatial, temporal and overall compliance. 0 The term of "crosswalk influence area (CIA)" is introduced and clearly defined for pedestrian crosswalks. Existing me" agalnSi fietd equations to I A new term” related 10 95* turning Veh'c “ crosswalks 7 vehicles and techniques. T relationship 5 PCs. Pedestrians facilities and t' types of faciit and pedestria existing facilit. given an 0;); treatments for 0 Existing methods to estimate pedestrian crossing time are tested against field data. Suggestions are made on how to improve existing equations to better reflect actual conditions; 0 A new terminology, potential conflict (PC), is introduced and defined, related to pedestrian conflicts sharing the same green interval with turning vehicles. A potential conflict area (PCA) is defined in pedestrian crosswalks. The estimation of PCs between the left- and right-turn vehicles and pedestrians was explored and modeled using statistical techniques. The linear regression models proposed examined the relationship between pedestrian and turning-vehicle volumes, and PCs. o Pedestrians’ preferences and perceptions toward various crossing facilities and treatments are analyzed in order to obtain information on types of facilities that pedestrians prefer, crossing location and timing, and pedestrians’ perceptions toward the safety and efficiency of the existing facilities. Through the survey analysis, pedestrian users are given an opportunity to identify favorable crossing facilities and treatments for themselves. Zl.lntroduction Aliterature rev is how similar problems were used previously ir review is divided into it tie'esearch study: 1. c teterence and percept. The literature re\ the parts: a. pedestriar aid crossing time. c. iEth‘EDedestrian con‘ 6i‘éttative signal sche teat EC to pedestrian j on. literature relal unnamed. 110iterational Stui pence and be“ live al‘td crOSSinh U Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 . Introduction A literature review was conducted to develop a good understanding of how similar problems were approached in the past and the type of techniques were used previously in order to evaluate pedestrian crosswalks. The literature review is divided into three broad categories, in agreement with the subjects of the research study: 1. operational study of pedestrian crosswalks, 2. pedestrian preference and perception study, and 3. safety study of pedestrian crosswalks. The literature review on operational analysis of crosswalks is divided into five parts: a. pedestrian compliance and behavior, b. pedestrian level of service and crossing time, c. pedestrian walking speed and start-up time, d. turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and accidents, and e. pedestrian signs, signals and alternative signal schemes. Following this section, previous research findings related to pedestrian perceptions and preferences are summarized. In the final section, literature related to the safety of pedestrian crosswalks is reviewed and summarized. 2.2. Operational Studies of Pedestrian Crosswalks The review of operational studies of crosswalks included pedestrian compliance and behavior in crosswalks. The reviews of pedestrian level of service and crossing times at signalized crosswalks, pedestrian walking speed and start-up time. pedestrian signs anc Pedestrian r due to the lack « choosing walklng compared to mot themselves to be ' motorists do ((3; appliance with t tyOmeiOme. 1‘. 221.1. Definitic Pedestria' .ossing ot a roe and the location 1““ Caiegori; miliance wit he; "" location a be: I. - - to“ Yields and start-up time, turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and accidents, and pedestrian signs and signals are also included in this section. 2.2.1. Pedestrian Crossing Compliance and Behavior Pedestrian movements are less predictable than vehicular movements due to the lack of enforcement of pedestrian regulations, the flexibility of choosing walking paths, and higher maneuver capability of pedestrians compared to motor vehicles. Moreover, pedestrians often do not consider themselves to be required to comply with traffic laws and regulations as much as motorists do (Gailitis, 1995). Probably this is the reason why pedestrian compliance with traffic signals is low in many cities as reported in an early study by Orne (Orne, 1959). 2. 2. 1. 1. Definition of “Pedestrian Crossing Compliance” Pedestrian crossing compliance can be defined as the legal pedestrian crossing of a roadway, i.e., in compliance with pedestrian WALK signal indication and the location of the crosswalk. Crossing compliance in pedestrian crosswalks can be categorized as “compliance with location or spatial crossing compliance,” “compliance with signal or temporal crossing compliance,” and “compliance with both location and signal or overall crossing compliance.” The compliance with location yields the percentage of pedestrians who cross legally with respect to the location of crosswalks. Temporal compliance refers to the pedestrian compliance rate with respect to the pedestrian WALK signal indication in signalized crosswalks. Temporal compliance rate is an indicator of whether 10 signal timing and phas compliance considers signalized crosswalks pedestrian crossing cc crosswalks in a similar Al signalized ir pedestrian WALK sign; lone is interested on Utsswalks. relative to G’CSSlllg compliance st andAliin, 1999.2). By Cl signal indication is excli tenet timing and phas crosswalks. Also, sign; Siillalcompliance is ti Dials). vehicular traffic the . . “Wies- Spatial ch aleillieness, which ir 3" appropriately arc- . “all” Or not the 9‘32 i ' .cterstics of Beijin 'ieddur' ing the red sig' signal timing and phasing scheme are properly designed for pedestrians. Overall compliance considers both spatial and temporal compliances and applies to signalized crosswalks (Sisiopiku and Akin, 199922). Rouphail (1984) defined pedestrian crossing compliance rates at signalized and unsignalized midblock crosswalks in a similar way. At signalized intersections many pedestrians tend not to comply with pedestrian WALK signal indication, especially at low vehicular traffic flow levels. If one is interested only in the assessment of the attractiveness of signalized crosswalks, relative to unsignalized intersection or midblock crosswalks, spatial crossing compliance should be used as a measure of effectiveness (Sisiopiku and Akin, 19992). By doing so, the crossing compliance with pedestrian WALK signal indication is excluded from study results. Therefore, design problems with signal timing and phasing do not conceal the real attractiveness of signalized crosswalks. Also, signal timing and phasing changes can be done very easily. Signal compliance is totally related to signal design (signal timing and phasing plans), vehicular traffic conditions (gap, arrival type, speed, etc.), and pedestrian attitudes. Spatial crossing compliance is a very important measure of effectiveness, which indicates whether or not the location of the crosswalk is selected appropriately relative to pedestrian paths, trip origins and destinations, and whether or not the crosswalk is well marked, safe and convenient. Tanaboriboon and Jing (1994) studied walking activities and the characteristics of Beijing pedestrians. They defined illegal crossing as “crossing a road during the red signal.” Basically they used temporal crossing compliance as 11 treasure of effect etioent signalized compliance“ should wmpliance are imp: 121.2 Crossing ‘ Tanaboriboc mplartce with th surly locations. T lack oi ettective e respect to pedes ether studies in ‘ mhpared to their and Guyano, 19$ Entorcem. Scense associ atesence on str LElites could e : Mable lnCTQ mvll‘l A .., ; anbe if“. a measure of effectiveness. However, if one really would like to know how efficient signalized intersection crosswalks are overall, “overall crossing compliance” should be the criterion used since both spatial and temporal compliance are important at signalized crosswalks. 2. 2. 1.2. Crossing Compliance in Pedestrian Crosswalks Tanaboriboon and Jing (1994) reported that the pedestrian crossing compliance with the pedestrian signal indication were 70 and 57 percent at two study locations. The authors presented the impatience of pedestrians and the lack of effective enforcement as the main reasons for the low compliance with respect to pedestrian signals. The former reason contradicts Tanaboriboon’s other studies in which he reports that Asian pedestrians walk at slower pace compared to their Western counterparts (Tanaboriboon, 1986, and Tanaboriboon and Guyano, 1991). Enforcement on pedestrians is an unpopular practice due to not only the expense associated with it but also civilians are opposed to heavy police presence on streets. Alternatively, attractive and efficient designs of pedestrian facilities could encourage proper channelization of pedestrian traffic and result in a possible increase in crossing compliance. Another method to increase crossing compliance involves educational programs targeting pedestrian adults and school-age children. Special emphasis should be placed on issues of drunk pedestrians and the elderly. Rouphail (1984) revealed that pedestrian crossing compliance rates at signalized and unsignalized midblock crosswalks were 85.4, and 86.4 with 12 pedestrian sign res? reported in the liter; to location. city It ieatures. pedestrta atect compliance I from one study to characteristics an tossnalks relatn possible. various Tllsapnroacn is lecestrian ch r; 535831 from the Ewes are ver m Know What t: 221,3 PedeSfj A Sludy t w” lie-destnan Hilly lime‘reze pedestrian sign respectively (84.2 without pedestrian sign). The compliance rates reported in the literature confirm that pedestrian compliance varies from location to location, city to city, and environment to environment. Also, crosswalk features, pedestrian characteristics, preferences and habits are expected to affect compliance rates. Therefore, the comparison of crossing compliance rates from one study to another is not very meaningful without knowing pedestrian characteristics and behaviors, vehicular traffic conditions, and the location of crosswalks relative to major pedestrian paths leading to crosswalks. When possible, various crossing options should be evaluated in a same environment. This approach is preferred for more meaningful comparisons since the effects of pedestrian characteristics, traffic exposure and geometric features can be isolated from the effect of crosswalk features. Moreover, pedestrian behavior and attitudes are very important determinants in crossing compliance. It is important to know what types of facilities pedestrians favor and what the attitudes of pedestrians toward pedestrian facilities are. 2.2.1.3. Pedestrian Behaviors and Attitudes A study by Forsythe and Berger (1973) presented the results of interviews with pedestrians crossing unsafely during DON’T WALK signal indication or pedestrian red interval. It was reported that the reason for unsafe crossing was mainly time-related. A need to hurry or a desire to keep moving was the main reason behind the lack of compliance with pedestrian signals. Tanaboriboon and Jing (1994) reported that pedestrians in Beijing were less enthusiastic about using overpasses and underpasses than signalized 13 crosswalks. Howe appraised. pedes authors conclude lacitity as long as cautious when a dead to US. Cl due to difference To encoi Convenient and 900mm of the the walking ex; £99359 Marius iv‘affabilrty of I medians, ability thamni r ‘1 cities althoui Ste-M =~~« and tin “afloat. ”19% t W Fe: .l of Sent/lCe '23,? to be estir crosswalks. However, when the safety aspects and other related attributes were appraised, pedestrians did not favor any type of crossing in particular. The authors concluded that pedestrians in Beijing would accept any type of crossing facility as long as they were appr0priate and sufficient. However, one should be cautious when applying conclusions from the behavioral studies conducted abroad to US. conditions since the pedestrian behaviors might be very different due to differences in socioeconomic characteristics of the study populations. To encourage crossing compliance, pedestrian facilities should be convenient and safe for crossing and walking activities. Comfort, security and economy of the walking environment are environmental factors that contribute to the walking experience, and therefore to perceived level of service (Highway Capacity Manual, 1997). Convenience refers to easiness to access the facility, availability of pathways leading to crosswalks, grades, ramps at curbs and medians, ability to perform a meaningful walking speed, and lack of obstructions on the facility. Level of service is used as an indicator of the quality of the walking facilities although it is calculated using only quantitative measures (crossing speed and time, and volume) as described in the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. 2.2.2. Pedestrian Level of Service and Crossing Time at Signalized Crosswalks Pedestrians crossing times are used in the determination of pedestrian level of service (LOS) at signalized crosswalks. Pedestrian crossing times also have to be estimated properly in order to design pedestrian signal timing in a 14 sale and efficient way. may not be able to cc {green plus flashing r»: hand, if pedestrian gre are experienced by vet phasing schemes vvtth ocations where the pe: tom turning vehicles interval. Turning vehicl where crosswalk anal Capacity Manual. 1997 22.2.1. Pedestrian Le Pedestrian leve‘ quail: ative. The followir 2. 9 -211. Quantitative The main meas :rel at service (L08) lie. , way Capacity Ma 3’36 of .her parameterS 36:53“ man VOlumeS l . e .eracterisn‘CS safe and efficient way. If the pedestrian WALK interval is inadequate, pedestrians may not be able to complete their crossing during the designated time interval (green plus flashing red) and their safety may be compromised. On the other hand, if pedestrian green time is excessively allocated, then unnecessary delays are experienced by vehicles. Pedestrian safety depends on well-designed signal phasing schemes with appropriate crossing times designated for pedestrians. At locations where the pedestrian demand is high, pedestrians should be separated from turning vehicles through the allocation of exclusive pedestrian WALK interval. Turning vehicle restrictions must be seriously considered at locations where crosswalk analysis shows low pedestrian level of service (Highway Capacity Manual, 1997). 2.2.2. 1. Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) at Signalized Crosswalks Pedestrian level of service (LOS) can be defined as quantitative as well as qualitative. The following sections will describe both. 2. 2. 2. 1. 1. Quantitative LOS of Pedestrian Facilities The main measure of effectiveness used in the US. to define pedestrian level of service (LOS) at signalized crosswalks is the average pedestrian space (Highway Capacity Manual, 1997). This is a function of pedestrian crossing time and other parameters including crosswalk width, pedestrian crossing length, pedestrian volumes, length of pedestrian green signal indication, and behavioral characteristics. 15 The ”Pedestrian 13) uses the average level of service estimat .ll( =73 rl"T whee MC: average 5; TS= crosswalk length (m2-g V= total incom T: Podestrian ; W: CTOSSwalk H L = DEUESU’Ian C G : walk interVa The walk "new“ in... . lfltérvals TE “ca. ‘ , Hurstnan DBTC - ;E rut eptlon - "u‘ "w." suqtln t e ap proach l The “Pedestrians” chapter of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (Chapter 13) uses the average space per pedestrian criterion for pedestrian crosswalk level of service estimation. The average space per pedestrian, Me, is defined as MC = TS /(V * T) ........................................................................................... Eq.2.1 where M6 = average space per pedestrian (m2/ped); TS: crosswalk time-space available to pedestrians during one cycle length (mz-sec/cycle); V = total incoming and outgoing pedestrians volume (ped/cycle), and T = pedestrian crossing time (sec). The crosswalk time-space, TS, available to pedestrians is calculated as TS=W*L*G ................................................................................................ Eq.2.2 where W: crosswalk width (m), L = pedestrian crossing distance (m), G = walk interval (sec), and other variables as previously defined. The walk interval, G, is typically the sum of the pedestrian green and flashing red intervals reduced by 3 sec to account for start up delays due to pedestrian perception-reaction. A two-dimensional time-space diagram illustrating the approach described above is shown in Figure 2.1. 16 —. DISTANCE 7r l l w _4 ._ C) Figure 11. Time-593‘: If pedestrian Cr: are known, then the relationship between t!” table 2.1. Table 2.1. Pedestrian l Level of sen/lo DISTANCE 7rA it \ lel<-——>l 3 G TIME (sec) Figure 2.1. Time-space diagram for HCM approach (Virkler, 1995) If pedestrian crossing volumes and the required pedestrian crossing time are known, then the crosswalk level of service can be determined. The relationship between the average pedestrian space (mzlped) and LOS is shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. Pedestrian level of service on walkways (1997 HCM) Level of service Space (m2/ped) A 212.08 2 3.72 2 2.23 21.39 2 0.56 'nrnUOtD < 0.56 17 In pedestrian c ms 8 or higher (th8 observed in pedestria estimating the require: 22.2.1.2. Qualitative L Barker (1993) ; based on observations several walkways. 8 DL ciatative criteria of coherence and attract: service levels. The aut pedestrian area where llOr’zontal and Vertical ell-lit Unmenl DEdestria hoisted out that traffic Vern; 'Oda‘ Corlnectivit) Wis-”meme KmSlY (1993) ( Eli‘s ~ act"onto? Shed E ln pedestrian crosswalks, the desirable level of service corresponds to LOS B or higher (McShane et al., 1998). LOS F is the worst scenario that can be observed in pedestrian facilities. In the following sections, methodologies for estimating the required pedestrian crossing time are reviewed. 2. 2. 2. 1.2. Qualitative LOS of Pedestrian Facilities Sarkar (1993) presented a qualitative evaluation of pedestrian facilities based on observations of pedestrians in Rome and Munich. A pedestrian mall, several walkways, a bus stop, and intersection crosswalks were evaluated using qualitative criteria of safety, security, comfort and convenience, system coherence and attractiveness. Pedestrian environments were classified into six service levels. The author described a realistic and a desired level of service in a pedestrian area where the right of way is shared by different modes through horizontal and vertical grade separation. Attention was given into making the environment pedestrian-friendly, especially for captive pedestrians. It was also pointed out that traffic planners and designers have ignored the importance of interrnodal connectivity and facilities that enhance such transfers in pedestrian environments. Khisty (1993) described a practical method of assessing pedestrian facilities using environmental factors. Assessment of environmental factors was accomplished through appropriate performance measures, including attractiveness, comfort, convenience, safety, security, system coherence, and system continuity. Qualitative level of service was used to supplement the 18 quantitative level of 56 units as described in C 2.222 Pedestrian C l Several metho: at signalized crosswa and do not consider platoons. In the followi crossing times at signa 2.22.2.1. 1997 Hi hwe The 1997 US. calculate pedestrian c: pedestrian issues and he .T.al signalized c T=Lium_ Wee T: DGdestrian L: pedeSlrlan U : pedeSlrlan 4.5 ruse” quantitative level of service of the facility on the basis of flow, speed, and density units as described in Chapter 13 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. 2. 2. 2. 2. Pedestrian Crossing Times at Signalized Crosswalks Several methodologies are available to estimate pedestrian crossing times at signalized crosswalks. Some of them are applicable to low volume conditions and do not consider platoon movements, while others consider only one-way platoons. In the following sections, existing methodologies to calculate pedestrian crossing times at signalized crosswalks are summarized. 2. 2. 2. 2. 1. 1997 Highway Capacity Manual {HCM) Models The 1997 US. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) utilizes two formulae to calculate pedestrian crossing times. Chapter 13 of the 1997 HCM is devoted to pedestrian issues and proposes Equation 2.3 for calculating pedestrian crossing time, T, at signalized crosswalks: T= L/u .......................................................................................................... Eq.2.3 where T = pedestrian crossing time (sec), = pedestrian crossing distance (m), and u = pedestrian crossing speed (proposed default value =1.37 mlsec or 4.5 ftlsec). 19 On the other signalized intersectic pedestrian requireme" T=D+/L it) where r: pedestrzaf D= pedestrian L= pedestrian u= pedestrian ftlsec). Figure 2.2 shows a covenant based on th There are “No d On the other hand, Chapter 9 of the 1997 HCM (which focuses on signalized intersections) defines the minimum crossing time for meeting pedestrian requirements, T, as: T=D+(L/u) ................................................................................................ Eq.2.4 where T = pedestrian crossing time (sec), D = pedestrian initial start-up delay (sec), L = pedestrian crossing distance (m), and u = pedestrian crossing speed (proposed default value=1.22 mlsec or 4.0 ftlsec). Figure 2.2 shows a time-space diagram for a single pedestrian crossing movement based on the formulation presented in Equation 2.4. There are two differences between the two formulations proposed in the 1997 HCM for crossing time estimation. First, pedestrian initial start-up delay is ignored in the formula in Chapter 13 but accounted for in the formula in Chapter 9. Second, the definition of pedestrian crossing speed used differs from one methodology to the other. The pedestrian initial start-up delay, D, refers to the time it takes the pedestrian to step off the curb and enter crosswalk after a pedestrian signal indication becomes green. The proposed default value in Chapter 9 of the 1997 HCM is 7 sec (D=O in Chapter 13). 20 DISTANCE A ii ’* figure 2.2. Time-spat Moreover, Cha: recommended pedest: llS fps). Chapter 9. o , at the 15 percentile v. due of 1.22 mlsec (4 ressing pedestrians v.- Overall, the for conservative than the it, . “lula in Chapter 9 a h . u}: ...5 if ”C manner m4t DISTANCE A 7? U L 1 AL > j._,| TIME D Figure 2.2. Time-space diagram for a single pedestrian (Virkler, 1995) Moreover, Chapter 13 uses the average pedestrian walking speed as the recommended pedestrian crossing speed, u, with a default value of 1.37 mlsec (4.5 fps). Chapter 9, on the other hand, assumes as pedestrian crossing speed, u, the 15m-percentile walking speed of pedestrians with a recommended default value of 1.22 mlsec (4.0 ftlsec). This modification is intended to accommodate crossing pedestrians who walk at speeds lower than the average. Overall, the formulation offered in Chapter 9 (Equation 2.4) is more conservative than the one provided in Chapter 13 (Equation 2.3), while the formula in Chapter 9 appears to address pedestrian crossing needs in a more realistic manner. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. MUTCD Model The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) proposes an equation in a format identical to Equation 2.4, with the exception that the start-up delay, D, varies from 4 to 7 sec (MUTCD, 1988). 21 2.22.2.3. Pignataro A", Pignataro (l9‘ recommended modifi: up delay. 0, and the c to or greater than 5 s proposed crossing spa otusers with restricte: 2.22.2.4. Discussion \ All three methoi pedestrian crossing llf‘ :edestrian platoons. A in the above mode l 56 he crosswalk dun: Dialoonsi time D may ccsswalk may not be C 2. The Institute of and describes a his 2th scels platOOn Dies lesser. T:D+£, ”9+2p 2. 2. 2. 2. 3. Pignataro Model Pignataro (1973) proposed a model identical to Equation 2.4, and recommended modifications to the range of values of the pedestrian initial start- up delay, D, and the pedestrian crossing speed, u. He proposed a D value equal to or greater than 5 sec, and u values in the range of 1.07 to 1.22 mlsec. The proposed crossing speeds in the Pignataro’s approach consider crossing needs of users with restricted crossing abilities such as children and the elderly. 2. 2.2.2.4. Discussion All three methodologies presented above (in Equations 2.3 and 2.4) model pedestrian crossing time for individual pedestrians without any consideration for pedestrian platoons. As Virkler et al. (1984 and 1995) indicate, the crossing time, T, in the above models shall be sufficient if only a small number of pedestrians use the crosswalk during a given phase. However, in the presence of pedestrian platoons, time D may not be sufficient for everyone to leave the curb, and the crosswalk may not be cleared of pedestrians in time T. 2. 2. 2. 2. 5. [TE Model The Institute of Traffic Engineers (lTE) School Crossing Guideline (lTE, 1962) describes a methodology for pedestrian crossing time calculation that considers platoon presence in one direction. Pedestrian crossing time, T, is described as follows: T=D+L/u+2[(N/5)—1] ......................................................................... Eq.2.5 22 where I N: number c‘ interval. and all other variables toils. five abreast. Wit values in the ITE moc the time-space diagra' alSIgTANCE T l\‘ E '90: ' "Cm?! : T s 0+ , L/U+-x—/ “its where N = number of pedestrians in a platoon of pedestrians crossing during an interval, and all other variables as defined above. It is assumed that pedestrians walk in rows, five abreast, with a 2-sec headway between rows. Recommended D and u values in the ITE model are 5 sec and 1.22 mlsec respectively. Figure 2.3 shows the time-space diagram for this model. DISTANCE 7&- A . L 1 I I I | TIME D Figure 2.3. Time-space diagram for a one-way platoon (Virkler, 1995) 2. 2. 2. 2. 6. Virkler and Guell Model Virkler and Guell (1984) generalized the concept proposed in the ITE model. Their model considered also the presence of a one-way platoon and is formulated as follows: T=D+L/u+x(N/W) ................................................................................. Eq.2.6 where 23 x: average; w: crosswéall Figure 2.3 als: refers to perception-re second term represer‘ moving with speed ec. Platoon presence. A seapedestrian/m can I 2.2.2.2. 7. Discussion \ Although Equat and mnsider platoon tossing direction only :latoons are formed wl are relatively large tell: een the two platt x = average pedestrian headway (sec/ped/m of crosswalk width), and W = crosswalk width (m), and all other variables as defined earlier. Figure 2.3 also applies to this equation. The first term of Equation 2.6 refers to perception-reaction time required by pedestrians to start crossing. The second term represents the time needed by a single pedestrian to cross when moving with speed equal to u and the third term is an adjustment to account for platoon presence. A start-up delay of 3 sec with u=1.27 mlsec, and x=2.61 sec/pedestrian/m can be used as default values. 2. 2. 2. 2. 7. Discussion Although Equations 2.5 and 2.6 recognize pedestrian platoon existence and consider platoon size, they both assume that platoons are formed at one crossing direction only. In reality, it is quite common that two opposite-direction platoons are formed which meet in the crosswalk during time T. If platoon sizes are relatively large, and/or the crosswalk width (W) is small then conflicts between the two platoons are expected which will result in an increase of pedestrian crossing time, T. Last, but not least, none of the methodologies currently in existence accounts for the effects of turning vehicles (interaction between turning vehicles and pedestrians sharing the same green interval) during the pedestrian crossing phase. Improved methodologies need to be developed to address such issues in the future. However, in this study the issue of developing new methodologies to estimate pedestrian crossing time at signalized crosswalks is out of the scope. It 24 is understood that the estimating pedestrian these variables tspe pedestrian signal timi' up delay is given methodologies to est collected from the stu lilorovement of the between turning vehi W The Charactt tncroughly researce is understood that the selection of pedestrian walking speed and start-up time in estimating pedestrian crossing time plays an important role, and design values of these variables (speed and start-up time) may affect the proper setting of pedestrian signal timing. Literature review on pedestrian walking speed and start- up delay is given in the following section. In this study, the existing methodologies to estimate pedestrian crossing time are validated using data collected from the study site and some recommendations are made towards the improvement of the existing formulae. The literature review of the interaction between turning vehicles and pedestrians is summarized in the section 2.2.4. 2.2.3. Pedestrian Walking/Crossing Speed and Start-up Time The characteristics and behavior of pedestrians have not been as thoroughly researched and documented as those of motorists. Literature review shows that there is a considerable variation in the walking/crossing speed of pedestrians depending upon age, trip purpose and environment. In a study on walking speeds, 967 persons were observed in two transportation terminals in New York City. Free-flow walking speeds with an average of 1.4 mlsec (4.6 ftlsec) were observed. 78 percent of the walkers normally walked more slowly. The median speed, which is considered to be more representative than the average speed due to high variance, was 1.2 m/sec (4 ftlsec) (Fruin, 1971). It should be noted that street crossing speeds are expected to be different from walking speeds in terminals/ malls because in street environments through and/or turning vehicles and impending signal change prompt pedestrians to move faster. However, a time-lapse photography study of pedestrians crossing in 25 New York City street. rn-‘sec (3.3 ftlsec) if speeds in terminalsr more studies in whip walkinglcrossing em: The Manual 0 normal walking speed| York study indicates determine the pedes valkfaster than that one. The Institute o “What walking Spee The 1955 edition of do not attain the . New York City streets showed a lower average crosswalk walking speed of 1.0 mlsec (3.3 ftlsec) (Fruin and Benz, 1984). In order to validate that walking speeds in terminals/malls are lower than those in streets, there is a need for more studies in which walking/crossing speed data are collected at various walking/crossing environments and analyzed further. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends normal walking speed to be assumed as 1.2 mlsec (4 ftlsec). However, the New York study indicates that if a walking speed of 1.2 mlsec (4 ftlsec) is used to determine the pedestrian clearance interval, 50 percent of pedestrians have to walk faster than their normal walking speed to cross safely within the allocated time. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Handbook suggests that a normal walking speed of 1.2 mlsec is acceptable but speeds of 0.9 to 1.0 mlsec (3.0 to 3.3 ftlsec) may be appropriate for slow walkers (Homburger et al., 1982). The 1965 edition of the ITE handbook estimated 35 percent of the pedestrians did not attain the 1.2 mlsec rate (Baerwald, 1965). A study of walking speed conducted in Florida at a location with a large number of elderly pedestrians determined that a walking speed of 0.8 mlsec (2.5 ftlsec) was appropriate for 87 percent of those pedestrians (ITE Committee 4A-6, 1992). A Swedish research team studied pedestrians aged 70 years or older who were instructed to cross an intersection at fast, very fast, and normal speed. The results indicated that 60 percent of the pedestrians considered a speed lower than 1.2 mlsec as fast. Approximately 90 percent crossed at a speed lower than 1.2 mlsec, with 15 percent walking at a speed less than 0.7 mlsec (2.3 ftlsec) (Dahlstedt, undated). 26 Knoblauch e‘ speed and start-up ti The results of the stL Table 22. Pedest percentile) Pedestrians . T by age ‘ Older( 265 T VS) (3 . Ounger (<65 1: \ tires suggested in T section 2.2.2.2, one C massing time due to h elderly constitute a la Liiid .erprediCi the Cro S Knoblauch et al. (1996) conducted a series of studies to quantify walking speed and start-up time of pedestrians of various ages under different conditions. The results of the study are summarized in Table 2.2. Comparing the start-up Table 2.2. Pedestrian walking speed (mean) and start-up time (855m percentile) Walking speed, m/sec (ft/sec) Start-up time, sec Pedestrians Min Max Avg Design Min Max Avg Design by age value value Older(265 1.14 1.29 1.21 0.91 3.66 3.95 3.76 3.75 yrs) (3.73) (4.24) (3.98) (3.00) Younger(<65 1.38 1.56 1.46 1.22 2.76 3.31 3.06 3.0 yrs) (4.51) (5.12) (4.79) (4.00) times suggested in Table 2.2 and the ones used in the formulae presented in section 2.2.2.2, one can suspect that the formulae might overpredict pedestrian crossing time due to high D values utilized. On the other hand, at locations where elderly constitute a large portion in the pedestrian volume, the formulae might underpredict the crossing time due to the use of walking speeds higher than actual. In addition, pedestrian subjects in Table 2.2 were divided into two very broad categories. It is expected that the average design speed for youngsters (e.g., between 18 and 25 years old) might be higher than the speed suggested for the younger pedestrians (<65 years old) in Table 2.2. In that case, again, for design purposes a walking speed higher than 1.22 mlsec should be selected. Bowman and Vecellio (1994) performed a study of pedestrian walking speeds and conflicts. The study sites were urban and suburban medians located 27 on unlimited-access types of cross sectic: arterial streets. Pede years old, between 1. used to determine tr signalized intersectic indicated that pedes: location. The followin- raised. TWLT, and environments: ' PBdestrians Speed at T), locations tr with the SD TWTL mec respectivel) fL{59(3) and midblock 1C increageCj v the (”Great restimng frc The Watkinc on unlimited-access arterials. Pedestrian walking times were measured on three types of cross sections: raised median, two-way left-turn (TWLT), and undivided arterial streets. Pedestrian speeds were computed for three-age categories: <18 years old, between 18 and 60 years old, and >60 years old. Statistical tests were used to determine the effect of median type, crossing location (midblock vs. signalized intersection), and pedestrian age on walking speeds. The results indicated that pedestrian walking speeds were a function of age and crossing location. The following conclusions on pedestrian walking speeds were made for raised, TWLT, and undivided median streets in CBD and suburban environments: 0 Pedestrians aged 18 to 60 years performed a significantly higher speed at TWLT medians for both signalized intersections and midblock locations than they did at undivided median arterials. They crossed with the speed of 1.47 mlsec (4.81 ftlsec) and 1.46 (4.79 ftlsec) at TWTL medians at signalized intersections and midblock locations, respectively. However, they achieved the speed of 1.17 mlsec (3.84 ftlsec) and 1.19 mlsec (3.90 ftlsec) at signalized intersections and midblock locations, respectively, at undivided median arterials. The increased walking speed at locations with TWLT lane may be due to the increased pedestrian perception for longer walking distance resulting from the presence of the TWLT lane. 0 The walking speed for the 18 to 60 year old age group was significantly higher than that for the over 60 year old age group at both signalized 28 interSeCUO' higher wa intersect“)r intersectior midblOCk C' The diverSIty researchers present purposes to determir. intersection crosswal- having slower walkir Gossing once they r I Handbook, 1983). T walkingmrossing $08: Gearance interval 8: expected to cross the ayallocating an apDrC scnemes (Bowman t0 ' «ever, usually con? "l‘c en, the Optimal SOIL W8 (vehicles an p e intersections and midblock locations. Both age groups had significantly higher walking speeds at midblock locations than at signalized intersections, probably because pedestrians felt protected at signalized intersections and did not feel the same urgency to cross as they felt at midblock ones. The diversity of walking speeds presented by different studies and researchers present a problem in selecting proper walking speed for design purposes to determine minimum green time and clearance interval at signalized intersection crosswalks. The Traffic Control Devices handbook states that "Those having slower walking speeds have the moral and legal right to complete their crossing once they have lawfully entered the crossing" (Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 1983). Thus, traffic engineers have to select the appropriate walking/crossing speed to determine the minimum green and the appropriate clearance interval according to the characteristics of pedestrians who are expected to cross the street. Vehicular traffic should also receive a fair treatment by allocating an appropriate green time, and the number of phases and phasing schemes (Bowman and Vecellio, 1994). Pedestrian and vehicular needs, however, usually conflict in selecting optimal signal timing and phasing plans. Then, the optimal solution is to be found by balancing the needs of both types of users (vehicles and pedestrians) and minimizing delay to both. 29 22.4. Turning Vehic Conflicts betw for potential crash or: turning-vehicles share priority at signalized i 224.1. Taming Veh A traffic cont. ccnpeting for the 55 Wild areas have . conflicts are defined t a. evasive act 0. traffic viola: The first Wpe VEfErs 2.2.4. Turning Vehicle Pedestrian-Conflicts and Crashes Conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles may create situations for potential crash occurrence. In many signalized intersections, pedestrians and tuming-vehicles share the right-of-way (same green time) and compete for traffic priority at signalized intersections. 2. 2.4. 1. Turning Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts A traffic conflict occurs when the paths of two movements that are competing for the same space (at the same time) cross each other. Traffic conflict areas have an increased potential for collisions. Two types of traffic conflicts are defined by Perkins and Harris (1968): a. evasive actions of road users, and b. traffic violations. The first type refers to a situation where one or both parties take an evasive action to avoid a collision that is imminent. Evasive actions of motorists or bicyclists are evidenced by braking and/or weaving. Evasive actions of pedestrians are evidenced by significant increase of walking speed, running, or waiting for vehicles/bicyclists to clear prior to crossing a roadway. On the other hand, traffic violations are defined as violations of the pedestrian right-of-way by vehicles, when the right-of-way of pedestrians over vehicles is clearly indicated by posted signs. Actual pedestrian-vehicle conflicts are defined by Davis et al. (1989) as situations where the projected path of a turning vehicle and a pedestrian cross and either the pedestrian or the vehicle, or both, must change direction and/or 30 speed to avoid a CO' the relationship betw vehicles and 09995: order to analyze the crosswalks. the cons appears more appror Fruin (1973) SH explored the relatic Pedestrian conflicts. accidents occurred (3' over the same Spar: Decestrian crosswali COWfiiCtS Show a 'OWE' ‘35 a significant ”Ur accidents/year), turn- recrease of total dela incremented all day speed to avoid a collision. This definition is appropriate to use when examining the relationship between conflicts and crashes, because actual conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians create a potential for vehicle-pedestrian crashes. In order to analyze the impact of pedestrian-vehicle interactions on operations of crosswalks, the consideration of potential (not actual) pedestrian-vehicle conflicts appears more appropriate. Fruin (1973) studied pedestrian crashes on one-way street networks and explored the relationship between pedestrian crashes and turning-vehicle pedestrian conflicts. He reported that 68 percent (172 accidents out of 253) of accidents occurred on the conflict side, where pedestrians and vehicles compete over the same space at the same time. The results of his study show that pedestrian crosswalks that are independent from turning-vehicle pedestrian conflicts show a lower pedestrian accident experience. If a signalized intersection has a significant number of turning-vehicle pedestrian crashes (e.g., 2 20-25 accidents/year), turning restrictions have to be applied despite the potential increase of total delay for vehicle traffic. Turning restrictions do not have to be implemented all day long. They can be applied only during pedestrian-peak hours. Fruin also quotes that pedestrian accidents with left-turning vehicles were two times higher than pedestrian accidents with right-turning vehicles. When conditions allow, left-turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts can be reduced by applying early/late release of pedestrians. Sisiopiku and Akin (1999:2) analyzed pedestrian perceptual and movement data obtained in a small city/college environment and concluded that 31 pedestrian and turn likelihood that pedes locations) to avoid s Pedestrian DONT W 224.2. Turning V9" Quaye et al. signalized intersectic atsignalized interse- road safety problem expected number of s and pedestrians. T accommodating left- cashes with pedestri permissive schemes. Opposing traffic but cg lehicies have to find pedestrian and turning vehicle conflicts at signalized intersections increase the likelihood that pedestrian users will cross the road improperly (in non-crosswalk locations) to avoid such conflicts. Improper crossing refers to crossing during pedestrian DON’T WALK (red) signal, or at a non-designated crossing location. 2. 2.4. 2. Turning Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes Quaye et al. studied pedestrian crashes with left-turning vehicles at signalized intersections. They concluded that left-turn vehicle-pedestrian crashes at signalized intersections are over-represented and become a very important road safety problem (Quaye et al., 1993). They also developed models predicting expected number of such crashes on the basis of the flow of left-turning vehicles and pedestrians. They examined how two typical signal schemes for accommodating left-turn vehicles influenced the number of left-turn vehicle crashes with pedestrians. The signal schemes studied were semi-protected and permissive schemes. In a semi- protected scheme, left-turning vehicles face no opposing traffic but conflict with pedestrians. In a permissive scheme, left-turning vehicles have to find suitable gaps in the opposing traffic. The results indicated that semi-protected left turns were safer for pedestrians at low left-turning vehicular flows. The opposite is true for high flows of left-turning vehicles. The literature also reports that left-turn vehicles are approximately four times more dangerous to pedestrians than through movements (Habib, 1980; Fruin, 1973). Abdulsattar et al. reported that left- and right-turn movements at signalized intersections were three to six times more hazardous to pedestrians than through movements, mainly because drivers fail to observe or yield to 32 pedestrians (Abduls involving left-turning three-year period a crashes at signalize findings should be t pedestrian signals 8 studies about pedes: Pedestrian 5 I crosswalk opera“)nS iecreased safety 3'“ different impacts 00 3 men more vulnera' extreme care. Improt‘l MC Control may r Sen GUS safety Consec pedestrians (Abdulsattar et al., 1996). Almuina (1989) examined crashes involving left-turning vehicles and pedestrians at signalized intersections during a three-year period and reported that approximately 32 percent of pedestrian crashes at signalized intersections occurred with left-turning vehicles. These findings should be taken under consideration by traffic engineers that design pedestrian signals and signal phasing plans. The following section summarizes studies about pedestrian signs and signals. 2.2.5. Pedestrian SignsI Signals and Alternative Signal Schemes Pedestrian signs and signals are of great importance in pedestrian crosswalk operations. Signs and signals should be properly placed and times for increased safety and operational efficiency. Different signal schemes have different impacts on the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. Since pedestrians are much more vulnerable than vehicles, traffic control must be designed with extreme care. Improper and/or confusing messages conveyed to pedestrians by traffic control may result in conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles with serious safety consequences. 2.2.5.1. Pedestrian Signs and Signals A clear indication of when pedestrians can walk without expectations of conflicts with vehicle traffic is the most useful information for pedestrians (Robertson and Carter, 1984). Pedestrian signals may also help pedestrians in estimating the safe crossing time remaining. A study at signalized intersections where there was no pedestrian signal by Mortimer (1973) showed that pedestrian 33 flow that crossed the crossing the street 0 because the immlne may put pedestrians benefit of pedestria‘ (Carter, 1984). How: pedestrian signals. E used in practice we WALK“ means that t melonsts. However onto the crosswalk 0 clearly know which Pedestrians who enr expectations than thc WALK signal indicatic Some cities sr r‘l‘ALK indication Th are flow that crossed the street was the highest during the yellow interval. Obviously, crossing the street during yellow signal creates a potentially dangerous situation because the imminent change of the traffic signal to green for vehicular traffic may put pedestrians crossing the road in danger. This study shows a great safety benefit of pedestrian signal indications at signalized intersection crosswalks (Carter, 1984). However, there has been a concern about a particular aspect of pedestrian signals. Sleight (1972) noted that the meaning of pedestrian signals used in practice was not always clear. Usually the solid green indication of 'WALK" means that the pedestrian has exclusive right-of-way and no conflict with motorists. However, in the majority of cases, vehicle traffic is permitted to turn onto the crosswalk during the WALK indication. Therefore, a pedestrian may not clearly know which type of control is in effect at a particular intersection. Pedestrians who encounter exclusive crossing phasing have a different set of expectations than those who are required to watch for turning vehicles during the WALK signal indication (Robertson and Carter, 1984). Some cities such as Washington, DC. have a different way of using the WALK indication. The green WALK signal flashes at intersections where there are potential conflicts between turning vehicles and crossing pedestrians. However, a similar problem occurs in that the flashing WALK and DONT WALK signal indications convey two completely different messages. The flashing WALK indicates a warning for pedestrians about turning vehicles whereas the flashing DONT WALK indicates the clearance interval; that is, the signal is about to change to the solid DONT WALK indication and pedestrians should not leave the curb and step on the the flashing WALK green WALK signal meaning of flashing inthe same vicinity message given by tr and Carter, 1984). Robertson (1; bees. only 2.5 per“ WALK. Less than t eioect vehicles to Turning vehicles in through the intersec It is believed will increase pedesl messages given to I be given provisions With signal is expect 29993 et al. “l“D'ems in the U: \ curb and step on the crosswalk. Again, pedestrians who have never encountered the flashing WALK indication might not know what to expect from the flashing green WALK signal. However, pedestrians may have a poor understanding of the meaning of flashing and solid green WALK signals if they both are used together in the same vicinity. Another risk is that, if pedestrians do not understand the message given by the signal, they might ignore the signal completely (Robertson and Carter, 1984). Robertson (1977) reported that out of 400 pedestrians surveyed in two cities, only 2.5 percent understood the intended meanings of flashing and solid WALK. Less than half of the pedestrians in both cities said that they would expect vehicles to be turning onto the crosswalk during the WALK interval. Turning vehicles in both cities constituted one-fourth of the total traffic passing through the intersections and all turns were permitted. It is believed that standardization of the information provided by signals will increase pedestrian crossing compliance with the signal. When the types of messages given to pedestrians vary from place to place, then pedestrians should be given provisions to identify the differences. Otherwise, pedestrian compliance with signal is expected to be low. Zeeger et al. (1984) pointed out that one of the major pedestrian safety problems in the US is due to the confusion associated with pedestrian signal indications. Pedestrians usually do not comply with pedestrian signals because of lack of understanding or respect for the signals. The violations of the DONT 35 WALK message w (Robertson, 1982). Zegeer et al. and signal alternatii. DONT WALK mess (instead of the flash most promising one include “WALK WIT WHEN TURNING" n TURNING VEHICLE explanation Sign (w from the study; ' The resul‘ Sign Were pedeStriar was efie‘ pefiestn‘a, Sign at 011 a'ready-s; pedeslria WALK message were found to be higher than 50 percent in many cities (Robertson, 1982). Zegeer et al. (1984) developed and evaluated innovative pedestrian sign and signal alternatives, including the clearance interval (in place of the flashing DONT WALK message) and pedestrian warnings of possible turning vehicles (instead of the flashing WALK message). Of 41 alternatives developed, the eight most promising ones were evaluated at several sites in five US cities. These include 'WALK WITH CARE" sign for pedestrians, "YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS WHEN TURNING" regulatory sign for motorists, "PEDESTRIANS WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES" warning sign for pedestrians, and a pedestrian signal explanation sign (word and symbolic). The following conclusions were drawn from the study: . The results from the evaluation of the pedestrian signal explanation sign were mixed. The sign did not demonstrate any effect on pedestrian compliance at two sites (Saginaw, Michigan), while the sign was effective at two other sites (Washington, DC) in reducing pedestrian violations and turning conflicts. The ineffectiveness of the sign at the two Michigan sites was thought to be related to the existing already-safe base conditions for pedestrians (more than 80 percent pedestrian compliance was observed in the sites before the sign tests were implemented). However, in Washington DC, the study sites showed only 56 percent of compliance in the base period and more improvement compared to base conditions. 36 When cc DONT SJ signal s.h violations sites. The stea: interval sr The WALr warning p. in reducin violations -, The YIELq be Gflech; particularly The PEDE also fOund turning Vet I TO PEDEE The flashir Steady WA shared the RObenSOn When compared to the flashing DON’T WALK display, the steady DONT START clearance indication using a three-lens pedestrian signal showed a significant improvement in reducing pedestrian violations and associated clearance related conflicts at three of the four sites. The steady DONT WALK signal indication used for the clearance interval showed no improvement over the flashing DONT WALK signal. The WALK WITH CARE signal used for the walk interval and aimed at warning pedestrians for the turning vehicles was found to be effective in reducing turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts as well as pedestrian violations at the four sites. The YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS WHEN TURNING sign was found to be effective in reducing pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles, particularly with right-turning vehicles. The PEDESTRIANS WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES sign was also found to be effective in reducing pedestrians conflicts with right- turning vehicles. This sign could be used in conjunction with the YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS WHEN TURNING sign. The flashing WALK signal did not show any proven benefit over the steady WALK signal in warning pedestrians for turning vehicles that shared the same green with pedestrians. According to the study by Robertson (1982), the difference between the steady and flashing 37 wALK s pedeSUia" Abdulsattar e YIELD T0 PE DE ST yield to pedestrians Vehicleepedestrian c before and after the effective in reducing percent. respectively MUST YIELD TO P Manual on Uniform T 2.2.5.2 Alternative Abrams et al Phasing plans for p vehicle interval" (wh Same Space and fin is in holes, and “scrarr WALK signals is understood by only about three percent of pedestrians. Abdulsattar et al. (1996) studied the effect of "TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS" sign. This sign aims at reminding turning motorists to yield to pedestrians who share the same signal phase with turning vehicles. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts were collected at 12 marked crosswalks in two cities before and after the sign was installed. The authors reported that the sign was effective in reducing left- and right- turn conflicts 20 to 65 percent and 15 to 30 percent, respectively. Based on the results of the study, the "TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS" sign was recommended for inclusion in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device. 2. 2. 5. 2. Alternative Pedestrian Signal Schemes Abrams et al. (1977) presented a methodology for selecting alternate phasing plans for pedestrian signals. They compared “combined pedestrian- vehicle interval” (where pedestrians and vehicles compete for priority over the same space and time), “early" and “late release” of pedestrians with respect to vehicles, and “scramble timing.” In a phase of scramble timing, vehicles from all approaches are stopped and the exclusive right-of-way is given to pedestrians. Each alternative was weighed in terms of its impact on the safety of the pedestrians and the delay to both pedestrians and vehicles. The results of the study showed that the combined pedestrian-vehicle interval almost minimized overall pedestrian and vehicle delay with the exception of turning-vehicle 38 pedestrian conflicts case. late or scram: the application of la high traffic volumes and high pedestria reduces vehicle dele lane by concentratir cross at the end of safety by completel method can not be low. Finally, the ea inDrove pedestrian methodology for se volumes was also {2 l3. Pedestrian pe engineers and c' i'. le ”8. ad by pedestriar i3 . be Ihstaned ir 999i." rll‘lg StUdie: porn . “~t‘8tn an‘Vehiue ml V3038 \r arranted pedestrian conflicts that cause long queues of vehicles in turning lanes. In that case, late or scramble timing is preferable. The total delay is always increased by the application of late release for low vehicle volumes. However, the results for high traffic volumes are mixed. If there is a high demand for right-turning vehicles and high pedestrian crossing volumes, the use of late release significantly reduces vehicle delay. The use of late release increases the capacity of right-turn lane by concentrating pedestrian flow in a short time and allowing pedestrians to cross at the end of the phase. Scramble timing can be beneficial to pedestrian safety by completely separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic; however, this method can not be justified in terms of overall delay if pedestrian compliance is low. Finally, the early release of pedestrians does not appear to significantly improve pedestrian safety while it increases total delay at the intersection. A methodology for selecting the phasing for given pedestrian and turning-vehicle volumes was also presented. 2.3. Pedestrian Perception and Preference Studies Pedestrian attitudes and preferences are very important criteria for traffic engineers and city planners. Pedestrians are an important group whose perceptions and preferences need to be addressed in designing any facilities used by pedestrians. However, this does not mean that pedestrian facilities are to be installed in locations where they are not recommended by traffic engineering studies because marked crosswalks can also be target locations for pedestrian-vehicle accidents because pedestrians see marked crosswalks as places warranted for them to cross. Marked crosswalks sometimes may give a 39 false sense of sea ola major pedestr;. (ADT) greater than crosswalks than uni lane-two way stree crosswalks (standa major shortcoming r consider pedestriar vehicular volumes 0 Although cor problem of 99995" preferences are TE Tanaboriboon and toward sufficiency < study compared sig underpass crossinr 0vcrpass or underp Rouphail (15 naked midblock “mated that usert ”3581‘s false sense of security to pedestrians. Zeeger (1999) recently presented findings of a major pedestrian study. For four-lane locations with the average daily traffic (ADT) greater than 11,000, the crash rate was significantly higher in the marked crosswalks than unmarked crossings. With the ADT smaller than 11,000, for two- lane-two way streets, the crash rate was the same with and without marked crosswalks (standard two longitudinal stripes on the pavement). However, a major shortcoming of the study must be mentioned here that the analysis did not consider pedestrian volumes. Pedestrian crashes are related to not only vehicular volumes but also pedestrian volumes. Although considerable research has been undertaken on the general problem of pedestrian safety, limited studies on pedestrians’ perceptions and preferences are reported in the literature. Among them, the research of Tanaboriboon and Jing (1994) studied preferences of pedestrians in China toward sufficiency of crossing facilities and willingness to use the facilities. The study compared signalized intersection pedestrian crossings with overpass and underpass crossings and concluded that users prefer signalized crossings to overpass or underpass crossings. Rouphail (1984) performed a user compliance and preference study on marked midblock crosswalks in downtown Columbus. The preference study indicated that users perceived the unsignalized marked midblock crosswalk to be unsafe. However, the same crosswalks are rated highest in crossing convenience. The survey also indicated that neither motorists nor pedestrians seemed to favor the signalized marked midblock crosswalks, most likely because 40 of increased delay marked midblock c favored the unsign over the signalized After revn perception/preferen reviewed. The follov and pedestrian saire 2.4. Pedestrian Saf Pedestrians vehicle crash deé approximately 13 tc population in those c Aiahough pedestrian ofconcem as pedes ifliuries. In 1998 and in Michigan, respect 245 fatalities and 42‘ The following of increased delay to both types of users. Drivers preferred the signalized marked midblock crosswalks to unsignalized crosswalks whereas pedestrians favored the unsignalized marked midblock crosswalks by a ratio of 2.6 to 1.0 over the signalized ones. After reviewing design-related researches and pedestrian perception/preference studies, pedestrian safety studies also need to be reviewed. The following section reports the issues of pedestrian safety in general and pedestrian safety in crosswalks in particular. 2.4. Pedestrian Safety Studies Pedestrians constitute the second most vulnerable category in motor vehicle crash deaths after occupants. Pedestrian deaths account for approximately 13 to 17 percent of motor vehicle deaths. The share of elderly population in those deaths is major (Pedestrian Accident Statistics, online, 1999). Although pedestrian safety has improved in the recent years, it remains an issue of concern as pedestrian related crashes result in a high number of fatalities and injuries. In 1998 and 1988, 3700 and 4355 pedestrian related accidents occurred in Michigan, respectively, which resulted in 173 fatalities and 3208 injuries, and 245 fatalities and 4228 injuries, respectively (Michigan Crash Reports, 1988-98). The following facts are based on the analysis of data from the US Department of Transportation's Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) (Pedestrian Accident Statistics, online, 1999): 41 5,412 pe Since 19 pedestria Pedestria 1975 and Pedestria decrease; 58 perce. nighttime concentra 5,412 pedestrians died in 1996, slightly lower than in 1995 (5,585). Since 1975, 13 to 17 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths involved pedestrians. Pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people decreased 39 percent between 1975 and 1996 (from 3.5 to 2.1 deaths per 100,000). Pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people zero to nine years old decreased by 70 percent between 1975 and 1996. 58 percent of pedestrians age sixteen and older, who were killed in nighttime motor vehicle crashes in 1996, had blood alcohol concentrations at or above 0.10 percent. Seventeen percent of pedestrian deaths occur in hit-and-run crashes. Male pedestrians account for 2 out of every 3 pedestrians deaths. People age 65 and older have more than twice as many pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people compared to younger groups, even though the rate of pedestrian fatalities among the elderly has been declining since the 19505. At age 80 and older, the 1996 pedestrian death rate among men was more than three times as high as at age 74 and younger. Fatal pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions occur most often between 6 and 9 PM. Pedestrian deaths are more likely to occur on Friday and Saturday than other days. 42 After provic following paraglal pedestrian safety it 2.4.1. Pedestrian S, Pedestrian pedestrians are ki'.‘ The following stat Statistics. online, 1E ' 59 perce However, Of higher . 33 Demer deaths 0C A majoniy of urban areas. Appro )r ”053m 9 or entering ., should be noted t H ‘v Sloan v"Nation: ZIOSSIn Q at a n0n.d . E: lay. and so On) After providing these facts about the pedestrian safety in general, in the following paragraphs, statistics and research findings related to the issue of pedestrian safety in crosswalks are presented next. 2.4.1. Pedestrian Safety in Crosswalks Pedestrian deaths are mainly a problem in urban settings. Many pedestrians are killed in crosswalks, sidewalks, median strips, and traffic islands. The following statistics are based on data from FARS (Pedestrian Accident Statistics, online, 1999): 0 69 percent of pedestrian deaths in 1996 occurred in urban areas. However, the ratio of deaths to injuries is higher in rural areas because of higher impact speeds on rural roads. 0 33 percent of pedestrian deaths among people age 65 and older in 1996 occurred at intersections. Moreover, 12 percent of pedestrian deaths occurred among children age 4 and younger. A majority of the pedestrian-vehicle accidents in 1996 (82%) occurred in urban areas. Approximately 25 percent of pedestrians were killed or injured while crossing or entering intersections (Pedestrian Accidents Statistics, online, 1999). It should be noted that the vast majority of pedestrian crashes were caused by pedestrian violations of right-of-way (e.g., crossing during DONT WALK signal, crossing at a non-designated crossing area, crossing without observing the right- of-way, and so on). 43 A study in pedestrian violatic pedestrian violatic- collected at signal‘ cities. The analys correlated with t' characteristics wer higher at the inte unsignalized ones. think that they can' encourage pedestr 25. Summary anc Many cities areas pedestrian engineers need pedestrians and th The literatur snowed the impor crossi . ”9 Optlons E A study in the late fifties reported some interesting findings about pedestrian violations at signalized intersections (Orne, 1959). In this study, pedestrian violations, as well as pedestrian and vehicle volume data were collected at signalized intersections with and without pedestrian signals in two cities. The analysis results showed that pedestrian violations were positively correlated with both pedestrian and vehicle volumes although pedestrian characteristics were shown to be different in the two cities. The correlation was higher at the intersections where a pedestrian signal was present than at unsignalized ones. It is obvious that pedestrians ignore traffic signals when they think that they can safely cross the street. Long gaps in vehicular traffic stream encourage pedestrians to ignore signals while attempting to cross. 2.5. Summary and Conclusions Many cities around the country are trying to make urban and downtown areas pedestrian and bicycle friendly environments. City planners and traffic engineers need evidence of what types of designs are appreciated by pedestrians and those attract and safely serve for non-motorized users. The literature review of the different topics related to the research study showed the importance of determining the effectiveness of various pedestrian crossing options and treatments. However, an evaluation of various different crossing options in a same environment has not been found in the literature. In order to make reasonable comparisons and exclude site specific characteristics from study results, it is imperative to assess pedestrian crossing options under similar conditions in a same environment. For this reason, Grand River Avenue in 44 downtown East L. crossing options a factors from study effectiveness of thy downtown East Lansing has been identified to assess various pedestrian crossing options and facilities in a same test corridor in order to exclude external factors from study results and make comparisons meaningful with respect to the effectiveness of the crossing locations. 45 QpER,it,TlOl"4’3‘L OF PEDE, 3.1. Introduction In this Gila? studied by deiel'l Grand River AVE extends from Abt hg.Eambound A local bus ser Transportation Ac (91.2t01243 it) two sections. Figc The study 9| pedestrian crossirl l.s@nmuk 2. unsigna .rharked I .nonshk - median along ()5. Chapter 3 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OPTIONS: STUDY OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING COMPLIANCE AND BEHAVIOR 3.1. Introduction In this chapter, the effectiveness of various pedestrian crossing options is studied by determining pedestrian crossing compliance using field data from Grand River Avenue in downtown East Lansing, Michigan. The study site extends from Abbott Street to Bogue Street and is approximately 1 km (0.63 mi) long. Eastbound vehicular traffic is served by two lanes and westbound by three. A local bus service is provided on both directions by the Capital Area Transportation Authority. Pedestrian crosswalk lengths vary from 27.8 to 37.9 m (91.2 to 124.3 ft). To facilitate the data collection, the study site is divided into two sections. Figures 3.1.a and b show the schemes of the study site by section. The study site offers an appr0priate environment for evaluation of various pedestrian crossing treatments. Such treatments include: 1. signalized intersection crosswalks, 2. unsignalized intersection crosswalks, 3. marked midblock crosswalks, 4. non-striped midblock crosswalks, and 5. median shelters at midblock crosswalk locations and physical barriers along the study site. 46 fl DIVISION ST —l Student Book Store __..-—~ l= CHARLES ST Jacobson's I T / MAC. AVE | N _ Division Signalized x-walk DIVISION ST 113.7m (373') Student Book Store —-————— Charles Unsignalized x-walk CHARLES ST l | '- l I -2 I | 82 m (269’) O l | m I l D l l 8 I I g _ I I Jacobson’s Midblock x-walk I l I I 61.9 m (203') I I — M.A.C. Signalized x-walk 1.. M.A.C. AVE E I l g I I MSU 132.6 m (435') g : I Student : g I Union I l l I l I U ————— MSU Student Union I g I Midblock x-walk | l I 38.4 m (126') O : shelter —' Abbott Signalized x-walk ABBOTT ST Figure 3.1.a. A scheme of the study site: section 1 (not to scale) 47 LE ORCHARD ST —1 L = L COLLINGWOOI \ Good Times Pizza Brew E -. ---_1.---r-_-._----r ...... I=g . . N Orchard Unsrgnalized x-walk ORCHARD ST _ l l I I I I 101.8 m (334') l I I I l l l l l l I I I l l l l I I I I =I== Collingwood-East x-walk COLLINGWOOD sr H _— 39.3 m (129') - -—-—- Collingwood-West x-walk a / I I _I'— 70.7 m (232') I I I l I I l I I 3 8 w I I ' o E g) =l= Bailey Midblock x-walk 0 I: 0' I l g l I l l l l l l l l l l l I BAILEY sr ' ‘ ‘ I 137.8 m (452') l 1 l l l I I I I 2"(1 Non-striped Midblock x-walk I l = __j____ _-_-_-___-_________--_-__--_-__7_ I l g I = E I 1St Non-striped Midblock x-walk .. i i . 1 ----- - ------------------------------- " gee - - .=== 0 - I _=_r= Berkeley Hall x walk Berkeley I I . O : shelter , _==~ Division Signalized x-walk DIVISION 81' Figure 3.1.b. A scheme of the study site: section 2 (not to scale) 48 Four sign site. Three of If at one side (988‘ at both sides. I receives a red signalized interse to allow the mo During the 5-6 St traffic is moving, in mind that pedi portion of the re indication of the unsignalized inter Marked m intersections. The CUrbS, and have \ Four signalized intersections with crosswalks are located within the study site. Three of these intersections (Abbott, MAC and Division) have a crosswalk at one side (east side), and the fourth intersection (Collingwood) has crosswalks at both sides. With respect to signal phasing, the westbound vehicle traffic receives a red indication 5-6 sec earlier than the eastbound at two of the signalized intersections (Abbott and Division). The purpose of this arrangement is to allow the movement of eastbound left-turning vehicles onto cross streets. During the 5-6 sec period in which westbound traffic is stopped and eastbound traffic is moving, the pedestrian signal remains red. However, one should keep in mind that pedestrians traveling southbound can safely cross the westbound portion of the roadway (since westbound traffic is stopped), despite the red indication of the pedestrian signal. Finally, two crosswalks are located at the unsignalized intersections (Charles and Orchard). Marked midblock crosswalks are located between two consecutive intersections. They are striped, paved with red-colored bricks at the median and curbs, and have warning signs posted. The warning signs display the message “cross only when traffic clears.” There are four marked midblock crosswalk locations within the study area, two of which have shelters at the median (MSU Student Union and Berkeley Hall). Non-striped midblock crosswalks, on the other hand, have red-color brick pavement at the median, but they lack stripes and signs. Two non-striped midblock crosswalks exist within the study area. Both are located to the east of Division Street, just east of the Berkeley Hall marked midblock crosswalk. 49 In summer 1. Signali; (Abbott 2. Signal:: (Colling 3. Unsign. 4. Marke I Berkel Bailey 5 32' "EthOdolog: The effect ‘Wdestrian Cross defined as the r |oration lelded b area (CIAV The 32 W d€tenmne the or: or stance between In summary, the study crosswalks can be stratified as follows: 1. Signalized intersection crosswalks with one-side pedestrian crossing (Abbott, M.A.C., and Division Streets); 2. Signalized intersection crosswalk with two-side pedestrian crossings (Collingwood Street); 3. Unsignalized intersection crosswalks (Charles and Orchard Streets); 4. Marked midblock crosswalks with the shelter (Student Union and Berkeley Hall); 5. Marked midblock crosswalks without the shelter (Jacobson’s and Bailey Street); and 6. Non-striped midblock crosswalks (just east of Berkeley Hall). 3.2. Methodology The effectiveness of the pedestrian crosswalks is determined based on “pedestrian crossing compliance.” The crossing compliance rate (percent) is defined as the number of pedestrians (per hour) who cross at a crosswalk location divided by the number of pedestrians (per hour) in a “crosswalk influence area (CIA)." The definition of the CIA is given next. 3.2.1. Crosswalk Influence Area (CIA) The analysis was based on the assumption that each crosswalk had an influence area in which it attracted pedestrians crossing the street. In order to determine the crosswalk influence area (CIA) for each study crosswalk, the distance between each pair of consecutive crosswalks was divided into two equal 50 lengths by an i" between two C crosswalk influe crosswalk influer Figure 3. definition for crci L1. The distanc crosswalk influer Lei/2 and Lfi1/2 crosswalk influer lengths by an imaginary dividing line. As a result, each crosswalk was located between two consecutive dividing lines serving as the boundaries of the crosswalk influence area. The area between the two lines is the so-called crosswalk influence area. Figure 3.2 demonstrates an example of a crosswalk influence area definition for crosswalk i. The distance between crosswalk H and crosswalk i is L,-.1. The distance between crosswalk i and crosswalk i+1 is Lm. Then, the crosswalk influence area (ClA,-) for the crosswalk i is the product of the sum of L,-.1/2 and Lin/2, and the street width from curb to curb. The length of the crosswalk influence area is expressed mathematically by Equation 3.1: Crosswalk i Influence area (CIA) Figure 3.2. Definition of crosswalk influence area 51 where L’cm = len Ln =dis LM = dis crosswalk The definition c crosswalks does simply divided t CTOSSWaIk, The meai emp'Oyed in this effectiveneSs. Tr Whocomply With the total ”Umbe pedest rians Who [see Figure 3.3 to i Li—l + Li+l L”, = ——2—— .......................................................................................... Eq.3.l where L’CM = length of the crosswalk influence area for crosswalk i (m), L,-.1 = distance between crosswalks i-1 and i, L,-+1 = distance between crosswalks iand i+1, and crosswalks H, i, and i+1 are three consecutive crosswalks. The definition of the crosswalk influence area (CIA) for different types of crosswalks does not differ. The distance between two consecutive crosswalks is simply divided by two in order to calculate the distance of a CIA for any crosswalk. 3.2.2. Pedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates (PCCR) The measure of “pedestrian crossing compliance rate (PCCR)" was employed in this study to compare various crossing options and assess their effectiveness. This measure is defined as the ratio of the number of pedestrians who comply with the crosswalk location and/or the pedestrian WALK signal over the total number of pedestrians in the crosswalk influence area (CIA). Pedestrians who comply with the crossing location i (denoted as P’) are those that cross within approximately 3.0 m (10 ft) from both sides of the crosswalk i (see Figure 3.3 for the definition of a crosswalk area). 52 Regardin crosswalks. one 3.3 walks is not Regarding the definition of the crosswalk area (CA) for the intersection crosswalks, one might think that the area where pedestrian type 1 or 3 in Figure 3.3 walks is not available at the intersection crosswalks. Therefore, the length of /:3 Note: Pedestrians 1 and 2 comply with location. However, pedestrian 3 does not (jaywalker). Partial iaywalkers are the ones whose crossing path is partially within the crosswalk area. 3m Ix-walk| 3m Crosswalk area (Ln/2) ’1‘ (L,.,/2) Crosswalk Influence Area (CIA) "T'T‘TT _.y._£-_._., Figure 3.3. Definition of crosswalk area for calculation of PCCR the crosswalk area for intersection crosswalks might be shorter than that of midblock crosswalks. However, this is not the case in the study area because there is usually a buffer area approximately 2-3 meters wide on the west side of the median of the intersections before the actual crosswalk limits begin. 3. 2. 2. 1. Spatial Crossing Compliance Rate (SCCR) Crossing compliance rates for unsignalized intersection and midblock crosswalks refer to spatial compliance, i.e., with respect to crossing location. 53 Equation 3.2 gives the definition of the "spatial" crossing compliance rate for crosswalks without a pedestrian signal: SCCR’ = 1.: ............................................................................................. Eq.3.2 P5“ where SCCI‘?i = spatial crossing compliance rate at crosswalk i(percent), PL' = number of pedestrians who cross within the crosswalk area, CA, (ped/hr), and Pom = total number of pedestrians in the crosswalk influence area (CIA) of crosswalk i(ped/hr). The pedestrian crossing compliance rate given in Equation 3.2 measures the degree of the pedestrian crossing compliance with respect to the crossing location only. Thus, it is also proper to use the equation for signalized (intersection) crosswalks when only spatial compliance is a matter of interest. 3. 2. 2. 2. Temporal Crossing Compliance Rate (TCCR) At signalized crosswalks, pedestrian crossing compliance shall be linked to two elements: a. compliance with the crossing location (spatial compliance), and b. compliance with the pedestrian WALK signal indication (temporal compliance). Temporal cros of the pedesl indication, PT’, Pu’. Tempora TCI‘R : where TCCR : P," P‘CA: Temporal crossing compliance rate, TCCR’, is defined as the ratio of the number of the pedestrians (per hour) who comply with the pedestrian WALK signal indication, PT’, over the total number of the pedestrians within the crosswalk area, PCA’. Temporal crossing compliance rate is shown in Equation 3.3. . P‘ TCCR' = FT .............................................................................................. Eq.3.3 a where TCCR'= temporal signal crossing compliance rate in signalized crosswalk i (percent), PT’= number of pedestrians who comply with the WALK signal indication (ped/hr), and P‘CA: total number of pedestrians (per hour) in the crosswalk area (CA) of crosswalk i. The reason that the denominator in Equation 3.3 is different from the one in Equation 3.2 because it not very meaningful to mention temporal crossing compliance when pedestrians do not comply with the crossing location. Therefore, in determining the temporal crossing compliance, pedestrians only in the crosswalk area (CA) are considered. 3. 2.2.3. Overall Crossing Compliance Rate (OCCR) To combine the spatial and temporal crossing compliances for signalized crosswalks, the concept of overall crossing compliance rate is introduced. Overall 55 La crossing comp pedestrians (p. pedestrian WA( (per hour) wit‘r definition of OC OCCR‘ =; where OCCR = S‘Udy arse. In ‘ a; crossing compliance rate, OCCR’, is defined as the ratio of the number of pedestrians (per hour) who comply with both the crossing location and the pedestrian WALK signal indication, Pu", over the total number of the pedestrians (per hour) within the crosswalk influence area, Pcm’. Equation 3.4 gives the definition of OCCR for signalized crosswalks: . P' OCCR’ = 4’ ............................................................................................ Eq.3.4 37.4 where OCCR’= overall crossing compliance rate in signalized crosswalk i (percent), Pu” = number of pedestrians who comply with both crossing location and pedestrian WALK signal indication (ped/hr), and Pam: total number of pedestrians in the crosswalk influence area (CIA) of crosswalk i (ped/hr). To compare the effectiveness of crossing options, pedestrian crossing compliance rates were calculated and compared for all the crosswalks in the study area. In addition, volumes on pedestrian paths leading to the crosswalks on Grand River Avenue were investigated in order to have more information about pedestrian flows in the study section. 56 3.3. Data Collt Pedesfi data collected the sidewalks E times. data coI volume (about intersection crc Pedestria (IO:30-l:00 pm data were colk limited to Satur: Open on Sunda MiChl'Qan State . collection sess; belonging to pre and maior holidg Weather conditicl data Were C 0“eetl eQUlpment from eI Eight vid I 3.3. Data Collection Pedestrian crossing activities were studied through the analysis of field data collected by direct observation using video cameras set up at locations on the sidewalks along the study site. In order to avoid very low pedestrian demand times, data collection sessions were conducted when a reasonable pedestrian volume (about 40-50 pedlhr) was expected to be present at the major intersection crosswalks since the data collection was fairly expensive. Pedestrian movements were observed and recorded during an off-peak (10:30-1 :00 pm) and the PM peak periods (2:30—6:00 pm). Pedestrian movement data were collected mostly during weekdays. Weekend data collection was limited to Saturdays since some shops/stores in downtown East Lansing are not open on Sundays. Data collection was performed during the months that the Michigan State University was in session (Spring and Fall, 1998). Only two data collection sessions fell in late May in order to recover bad video images belonging to previous data collections. Moreover, football home-game weekends and major holidays were excluded. Data collection was performed under various weather conditions (sunny, cloudy, snow sprinklers, cold, warm, and hot). No data were collected under rainy conditions in order to protect the video recording equipment from electrical damages that might occur due to rain. Eight video cameras were simultaneously used to record pedestrian movements. Video cameras were consecutively located on both sides of Grand River Avenue on the sidewalks along the study section in order to cover all 57 possible ped illustrating typ possible pedestrian movements within the entire study area. An example illustrating typical camera positions is shown in Figure 3.4. Camera 1 Camera 3 l _______ U:::::;z{§:\;:: U Camera 2 Camera 4 Figure 3.4. Positions of cameras located on the sidewalks along the Grand River Avenue The recording areas of consecutive cameras were overlapped a little bit to ensure that all pedestrians in the study section were captured. Pedestrian movements were recorded during 30-min sessions at each camera location. Then, cameras were moved to another location. In order to collect a 30-min pedestrian crossing activity data along the entire study site, the cameras were repositioned at least four times. This required a minimum of two hours of work in the field for filming alone, without considering the time involving to start-up and to move the equipment from place to place, and to set it up properly. As a result of 58 this process. the pedestriar Thougl intensive tasl pedestrian m collection ses locations bec during crossir Pedestrians er of the video ta To facil Sections, Secti. 2covered the ‘ the fOHOWIng Cr: 1 Abbo east: this process, for each data collection session 16 to 18 hours of video images of the pedestrian crossing activity were recorded. Though this type of data collection process was a tedious and labor- intensive task, it was very beneficial as it allowed for the detection of every pedestrian movement that occurred in the entire study site during the data collection sessions. Not only the information on pedestrian volume and crossing locations became available but also additional information about conditions during crossing (such as pedestrian signal indication, the presence of other pedestrians and motor vehicles, etc) were obtained through a careful processing of the video tapes in the office. 3.3.1. Study Sections To facilitate the data collection, the study site was divided into two sections. Section 1 extended from Abbott Street to Division Street, while section 2 covered the distance between Division and Bogue Streets. Section 1 included the following crosswalks: 1. Abbott St four-way intersection signalized crosswalk (located at the east side of the intersection); 2. MSU Student Union marked midblock crosswalk (with a shelter on the median); 3. M.A.C. Ave T-intersectlon (without a south leg) signalized crosswalk (at the east side of the intersection); 4. Marked midblock crosswalk (without a shelter) in front of Jacobson’s, and 59 5. Ct (at Section 2 inc 1. Div 5. Charles St T-intersection (without a south leg) unsignalized crosswalk (at the east side of the intersection). Section 2 included the following crosswalks: 1. Division St T-intersection (without a south leg) signalized crosswalk (at east side of the intersection), 2. Marked midblock crosswalk (with a shelter) in front of MSU Federal Credit Union (FCU) and Berkeley Hall, 3. Two non-striped midblock crosswalks east of Berkeley Hall, 4. Marked midblock crosswalk (without a shelter) east of Bailey St, 5. Collingwood four-way intersection signalized crosswalks (at both sides of the intersection), and 6. Orchard St T-intersection (without a south leg) unsignalized crosswalk. There was no crosswalk at Bogue Street intersection during the data collection period. A pedestrian activated signalized crosswalk was installed in December 1998. Data collection crew videotaped one section at a time recording pedestrian activities for a 30-min session, as described above. Several visits were performed to each section during weekdays and some Saturdays. 3.3.2. Data Collection Dates and Times Pedestrian movement data were collected from February through June 1998, and in September 1998. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize the dates of the 60 dat aTiC Tat Tablt r... 4 .: .-\ .\ q -1 data collection sessions for sections 1 and 2, respectively, as well as the time and weather conditions during the data collection. Table 3.1. Data collection sessions at section 1 (Abbott to Division Streets) Session Date Day Starting time Weather Temperature No 1 2/10/98 Tue 10:43 am Warm Low 40$ 2 2/14/98 Sat 12:44 pm Cold, partly cloudy High 305 3 2/19/98 Thu 2:33 pm Cold, cloudy Mid 305 4 2/23/98 Mon 2:46 pm Cold, partly sunny Mid 30$ 5 2/25/98 Wed 2:36 pm Warm, sunny High 40s 6 2/26/98 Thu 10:35 am Warm, sunny High 403 7 5/27/98 Wed 10:36 am Sunny Mid 80$ 8 5/28/98 Thu 3:15 pm Sunny Mid 70s Table 3.2. Data collection sessions at section 2 (Division to Bogue Streets) Session Date Day Starting time Weather Temperature No 1 4/17/98 Fri 3:29 pm Partly cloudy High 505 2 4/20/98 Mon 3:26 pm Partly cloudy Low 60$ 3 4/23/98 Thu 11:02 am Sunny Low 70$ 4 4/24/98 Fri 3:26 pm Sunny High 60s 5 4/28/98 Tue 10:58 am Sunny Low 60$ 6 4/30/98 Thu 10:59 am Cloudy High 603 7 9/19/98 Sat 1:00 pm Sunny Low 80$ 61 Nun Stalk The following data were recorded for pedestrian movement analyses. Number of pedestrians who: start crossing the street during pedestrian WALK signal, if applicable, (regular users), partially cross within the crosswalk area (partial jaywalkers), do not cross within the crosswalk area (jaywalkers) (see Figure 3.3), cross in a signalized crosswalk area during pedestrian DON’T WALK signal (sneakers), cross a first portion of a signalized crosswalk during DON’T WALK signal, and then continue crossing during the WALK signal (partial sneakers), cross from a curb to the median of a signalized crosswalk during the flashing DON’T WALK signal (late starters), and total number of pedestrians within the crosswalk influence area (CIA). Special efforts were made to avoid double counting of pedestrians that started to cross within the field of view of one camera and completed the crossing within the field of the following camera(s). In some cases, two VCR/TV sets were used to resolve double counting. While watching each tape separately, a record of the time when each and every pedestrian appeared on the screen and significant characteristics of him/her (e.g., wearing red T-shirt or blue jacket, etc.) were recorded. Using such information, pedestrians that appeared in more than one tape in the crosswalk influence area were not counted more than once. Data summary forms were developed to report summary data and calculate the 62 Pe co Jay J85 Tot Tot Vet Per Tote Tote 2-1. Total T0331 ; FiQUr pedestrian crossing compliance rates. Examples of such forms are given in Figures 3.5 and 6, while the complete set of the forms is provided in Appendix A. GD RIVER AVE (M-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/23/98, Monday, 35 F, cold, partly sunny Time: 2:46p 1- Marked Midblock Crosswalk with shelter (in front of the MSU Student Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Total I [Pedestrian 45 5 4 l 54 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the Crosswalk Area = 45 + 5 = 50 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the Crosswalk Influence Area = 54 + 0 + 2 = 56 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2418 veh/hr Lem = 85.50 m (280.5 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 45 Pedestn‘an Crossing Compliance Rate = = - Total peds in the crosswalk area 56 = 80.4% Total Pedestrian Volume in the Crosswalk Area = 50 * 2 = 100 peds / hr Total Pedestrian Volume in the Crosswalk Influence Area = 56 * 2 = 112 peds I hr 2- 1st Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk without shelter (in front of SPLASH) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total I Pedestrian 42 0 27 I 69 I count— 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the Crosswalk Area = 42 + 0 = 42 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the Crosswalk Influence Area = 69 + 3 + 0 = 72 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1860veh/hr Lem = 31.70 m (100.0 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 42 Pedestrian Crossing Compliance Rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 72 = 58.3% Total Pedestrian Volume in the Crosswalk Area = 42 * 2 = 84 peds / hr Total Pedestrian Volume in the Crosswalk Influence Area = 72 * 2 = 144 peds / hr Figure 3.5. Sample data summary sheet for marked and non-striped midblock crosswalks 63 60 Da‘ Per RU ls ELS 1E RU: PS 1 PS ( Jay. Jaye Tota Tota Vehi Over GD RIVER AVE (M-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/23/98, Monday, 35 F, cold, partly sunny Time: 2:46p 3- Abbott St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Bikes in 30 Total counts-30 min Jaywalkers around CA minutes RU + PS (VS) 47 2 0 11 49 PS (VR) 14 1 0 2 15 S 32 2 2 3 36 L8 9 1 0 1 10 Total 102 6 2 17 1 1 0 RU: Regular users 8: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the Crosswalk Area = 102 + 6 = 108 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the Crosswalk Influence Area = 110 + 5 + 3:118 peds in 30min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2427 veh/hr LC”, = 38.4 m (126.0 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 47 Overall Crossing Compliance Rate = = =39.8% Total peds in the crosswalk area 118 Total Pedestrian Volume in the Crosswalk Area = 108 * 2 = 216 peds / hr Total Pedestrian Volume in the Crosswalk Influence Area = 118 * 2 = 236 peds l hr Spatial Compliance Rate = 86.44% Violation of flashing red signal = 9.09% Temporal Compliance Rate = 44.55% 4- Charles St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA Total Pedestrian 29 1 0 1 40 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the Crosswalk Area = 29 + 10 = 39 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the Crosswalk Influence Area = 40 + 6 + 7 = 53 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = N/A LCM = 97.85 m (312.0 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 29 Pedestrian Crossing Compliance rate = = = 54.7% Total peds in the crosswalk area 53 Total Pedestrian Volume in the Crosswalk Area = 39 * 2 = 78 peds I hr Total Pedestrian Volume in the Crosswalk Influence Area = 53 ‘ 2 = 106 peds l hr Figure 3.6. Sample data summary sheet for signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks 3.4 cm: pec 001 (SC EqU. tent; com and 3.4. Analysis and Results Analysis and results are organized in three subsections: 1. pedestrian crossing compliance rates (PCCR) in the study crosswalks, 2. observed flows on pedestrian paths leading to the crosswalks, and 3. effects of crosswalk features on crossing compliance rates. 3.4.1. Pedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates (PCCR) Equation 3.2 was used to calculate the spatial crossing compliance rates (SCCR) for each crosswalk location and the data collection session. In addition, Equations 3.3 and 3.4 were applied to the signalized crosswalks to determine the temporal and the overall crossing compliances. Average pedestrian crossing compliance rates by location were then calculated for every crosswalk location and crosswalk type. Four crosswalk types were considered as mentioned before, i.e., marked and non-striped midblock crosswalks, and signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks. The crosswalks were compared with respect to the average crossing compliance rates. The results in the following sections are organized by crosswalk type. Descriptive statistics of the pedestrian crossing compliance rates are presented and discussed in the following paragraphs. Such statistics include the number of data collection sessions at each location, the range of compliance rates obtained for the location (i.e., min and max PCCR), the average pedestrian compliance rate at the location for all sessions (mean PCCR), the 85th percentile, and the standard deviation of the mean. Also, average pedestrian crossing compliance rates by section were obtained and reported by averaging pedestrian compliance rates over all 65 locatit 3V€Tal 3.4.1: rates I study 1 3.7. Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (7.) Filure mideOC Fi Variety“ locations of the same crosswalk type within the study section. Finally, the average pedestrian compliance rates for the entire study site were calculated. 3.4.1.1. Marked Midblock Crosswalks (MMCW) Equation 3.2 was applied to calculate the pedestrian crossing compliance rates with crossing location for all the four marked midblock crosswalks in the study site for each data collection session. The results are summarized in Figure 3.7. :2, 100 ISection 1 I I ISection 2 I 2.. 90 I , 3 I E 80 O — — I § - - 3 l 8 ‘ ’ I g l 9 e .5 70 0 o E ° 1 a , . . - , 5 6° . t i l o I g 50 .2. ~ —~-— - - 2 — _ , f ~ _ 7- A--‘—- w - l I 5 40 l - N=16 Mn: 44.8 Max: 80.4 ° : N= 12 win: 67.8 Max: 90.9 I I 3 ‘ Avg: 65.15 85th prcntl= 75.00 I Avg: 79.23 85th prcntl= 90.71 2 30 Std.Dev= 9.1372 ; Std.Dev= 7.9238 1 o , . ,5 20 fl - N= 28 Mn: 44.8 Max= 90.9 , 1‘ 33 Avg: 71.19 85th prcntl= 81.22 . .3 10 - , Std.Dev= 11.0600 - , - I a o l MSU Student Union Jacobson's Berkeley Hall Bailey St Marked midblock crosswalk locations Figure 3.7. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates of all the marked midblock crosswalks-all data collection sessions Figure 3.8 gives an example of the pedestrian crossing compliance rate variation at the marked midblock crosswalk in front of the MSU Student Union. 66 \ (v. in r:- CB ”an 0 inc; com s 03 or n tria dos Pe Figurl marke Similar in APDI at the , pedeslr mile 01 at Study 100.7 - Average Crossing Cornplianoe Rate = 67.4% I 75.0 f g 71.1 __ Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (7.) 0 . - h— l \l II-o O5 10-Feb 14-Feb 19—Feb 23—Feb 25—Feb 26—Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure 3.8. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates—MSU Student Union marked midblock crosswalk Similar graphs for all the other marked midblock crosswalk locations are provided in Appendix B. Descriptive statistics of the pedestrian crossing compliance rates at the marked midblock crosswalks studied are provided in Table 3.3. The mean pedestrian compliance rates varied from 62.9% to 82.7% with an overall average value of 71.19%. Also, based on Table 3.3, the average crossing compliance rate at study section 2 is 79.23%, or 21.6% higher than that observed at study section 1. 67 Table rates-1 Study Sectior 3.4.1.2. l Pe Closswall using qu Pe crossWalk 3'10 gives ”Onstnpe crossWalk Crossing 0 Site are p” pedfstrianE performed t Table 3.3. Descriptive statistics of the pedestrian crossing compliance ratesaall the marked midblock crosswalks Study Crosswalks No PCCR (%) Mean 8 . th Section Of Min Max Mean 85‘" Std. 85 rcntl sess prcntl Dev. PCCRs for sections Student Union 8 54.1 80.4 67.41 78.51 8.8137 65.16 ----c-~---- ..... 1 Jacobson’s 8 44.8 75.0 62.90 73.25 9.4862 (75.00) Berkeley Hall 6 69.4 81.6 75.75 81.55 5.1259 79.23 ................ 2 Bailey St 6 67.8 90.9 82.70 90.89 9.1128 (90.71) Total: 28 Overall mean: 71.19 3.4.1.2. Non-striped Midblock Crosswalks (NSMCW) Pedestrian crossing compliance rates for the two non-striped midblock crosswalks in the study section were calculated for each data collection session using Equation 3.2. The results are displayed in Figure 3.9. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates at the non-striped midblock crosswalks varied from 58.3% to 69.0% with an average value of 64.2%. Figure 3.10 gives an example of the pedestrian compliance rate variation at the second non-striped midblock crosswalk. A similar graph for the first non-striped midblock crosswalk is provided in Appendix C. Descriptive statistics of the pedestrian crossing compliance rates at both non-striped midblock crosswalks in the study site are provided in Table 3.4. In order to answer the question of whether or not pedestrians complied with the two non-striped crosswalks differently. t-test was performed using the compliance data. The test resulted with the t-value of -0.538 68 and It the cc (0.614 compl rejects ( 1 TX.» 6:: 60:0..QEOO 09:669.“. CIIuIOUOl ( FIQUre . lltidbjoc and the significance level of 0.614. The difference between the average values of the compliance rates is not statistically significant at the confidence level of 95% (0.614 > 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis that the pedestrian crossing compliance rates are not different at the non-striped midblock crosswalks is not rejected. 100 E 8 E 80 O ‘c’ .2 3 t a 60 s , E e o O 0 U .5 N=12 Mn=58.3 Max:690 3 ‘0 Aug=6423 85111 prontl=68.15 a su. Dev= 3.4797 5 5 20 O O 'U C E 0 1st ltbn-drlped “(block 2nd Non-drip“! “flock Non-wiped “(block Walk Locations Figure 3.9. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates of all the non-striped midblock crosswalks—all data collection sessions 69 Figu midt Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%) I Average Crossing Compliance Rate = 64.8% I 65.9 --q)--—- 67.2 68.1 ----- b--qb-—-d 23-Apr Data Collection Dates 65.2 24-Apr 28-Apr 63.6 30—Apr Figure 3.10. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates—2"" non-striped midblock crosswalk Table 3.4. Descriptive statistics of the crossing compliance rates—both non-striped midblock crosswalks Study Crosswalks No of PCCR (%) Mean 8 . th Section sess Min Max Mean 85th Std. (__p__)85 rcntl prcntl Dev. PCCRS for sections Non-striped 1 6 58.3 69.0 63.70 68.89 3.777 64.23 2 Non-striped 2 6 58.5 68.1 64.75 68.06 3.439 (68.15) Total: 12 Overall mean: 64.23 70 1.4.1.3. U. Pei crosswalk based 0. intersectii Figure 3 crosswal' 3.12 0le the Char Orchard T complrai bEtNEer Unsigna COHfidel Thefetc the I‘No 3.4.1.3. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalks (USICW) Pedestrian crossing compliance rates for the two unsignalized intersection crosswalks in the study site were calculated for each data collection session based on Equation 3.2. Each study section had only one unsignalized intersection crosswalk. The results obtained from the analysis are displayed in Figure 3.11. Pedestrian compliance rates at the unsignalized intersection crosswalks varied from 54.7% to 78.0% with an average value of 67.0%. Figure 3.12 offers an example of the pedestrian crossing compliance rate variation at the Charles Street unsignalized intersection crosswalk. A similar graph for the Orchard Street crosswalk location is provided in Appendix D. Table 3.5 shows the descriptive statistics of the pedestrian crossing compliance rates at the unsignalized intersection crosswalks. The difference between the average values of the pedestrian compliance rates at the two unsignalized intersection crosswalks is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (t-value = -0.177, and significance level = 0.867 > 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis that the pedestrian crossing compliance rates at the two unsignalized intersection crosswalks do not differ is not rejected. 71 Fig inlt § 8 Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%) N O O 8 b O I Section1 I “O 0‘ N =14 Min = 54.7 -- Avg = 66.95 85th prcntl = 76.80 Std. Dev. = 7.1512 Max=78.0 Chanes St Orchard St Unsignalized intersection Crosswalk Locations Figure 3.11. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates of all the unsignalized intersection crosswalksuall data collection sessions Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%) 100 _ , o - 40 .- 20 *7 10-Feb 14-Feb r Average Crossing Compliance Rate = 66.8% 67.7 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb Data Collection Dates 27-May 28-May 26-Feb Figure 3.12. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates-Charles St unsignalized intersection crosswalk 72 Table unsig 7 Slur Sect FTNLI 3.4.1 Sign: colle Com time COIT and 501‘. Table 3.5. Descriptive statistics of the crossing compliance rates—all the unsignalized intersection crosswalks Study Crosswalk No PCCR (%) Mean 81(85th Section of . m prcntl) PCCRs sess Mln Max Mean 85 Std. for Sections prcntl Dev. Charles St 54.7 77.4 66.84 75.44 6.490 66.84 (75.44) 2 Orchard St 55.6 78.0 67.10 77.85 8.599 67.10 (77.85) Total: 14 Overall mean: 66.95 (76.80) 3.4.1.4. Signalized Intersection Crosswalks (SICW) Spatial, temporal and overall crossing compliance rates for the five signalized intersection crosswalks in the study site were calculated for each data collection session. First, Equation 3.2 was applied to calculate the spatial compliance rates. Then, Equations 3.3 and 3.4 were used to calculate the timewise and the overall crossing compliance rates, respectively. Overall compliance rates reflected the pedestrian compliance with the crossing location and the pedestrian WALK signal indication simultaneously. The results are summarized next. 3.4. 1.4. 1. Spatial Crossing Compliance Rates (SCCRS) at the SICWs As Figure 3.13 shows, pedestrian spatial crossing compliance rates at the signalized intersection crosswalks varied from 68.4% and 98.2% with an average value of 83.1%. Figure 3.14 gives an example of the pedestrian compliance rate variation at the Abbott St signalized intersection crosswalk. Similar graphs for all other signalized intersection crosswalk locations are provided in Appendix E. 73 The at all the 31 mean value Overall, 83 influence a and the sig hypothesis intersectior rejected. T strategicall Pedestrian: é 5‘88 N C) Spatial Crossing Compliance Recs (%) _s Go Figure 3.. intersectio The descriptive statistics of the spatial crossing compliance rates (SCCR) at all the signalized intersection crosswalks are summarized in Table 3.6. The mean values SCCRs for sections 1 and 2 are 82.78% and 83.40%, respectively. Overall, 83.13% of pedestrians crossing in the signalized intersection crosswalk influence areas complied with the crossing location. T-test resulted in the t-value and the significance level of —1.666 and 0.117, respectively. Therefore, the null hypothesis that pedestrians do not comply with the location of the signalized intersection crosswalks differently throughout the study section cannot be rejected. This shows that the signalized crosswalks are equally attractive and strategically located since they are equally well marked and recognized by pedestrians throughout the study site. 1m 7‘ 7 7 7 fl 7 7 i A WA 7 - 7 if 7 7 i i 7 . 35 90 . t e 6 ' 8 l e 0 0 e i a 80 F’ ” t O O ‘F * s ‘ o ,..m. __ . __3 C . i .2 i To. 60 “5 “ N=16 Mn=6990 Max=90.30 " N=20 Mn=68.40 Max=9820 l g 50 _._ _ Avg=82.78 85th prcntl=88.88 _ Avg=83.40 85th prcntl=93.50 i o , Std.Dev. = 5.9662 Std.Dev. = 95419 I 2' 40 e - '8 l 3 30 .- N=36 Mn=68.40 wex=9820 .- I- i 0 Avg = 83.13 85th prcntl = 91.45 i a 20 ~ 7 Std.Dev.=8.0473 ., e . t a -.___.__. 7.7 .7 7 7 7 7 7 .7 7 7 7 7- 7- .7 7 - 7 7- 7 . . m 10 ‘ 0 77.77 7 7 .7 7.7- 7 7. 7 -7. 7 7- 7 7- _- -7 . 7 -. 7- - -. Abbott M.A.C. Division Collingwood-west Collingwood-east Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Locations 7.77.7777.-- 777 7- 7 7 Figure 3.13: Spatial? grossing c6mplianceratgs of allgthe signalized Intersection crosswalks—all data collection sessions 74 al- ‘ am —'.83 IIOLU .5500 an. 0:6 6e?- 0 13.. Figure intersect Table 3.6 I Average Spatial Crossing Compliance Rate = 85.6% I 100 - 777777777777 - 88.7 90.3 i :--I--l----- ——-II-=-=-—-Ie-dh----- --------------- 5.1- o 80 - 7 77 77 . 7- 7 7 77 77 7 7 E i O 0 5 a 60+" * - — - E O 0 g 40 E 2 0 '5 s 20“ 7 7 r r r r 7 r r O. 0) 07 - -- -- - - -7 -- 10—Feb 14—Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26—Feb 27-May 28-May DataColiectionDates Figure 3.14. Spatial crossing compliance rates—Abbott St signalized intersection crosswalk Table 3.6. Descriptive statistics of the spatial crossing compliance rates-all the signalized intersection crosswalks Study Crosswalks No SCCR (%) Mean 8 Sectlon sis Min Max Mean 85'" Std. W prcntl Dev Sections Abbott 8 78.4 90.3 85.64 89.74 3.914 --- _ 82.78 ..... 1 M.A.C. 8 69.9 89.1 79.93 87.60 6.497 (88.8§I . Division 8 78.2 93.6 84.41 92.87 6.213 2 Collingwood-W 6 70.0 98.2 88.38 98.04 10.380 -. -- 83.40 ..... Collingwood-E 6 68.4 91.2 77.07 91.90 10.228 (93.50I Total: 36 Overall mean: 83.13 75 Temporal Crossing Compliance Rate (%) Figllre SI'snaliz 3. 4. 1.4.2. Tammi Crossing Compliance Rates (TCCRs) at the SICWs Temporal crossing compliance rates at the signalized intersection crosswalks were calculated using Equation 3.3. Such rates give information about the crossing compliance with the pedestrian signal only. Low rates may be an indication of a need to modify signal timing and/or phasing plans. As Figure 3.15 shows, temporal pedestrian compliance rates in the signalized intersection crosswalks varied from 24.1% to 73.5% with an average of 50.63%. Figure 3.16 presents an example of the variation of the pedestrian compliance rate in the Abbott signalized intersection crosswalk. Similar graphs for all the other signalized crosswalks are provided in Appendix F. I Sechon1 I I Sectlon2 I 1007- ————— — — — -————————— ‘ 5 90 i- - N=16 Mn=24.14 Nax=65.63 - — —— - N=20 Mn=34.40 Max=73.53 . +3 I Avg=45.14 85111 prcntl=50.42 Avg=55.02 85111 prcntl=67.95 . n: 80 1 ~ Std.Dev.=9.0797 7 ~- Std.Dev.=10.4402 l 8 70 I Q ‘ E t e 3 ' 360777 -7777 7 7 7 _ 5 i ‘ o 50 ‘7 ‘ ‘ ’ z . ° . e .5 40 7 - O l e 30.- 7--.-----7-- -7 - .- 7 . o '3 9 N=36 Mn=24.14 Max=73.53 l 1- 20 - - I 8 Avg = 50.63 85th prcntl = 64.51 ‘ E 10? 7 7 7 Std.Dev.=10.9232 O P 1 0 -. 7 - - 7 - - - 7 . - - .- 7- 7 . 7 - . Abbott M.A.C. Division Collingwood-west Collingwood-east Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Locations Figure 3.15. Pedestrian temporal crossing compliance rates of all the signalized intersection crosswalks—all data collection sessions 76 Temporal crossing compliance rate (7.) A Figur Slgna 80"” 73.58775777755 Average Temporal Crossing Compliance Rate = 57.6% -54--8-4- - -5-4;59 - - - - - Temporal crossing compliance rate (%) b o l | l o 7 7.77 7 7 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure 3.16. Pedestrian temporal crossing compliance rates—Division St signalized intersection crosswalk The descriptive statistics of the temporal crossing compliance rates (TCCR) in all the signalized intersection crosswalks studied are summarized in Table 3.7. The mean values of TCCRs for sections 1 and 2 are 45.14% and 55.02%, respectively. Overall, 50.63% of pedestrians crossing in signalized intersection crosswalk areas complied with the pedestrian “WALK” signal. As shown in Table 3.7, the average temporal compliance rate in study section 2 is 21.9% higher than that in study section 1. The t-value and significance level obtained from the t-test are -22.63 and 0.039, respectively. Therefore, the null hypothesis that pedestrians do not comply with the WALK signal differently between the two study sections is rejected since the difference between the two 77 compliance data sets is statistically significant at the confidence level of 95% (0.039 < 0.05). Table 3.7. Descriptive statistics of the temporal crossing compliance rates- all the signalized intersection crosswalks Study Crosswalks No TCCR (%) M133" 8 Section of . 111 (85 prcntl) 5 es Min Max Mean 85 Std. TCCRs for prcntl Dev Sections Abbott 8 24.1 51.5 43.37 50.80 9.020 . _ “4.5: 14 ..... 1 M.A.C. 8 32.8 65.6 46.80 60.00 9.432 (50.42) Division 8 48.9 73.5 57.64 70.05 7.999 2 Collingwood-W 6 37.5 60.7 52.05 60.62 8.214 55.02 Collingwood-E 6 34.4 69.2 54.51 69.18 15.338 (67.95) Total: 36 Overall mean: 50.63 The average temporal crossing compliance in the study site is 50.6%, i.e., half of the pedestrians observed within the crosswalks complied with the pedestrian WALK signal. In fact, this figure is not bad at all because the cross streets (Abbott, M.A.C. Division and Collingwood) receive only about 36% of the green time (see Table 4.2 in Chapter 4). If the arrival pattern of pedestrians is assumed to be random with respect to the start of the pedestrian WALK interval, only about 36% of the pedestrians are expected to cross the street during the WALK interval. However, when some pedestrians arrive the street during the pedestrian DON’T WALK interval, they cannot cross the street even if they wish to because vehicles are moving in the east-west direction. Therefore, the rate of signal compilers is expected to be a little bit higher than 36%. The observed 78 sigr exis Cl OS infor Coilir (£3 ”"" 1 0) ‘CJ J:- 'O U (D WI Ora-dry armlm Mo (36) FIgUre signal compliance (50.6%) is found to be higher than the expected one under the existing signal design in Grand River Avenue. 3.4. 1.4.3. Overall Crossing Compliance Rates (QLCRS) at the SICiW§ Overall crossing compliance rates at the signalized intersection crosswalks were calculated using Equation 3.4. Such rates give useful information about the overall compliance of pedestrians at the signalized intersections, with respect to both crossing location and signal indication. As Figure 3.17 shows that the overall pedestrian crossing compliance rates at all the signalized intersection crosswalks varied from 20.5% to 60.7%, with an average of 42.98%. An example of the overall pedestrian compliance rate variation at the Collingwood-E signalized intersection crosswalk is given in Figure 3.18. Similar graphs for all the other signalized intersection crosswalk locations are provided in Appendix G. I Sectioni I L Section2 I 100 -. - 7 - - - 7 - - - g 904~7 N=16 Mn=20.50 Max=48.70 - -- ~ N=20 Mn=30.60 Max=6o.7o ‘ Avg=38.36 85th prcntl=46.97 Avg=46.68 85th prcntl=56.68 . s 80 :5 Std.Dev.=8.6026 Sthev. =8.0451 ; a 70 -— — — | - 60 1 - - o r g 50 z . . 7 7 7 . 7 7 7 . ' t ’ s . ’ .240. -74- .- -- e 3 | o _ . N=36 Mn=20.50 Max=60.7o ' 20 ' ' Avg=42.98 85th prcntl=51.02 7 7 7 Std.Dev.=9.1896 10 . 0 Q. - _. - , - 7 .7 7 7- 7- 7. _- 7 7.7 7 -7- 7 .. . . Abbott M.A.C. Division Collingwood-west Collingwood-east Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Locations Figure 3.17. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance rates of all the signalized intersection crosswalks—all data collection sessions 79 Sig Con 3.8. hig‘r the . 59.8 57 Average Overall Crossing Compliance Rate = 495% ‘I 60' 50.3 51-9 —1--l---db--b--------------_—-—1--dD-------q---. 40 20 -' Overall crossing compliance rate (%) o._i..___ .._._.-7t___.77 77 7 77 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26~Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure 3.18. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance rates—Division St signalized intersection crosswalk Table 3.8 presents the descriptive statistics of the overall crossing compliance rates at the signalized intersection crosswalks. According to Table 3.8, the average overall pedestrian compliance rate at study section 2 is 21.7% higher than that obtained from study section 1. T-test was performed to test if the difference between the average overall compliance rates of the two sections is statistically significant. The t-value and significance level obtained were -2.993 and 0.009, respectively. The difference is statistically significant at the confidence level of 95% (0.009<0.05). Therefore, overall, pedestrians comply with the signalized intersection crosswalks differently between the two sections of the 80 Stgr C0m iOw (Soar Otiler aittac StTate 81058 912cm study site due to primarily differences in temporal crossing compliance between the two sections. Table 3.8. Descriptive statistics of the overall crossing compliance rates- all the signalized intersection crosswalks Study No OCCR (%) Mean 8 Section of . 111 (85 prcntl) Crosswalks ses Min Max Mean 85 Std. OCCRS for prcntl Dev Sections Abbott 8 21.9 47.9 38.50 47.31 9.324 _____ 3 8.36 ..... 1 M.A.C. 8 20.5 48.7 38.21 47.23 8.462 (46.97) Division 8 43.2 59.8 49.56 58.86 6.322 2 Collingwood-W 6 36.0 60.7 47.90 60.38 9.116 ..... 4 668 Collingwood-E 6 30.6 50.0 41.62 49.88 7.813 (56.68) Total: 36 Overall mean: 42.98 Comparison of the compliance rate analysis results obtained for the signalized intersection crosswalks shows that the compliance with the crossing location at the signalized crosswalks is very high (average value = 83.13%) while compliance with the pedestrian WALK signal indication (temporal compliance) is low with an average value of 50.63%. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance (spatial and temporal combined) is also low with an average value of 42.98%. In other words, the signalized intersection crosswalks in the study site appear to attract pedestrians as crossing points because they are clearly visible and strategically located. However, they fail to convince the majority of pedestrians to cross during the pedestrian WALK interval. One possible explanation for this practice relates to the low vehicular volumes during some periods of the day 81 an off per Wt phe sut and/or vehicles platooning with long gaps between platoons. These conditions offer pedestrians a motive and an opportunity to cross safely during the pedestrian DON’T WALK interval. The non-compliance of pedestrians with the WALK signal indication may also be linked to improper signal timing and/or signal phasing design. An in depth analysis of these issues is beyond the scope of the subject study as a variety of phasing data is not available for consideration. 3.4.2. Observed Flows on Pedestrian Paths Leading to the Crosswalks Pedestrian flows were observed on paths leading to the study crosswalks in order to get more information about pedestrians' origins and destinations, i.e., where pedestrians come from and where they cross through the study section. Figures 3.19.a and b show the schemes of study sections 1 and 2, respectively, with the volumes on the crosswalks and pedestrian paths. The first number on the paths represents the number of pedestrians that crossed the street with or without using the crosswalks, and the second one indicates the total pedestrian volume on the pedestrian paths. Figures 3.19.a and b also show the position of barriers on the median and the sidewalks, which are expected to divert people from crossing at non- designated locations and channelize pedestrian flow to designated crossing locations. Determination of the magnitude of the effects of barriers on the crossing compliance was not possible because the barriers were placed irregularly. In addition, in many locations the barriers were placed between sidewalks and paths and were usually ineffective to prevent the jaywalking on 82 Isl (98/110pe /hr) DIVISION ST —’7 7 (2/10ped/hr (4/12 pedlhr) —> I I Observation on 2/10/98 10:43-1:38 0 1 8 ped/hr) Division Signalized x-walk (0/12 pedlhr) (4/26 ped/hr) 113.7m (373') (2/16 pedlhr) l (95/1Q3Eed/hr) Charles Unsignalized x-walk CHARLES ST (6/16 ped/hr) Jacobson’ (74/80 pedlhr) (6/18 pedlhr) 82 m (269’) (6/12 pedlhr) (2/12 pedlhr) 48 pedlhr Jacobson's Midblock x-walk l l | I | | 1 1 (85/91 pedlhr) :L. = 240 pedlhr M.A.C. AVE —> (2/60ped/hr L<-——(16/20 pedlhr) 61.9 m (203’) M.A.C. Si nalized x-walk R _ 9 :I \ (90/96 pedlhr) / (6/26ped/hr) MSU , Student 132.6 m (435) Union A 12 20 pedlhr) St. Union Marked Midblock 98 gedjhr (34/74 pedIhr) ABBOTT ST 38.4 m (126’) (52(58 pedlhr) Abbott Signalized x-walk I] : barrier Figure 3.19.a. Volumes in the pedestrian crosswalks and paths in section 1 83 Observation on 4/23/98, 11:02-1:46p N cg}>'1"""1"T I'" " ' (16/16 pedlhr) 148 pedlhr Orchard Unsignalized x-walk —> _= ORCHARD $1 I I T | (8/14 ged/hrf I l 1 101.8 m (334') i i l i i I 1/10 pedlhr) I t i I § I (10/18 Eed/hr) 56 pedlhr 6/8 pedjhr) Collingwood-East x-walk l.— coumcwooo St L 39.3 m (129') (20/30 pedlhr) o (30/30 ged/hr) Collingwood-West x-walk 3‘ = / 4m 70.7 m (232') 7.. I I “"1— (1/20 pedlhr) I I I / (38/68 pedlhr) 1 1 ‘ I 162 pedlhr . / Bailey Midblock x-walk l 1 ==‘ 1 I 2/20 ed/hr 1 i ' . \ ( :7.) I I I E? 5.8 (4/18 pedlhr) t I I _ (22/30 pedlhr) =2— ! i I BAILEY sr L I i... 137.8 m (452') l __ " I . 2 I I I 5: r‘ti: (0/36 pedlhr t t l 87 2"d Unmarked Midblock x-walk 94 dlhr “ """"""""""""""" (16/40 pedlhr) 19° 1 i e: 18‘ Unmarked Midblock x-walk 7771 I 7— h “ j: """"""""""""""" —’ “fed! ' t . _-.(88/170 pedlhr) l I ' r?) a 144 pedlhr Berkeley Hall x-walk 2 u. i i . Berkeley I I . ‘— Hall 78.3 m (257') =h= r 7. = '(26/72 pedlhr) insion Signalized x-walk DIVISION ST : barrier Figure 3.19.b. Volumes in the pedestrian crosswalks and paths in section 2 84 the median. On the median, there is no barrier installed except from flower boxes next to the median shelters. In section 2, long barriers are installed between the sidewalk and the roadway around the Berkeley Hall and Bailey midblock crosswalks. It is noticeable that the average crossing compliance is significantly higher at the Berkeley Hall and Bailey midblock crosswalks than those of the MSU Student Union and Jacobson’s midblock crosswalks in section 1 that lacks barriers (see Table 3.9). Table 3.9. Average observed crossing compliance rates at the marked midblock crosswalks Study Midblock crosswalks Average observed crossing compliance sections rates (%) 1 MSU Student Union 67.4 Jacobson’s 62.9 2 Berkeley Hall 75.8 Bailey St 82.7 3.4.3. Effects of Crosswalk Features on Crossing Compliance In this section, the effects of various features of the crosswalks on pedestrian crossing compliance were analyzed. Such features include the presence of crosswalk stripes, shelters, and pedestrian signals. The null hypothesis used in the statistical analyses is that there is no difference between crosswalks with and without the specified feature with respect to the pedestrian crossing compliance rates. 85 3.4.3. 1. Effect of Crosswalk Markings (Stripes) on Crossing Compliance The effect of crosswalk stripes on pedestrian crossing compliance at the midblock crosswalks was assessed through statistical comparisons of the compliance rates between the marked and the non-striped midblock crosswalks in study section 2. Descriptive statistics of the crossing compliance rates are presented in Table 3.10. As Table 3.10 demonstrates, the presence of markings at the crosswalks contributes to increased crossing compliance rates. An average pedestrian compliance rate of 79.2% was observed at the marked midblock crosswalks versus a rate of 64.2% at the non-striped ones. This observation was confirmed through the t-test which showed that the difference between the average values of the pedestrian crossing compliance rates at the two types of crosswalks was statistically significant at the confidence level of 95% (t—value = 7.999 and significance level = 0.000 <0.05). Table 3.10. Descriptive statistics of the compliance rates—all the striped and non-striped midblock crosswalks Study Crosswalk No of PCCR (%) Sec‘tio s sess Min Max Mean 85th prcntl Std. Dev Striped 12 67.8 90.9 79.23 90.71 7.929 2 Non- 12 58.3 69.0 64.23 68.15 3.487 striped Total: 24 86 3.4. 3. 2. Effect of Median Shelters on Crossing Compliance The MSU Student Union and Berkeley Hall midblock crosswalks have a shelter located at the median while the other marked midblock crosswalk locations do not. In addition to improvements in the esthetic of the corridor, such structures may increase the visibility of the midblock crosswalk locations for both drivers and pedestrians. The effect of the shelters on pedestrian spatial compliance was evaluated as follows. A summary of the descriptive statistics on the pedestrian compliance rates for crosswalks with and without shelter are given in Table 3.11. The difference between the average values of the compliance rates at the two types of crosswalks is not statistically significant (t-value = -0.126 and significance level = 0.902 > 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis that the median shelters have no effect on pedestrian compliance rates is not rejected and thus, their use may be justified only as part of aesthetic improvements to a corridor, bu not as a means to increase of pedestrian safety. Table 3.11. Descriptive statistics of the compliance ratesuall the midblock crosswalks with and without shelter Crosswalks No of PCCR (%) sess Min Max Mean 85th prcntl Std. Dev With shelter 14 54.1 81.6 70.99 80.48 8.383 Without 14 44.8 90.9 71.39 90.15 13.557 shelter Total: 28 87 Ta al 3.4.3. 3. Effect of Pedestrian Signal on Crossing Compliance The effect of the presence of a pedestrian signal on pedestrian crossing compliance was also studied. The descriptive analysis of the crossing compliance rates for both types of crosswalks are given in Table 3.12. The difference between the average values of the compliance rates in the two types of crosswalks is statistically significant (t-value = 8.744 and significance level = 0.000 < 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected that the existence of a pedestrian signal has no significant effect on spatial crossing compliance rates at the intersection crosswalks. Table 3.12. Descriptive statistics of the spatial crossing compliance rates- all the signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks Crosswalks No of PCR Std. Dev sess . m Min Max Mean 85 prcntl Signalized 36 68.4 98.2 83.13 91.45 8.047 Unsignalized 14 55.6 78.0 67.45 76.56 6.318 Total: 50 Finally, Table 3.13 summarizes the results from the analysis of the pedestrian crossing compliance rates at the study crosswalks along the Grand River Avenue. Overall, the highest pedestrian crossing compliance rates were observed in the marked midblock crosswalks. 88 N h: (\II-hI _ — CH CH CIO DEC inte the 3.5. IIIIOU Table 3.13. Descriptive statistics of the pedestrian compliance rates- summary of all the study crosswalks Pedestrian Spatial Crossing Compliance Rates, SCCR (%) Crosswalks No of Mean 85*".1 Std. Std. 95% Conf. Sess PCR prcntl Error Dev. Interval Non-striped 12 64.23 68.15 1.007 3.487 62.009 — 66.441 midblock Marked 28 71.19 81 .22 2.091 11.062 66.896 — 75.475 midblock Unsignalized 14 66.95 76.80 1.911 7.151 62.821 — 71.079 Signalized 36 83.13 91.45 1.341 8.047 80.402 — 85.848 I Pedestrian Overall Crossing Compliance Rates, OCCR (%) I I Signalized 36 42.98 51.02 1.532 9.190 39.871 — 46.090 I In summary, pedestrians recognize and use the signalized intersection crosswalks properly with respect to their locations. The average observed spatial crossing compliance in the signalized crosswalks is 83.13%. However, pedestrians do not seem to be complying with the WALK signal as they comply with the location. The average overall crossing compliance in the signalized crosswalks is 42.98%. The marked midblock crosswalks are also favored by pedestrians with a high spatial compliance (71.19%). The unsignalized intersection crosswalks and the non-striped midblock crosswalks followed with the spatial crossing compliance rates of 66.95 and 64.23%, respectively. 3.5. Summary and Conclusions In Chapter 3, the effectiveness of various crossing options was assessed through the study of pedestrian crossing activity along the corridor (Grand River 89 Avenue between Abbott and Bogue Streets). Comparisons were performed with respect to pedestrian compliance rates in the crosswalks. The main conclusions from these analyses are as follows: A positive type of traffic control increases pedestrian crossing compliance. The highest pedestrian spatial compliance rates were observed at the signalized intersection crosswalks (average PCR = 83.13%), followed by the marked midblock crosswalks (71.19%), and unsignalized intersection crosswalks (66.95%). The non-striped midblock crosswalks registered the lowest pedestrian compliance rate of 64.23%. Pedestrian spatial crossing compliance was greater at the midblock crosswalks than the unsignalized intersection crosswalks. Thus, when proper conditions exist (i.e., long links, land uses with significant pedestrian trip generations and attractions in midblocks), marked midblock crosswalks can be used with confidence as a large majority of pedestrians appear to recognize and use them properly. While markings and signals increase the pedestrian spatial crossing compliance, the midblock shelters on median do not seem to have an effect on pedestrian crossing compliance rates. Therefore, the use of the shelters as a means to increase the pedestrian crossing compliance is not confirmed. Overall pedestrian crossing compliance rates at the signalized intersection crosswalks is found to be low with an average value of 42.98%. This indicates that the majority of pedestrians crossing at the signalized 90 crosswalks violate the pedestrian WALK signal, probably especially during low vehicular traffic flow. The effect of signal timing and phasing schemes at the signalized intersections and the signal progression along the corridor should be studied in a future study and necessary adjustments can be done to encourage pedestrians to comply with the signals to increase pedestrian compliance as well as safety. 0 Although it was not possible to determine the magnitude of the effect of the barriers on crossing compliance rates, it is noticeable that the spatial crossing compliance rates are higher at the midblock crosswalks in section 2 than those of the midblock crosswalks in section1. Section 2 has long barriers located between sidewalks and the roadway; on the other hand, section 1 lacks barriers. 3.6. Recommendations for Future Research In Chapter 3 the procedures related to the evaluation of pedestrian crosswalks based on user compliance was described and the results were discussed. The data collected on a 1-km long urban boulevard were limited in terms of different pedestrian signal timing and phasing schemes. So. the effect of different signal timings and phasing plans on pedestrian compliance was not studied. A future research should address this issue, together with the effect of platoon progression and signal coordination on pedestrian compliance. 91 Chapter 4 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: MEASUREMENT, ESTIMATION, AND APPLICATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TIMES, AND PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CROSSWALKS 4.1. Introduction Pedestrian crossing times are used in the determination of pedestrian level of service (LOS) of the signalized intersection crosswalks. The main measure of effectiveness used in the US to define the pedestrian level of service at signalized crosswalks is the average pedestrian space (HCM, 1997). This is a function of pedestrian crossing time and other parameters including crosswalk width, pedestrian crossing length, pedestrian volumes, length of pedestrian green signal indication, and behavioral characteristics. Moreover, pedestrian crossing times can assist in the proper selection of pedestrian signal timing settings. A variety of methodologies have been developed for determining pedestrian crossing times at signalized intersections. The literature review indicates that the existing methodologies underestimate pedestrian crossing time (Virkler et al., 1995). Some of the methodologies do not consider pedestrian platoon and none of them considers two-way platoons. Therefore, a need has been identified to validate such methodologies with field data and discuss their strengths and limitations for application. Field data collected on Grand River Avenue (M-43) between Abbott and Bogue Streets are used to validate the methodologies for the estimation of pedestrian crossing times during a vehicular off-peak period (10:30-1 :30 pm) and 92 .24.“... .5222}; ... in: 12.5.... . . . . . , . . . . . ... . 1:... ..... . ... 571:... ....szgr 1.... h. ... ........:5:.:,.§.:..a {nth}... lira-1' ...... . the PM-peak period (2:30-6:00 pm). Statistical tests are performed to test the performance of each study methodology. Summary results are presented and interpreted, along with recommendations for model improvements. Finally, measured pedestrian crossing times are used to evaluate crosswalk operations at the study intersections with respect to the pedestrian LOS and minimum signal timing settings. 4.2. Methodology In determining the pedestrian level of service, the procedure described in Chapter 13 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual is utilized. The procedure is summarized in section 4.2.1. To estimate pedestrian crossing times, several methodologies described in Chapter 2 are used and tested against the data collected at the Grand River Avenue signalized crosswalks. The validation of the existing formulae to estimate crossing times is described in section 4.2.2. 4.2.1. Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) at Signalized Crosswalks The “Pedestrians” Chapter of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (Chapter 13) uses the average space per pedestrian as the criterion for the pedestrian crosswalk level of service (LOS) estimation (US HCM, 1997). The average space per pedestrian, Me, is defined as MC = TS/(V*D ................................................................................. Eq.4.1 93 where Me = average space per pedestrian (m2/ped); T8 = crosswalk time-space available to pedestrians during one cycle (mz-sec/cycle); V =total incoming and outgoing pedestrians volume (pedlcycle), and T = pedestrian crossing time (sec). The crosswalk time-space, TS, available to pedestrians is calculated as TS=W*L*G ...................................................................................... Eq.4.2 where W: crosswalk width (m), = pedestrian crossing distance (m), and 6: walk interval (sec). The pedestrian walk interval, G, is typically the sum of the pedestrian green and flashing red intervals (clearance interval) reduced by 3 sec to account for start-up delays due to pedestrian perception-reaction. A two-dimensional time-space diagram illustrating the approach described above is shown in Figure 4.1. If pedestrian crossing volumes and the required pedestrian crossing times are known, then the crosswalk level of service can be determined. 94 DISTANCE 7? A L AL > 3sec G J TIME (sec) ped flashin green red pedestrian red] 6——>I< ’1 Figure 4.1. Time-space diagram for HCM approach 4.2.1.1. Pedestrian LOS for the Maximum Surge Condition Equation 4.1 yields the pedestrian level of service (LOS) for average conditions during the WALK interval (pedestrian green and flashing red intervals). During some cycles, pedestrian volume reaches to its maximum level. These conditions should also be examined. Chapter 13 of the 1997 HCM offers a method to analyze the conditions in which the maximum number of pedestrians is in the crosswalk area. In this method, crosswalk flows (pedestrians per minute) are multiplied by the lengths of the DON’T WALK interval and the crossing time. The DON’T WALK interval is used to estimate the number of pedestrians queued when the WALK interval is given. The crossing time is added to estimate the number of new arriving pedestrians during the period that the queued pedestrians cross the street. The calculation of the LOS for the maximum surge condition is given as follows: 95 Vm = V.(DW+ T)/60 ............................................................................ Eq.4.3 M5 = W*L/Vm .................................................................................... Eq.4.4 where Vm = maximum number of pedestrians in a crosswalk, V = pedestrian volume (ped/min), DW = pedestrian red (DON’T WALK) interval (sec), T = pedestrian crossing time (sec), and M3 = average space per pedestrian for the maximum surge condition (m2/ped). 4.2.1.2. Estimating the Decrement to LOS Due to Turning Vehicles The time-space method described in Chapter 13 of the 1997 HCM estimates the decrement to the crosswalk level of service (LOS) due to the presence of turning vehicles. On the study site, Grand River Avenue between Abbott and Bogue Streets, at the signalized intersection crosswalks turning vehicles are allowed during the pedestrian WALK interval. Due to turning movements, it is expected that the average crosswalk LOS is reduced because turning vehicles preempt crosswalk space. This analysis is done by assuming an average area occupancy of a vehicle in the crosswalk. The decrement of LOS is calculated as the product of vehicle swept-path and crosswalk width, and an estimate of the time that the vehicle preempts this space. The swept-path for an average vehicle may be estimated assuming an average vehicle width of 2.44 m (8 ft) and a vehicle occupancy time of 2 sec. Under these assumptions, each 96 turning vehicle will preempt a time-space of (2.44 m x (crosswalk width) x 2 sec) in mz-sec/veh. If we know how many vehicles turn during an average green phase, the total decrement to an available time-space can be calculated. With calculated decrements in the available time-space, new crosswalk LOS can be determined. In the following sections, the current methodologies for estimating the required pedestrian crossing time are evaluated. Pedestrian crossing times will be used in the calculation of crosswalk LOS. 4.2.2. Validation of Existing Methodologies to Calculate Pedestrian Crossing Time Various models proposed for pedestrian crossing time estimation in the literature are validated using the measured pedestrian crossing time data collected from the study site. First, pedestrian crossing times are calculated based on the geometric characteristics of the signalized intersection crosswalks, provided in the next section for each signalized intersection crosswalk using the five alternative methodologies described in the literature review (Chapter 2). Then, the results obtained by each model for each location were compared with the measured pedestrian crossing times obtained by the field observations. Statistical tests were performed to determine whether or not predicted and measured pedestrian crossing times were different. Moreover, the results obtained for all the crosswalks, when testing the same model, are checked for consistency. Based on the results from the statistical analysis, an assessment of 97 the effectiveness of a given model predicting pedestrian crossing time compared to the field data became possible. 4.3. Data Collection The field data were collected on all the five signalized intersection crosswalks in the study site. These include geometric characteristics of the crosswalks, existing signal timing, pedestrian volume per cycle, and average pedestrian crossing time. Table 4.1 summarizes geometric characteristics of the study crosswalks such as location identification, pedestrian crossing distance, and crosswalk width. Signal timings (WALK, clearance and DON’T WALK intervals, and cycle length) at the study crosswalks are presented in Table 4.2. Table 4.1. Geometric characteristics of the signalized intersection crosswalks Crosswalks Crossing Lengtflm) Crosswalk Width (m) Abbott St 35.19 3.43 M.A.C. Ave 27.79 3.25 Division St 27.84 2.71 Collingood-west 31 .92 3.20 Collingwood-east 37.89 3.53 Pedestrian movement data were collected on a cycle-by-cycle basis including pedestrian volumes and crossing times. Average pedestrian volumes were then obtained by averaging the cycle-by-cycle data obtained over the total 98 Table 4.2. Signal timings at the signalized intersection crosswalks" Intersections Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Cycle length WALK interval clearance DON’T WALK (sec) (sec) interval (sec) interval (sec) Abbott 23 13 54 90 off-peak+ 23 13 64 100 am-peak 23 13 64 100 pm-peak M.A.C. 21 10 59 90 off-peak 25 10 65 100 am-peak 25 1O 65 100 pm-peak Division 20 10 60 90 off-peak 21 10 59 100 am-peak 22 10 58 100 pm-peak Collingwood 23 14 53 90 off-peak E and W 23 14 63 100 am-peak 23 14 63 100 pm-peak *: Data obtained from MDOT Traffic and Safety Division, +:Vehicular traffic off- peak/peak periods number of cycles observed. The average pedestrian volume data for the off- peak and the PM-peak conditions are summarized in Table 4.3. Table 4.3. Average pedestrian volume data at the signalized intersection crosswalks Signalized Average pedestrian volume per cycle, V (ped/cycle) Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . During 30-mln period wrthln During 30-mln period Within the vehicular traffic off-peak the vehicular traffic PM-peak penod penod Abbott St 2.6 4.8 M.A.C. Ave 6.4 2.8 Division St 15.7 7.9 Collingwood-W 1 .5 1.3 Collingwood-E 1 .2 1.6 99 Pedestrian crossing times for each signalized intersection crosswalk were measured on a cycle-by-cycle basis through the observation of the behavior of a typical individual pedestrian either crossing alone or crossing in a platoon of pedestrians (more or equal to five pedestrians crossing together) in a crosswalk. A typical pedestrian is defined as one that is waiting alone or in a platoon of pedestrians for the WALK signal indication at the curbside and starts crossing after the pedestrian signal turns green (an example is given in Figure 4.2). Pedestrian crossing time for the typical pedestrian is measured from the instant I L T... = crossing time for the _____ leading pedestrian in the __ _‘ platoon \ L__ Tm = crossing time for the \ \ pedestrian in the center of \ + . . the platoon Q Ti = crossmg time ———————— © 5 for an individual . . CD CD pedestrian crossing T18 = crossmg time for the \ :3 alone “—"1 last person in the platoon ----- 1 Average measured crossing time per cycle = (T... + Tm + T...+ Ti) I4 Figure 4.2. Calculation of average crossing time in the crosswalks that the pedestrian signal turns green to the instant that the pedestrian reaches the opposite curbside. The leading, middle or last person is selected to represent the platoon movement. 100 The average pedestrian crossing times for each crossing location are obtained by averaging the cycle-by-cycle pedestrian crossing times (over the total number of cycles observed). The summary results are displayed in Table 4.4. Table 4.4. Average measured pedestrian crossing times at the signalized crosswalks Average measured pedestrian m 1: A c E Crosswalks crossing times,T sec) ‘55 8 ng g g .C \ 0) During During Overall“ 5 E 5 8 g g off-peak PM—peak LT. 3 D 3 ‘1’ GI 0- a) period period Abbott St 20.5 21.2 21.6 137.8 1.14 1.63 M.A.C. 18.3 17.8 18.0 133.8 1 48 1.54 Division 19.0 19.6 19.2 320.5 4.25 1.45 Collingwood-west 19.8 19.9 19.9 50.7 0.50 1.60 , Collingwood-east 23.6 23.2 23.3 51.7 0.39 1.63 *: Overall values include weekend data, too. It should be noted that pedestrian crossing time does not only depend on the length of a crosswalk but also the density and/or the rate of pedestrian flow. Therefore, the crossing times in Table 4.4 for the two shortest crosswalks (MAC Ave and Division St crosswalks) do not have to be the same because the flow rate and density values are significantly different from each other. Division St crosswalk has the highest pedestrian flow rate and the highest density of all the crosswalks. In addition, this crosswalk has the shortest width of all. This means that the crosswalk has the lowest capacity or time-space available per 101 pedestrian. The higher the density (or flow rate) is, the higher the number of interactions among pedestrians occurs. Therefore, high pedestrian density results in long crossing time and low crossing speed for a certain length. The observed speeds are quite compatible with the findings in the literature. Knoblauch et al. (1996) reported minimum, maximum and average speeds of 1.38, 1.56 and 1.46 mlsec, respectively, for pedestrians who are younger than 65. In this study, the study population primarily belongs to the university community, who are supposedly more fit than the subject group in Knoblauch’s study. Therefore, slightly higher average speeds are expected in the study crosswalks. 4.4. Analysis and Results 4.4.1. Validation of Existing Models to Estimate Pedestrian Crossing Time Pedestrian crossing times were calculated for all the study intersections based on the following proposed methodologies: o 1997 HCM, Chapter 13 (TRB, Report 209), o 1997 HCM, Chapter 9 (TRB, Report 209), o MUTCD Model (FHWA, USDOT,1994), o Pignataro Model (Pignataro, 1973), . ITE Model (ITE Committee, 1992), and o Virkler -Guell Model (Virkler and Guell, 1984). The formulations and assumptions involved in each methodology were presented in detail in Chapter 2. The Pignataro methodology yields two 102 pedestrian crossing speed values, the larger of which refers to pedestrian crossing requirements of elderly pedestrians. The average of the two proposed values was used for comparison purposes. The ITE and Virkler-Guell models require specification of the maximum pedestrian platoon size, N (one-directional platoon). The observed maximum pedestrian platoon sizes on signalized intersection crosswalks varied between 5 and 15 pedestrians. Maximum platoon size of 5 pedestrians was selected for the crosswalks of Collingwood Street, 7 for the crosswalk of M.A.C Avenue, 9 for the crosswalk of Abbott Street, and 12 for the crosswalk of Division Street based on field observations. Default values of speed (u=1.27 mlsec) and pedestrian headway (x=2.61 sec/ped/m of crosswalk width) were used in the Virkler-Guell model. These values correspond to LOS of B conditions. The results obtained from the model validation are presented in Table 4.5. As Table 4.5 shows, the overall average measured pedestrian crossing time was used to perform the comparisons on an intersection-by-intersection basis. Collingwood Rd has two crosswalks. The east crosswalk had an average measured pedestrian crossing time of 23.3 sec and the west crosswalk had 19.9 sec. The higher of the two values (i.e., 23.3 sec) was used for comparison. T-test was performed to determine whether the differences between the measured and the estimated average pedestrian crossing times are significant. The differences between measured and estimated crossing times were found statistically significant at the confidence level of 95% (t=12.137 and significance= 103 Table 4.5. Validation of the methodologies for pedestrian crossing time estimation Estimated Measured Difference Error ...... 82:28:13.2... P33022213" ‘59:) (sec) Time (sec) HCM Chp 13 Abbott 25.7 21.6 4.4 18.9 Chp 9 Abbott 35.8 21.6 14.2 66.0 MUTCD Model Abbott 32.8 21.6 11.2 52.1 Pignataro Model Abbott 33.8 - 37.9+ 21.6 12.2 56.5 ITE Model Abbott 35.4 21.6 13.8 64.1 Virkler-Guell Abbott 37.6 21.6 16.0 73.9 HCM Chp 13 M.A.C. 20.3 18.0 2.3 12.7 Chp 9 M.A.C. 29.8 18.0 11.8 65.4 MUTCD Model M.A.C. 26.8 18.0 8.8 48.8 Mtaro Model M.A.C. 27.8 - 31.0+ 18.0 9.8 54.4 ITE Model M.A.C. 28.6 18.0 10.6 58.8 Virkler-Guell M.A.C. 30.5 18.0 12.5 69.5 HCM Chp 13 Division 20.3 19.2 1.1 5.8 Chp 9 Division 29.8 19.2 10.6 55.3 MUTCD Model Division 26.8 19.2 7.6 39.7 _P_ignataro Model Division 27.8 — 31 .0” 19.2 8.6 44.5 ITE Model Division 30.6 19.2 11.4 59.5 Virkler-Guell Division 36.5 19.2 17.3 90.0 HCM Chp 13 Collingwood 26.2 23.3++ 2.9 12.4 Chp 9 Collingwood 36.4 23.3 13.1 56.3 MUTCD Model Collingwood 33.4 23.3 10.1 43.4 flgnataro Model Collingwood 34.4 — 38.5+ 23.3 11.1 47.6 ITE Model Collingwood 34.4 23.3 11.1 47.7 Virkler-Guell Collingwood 35.0 23.3 1 1.7 50.0 +: Statistical comparisons are based on the minimum of these two values. The higher value is for the elderly. ++: Average pedestrian crossing time on the eastside crosswalk (19.9 sec on the westside due to shorter crossing length) 104 0.000). The analysis shows that all methodologies tested overestimate pedestrian crossing time, with the 1997 HCM (Chapter 13) methodology showing the closest fit (the difference between estimated and observed crossing times varied between 5.8 and 18.9%). These results were consistent across all the crosswalks when a particular model was evaluated, and across all the alternative models, when a particular intersection was studied. The discrepancies between measured and estimated crossing times might be partly due to the age factor of the study population that mostly consists of college students who are physically more fit than an average person and may have less tolerance for delays to cross the street. Several other reasons can be cited in an attempt to describe the discrepancies between measured and estimated pedestrian crossing time values: a. The default values of start-up delay and walking speed used in the existing methods for pedestrian crossing time estimation do not represent crossing characteristics of pedestrians using the study facilities. Indeed, field observations indicated that the start up delay (perception-reaction time) is about 3 sec. The models studied propose D values in the range of 3 to 7 sec. High D values cause the models overpredict. In addition, it was observed that average measured pedestrian walking speed in the study site was higher than the suggested walking speed utilized in the models (measured waking speed varied between 1.45 and 1.63 mlsec in the study site). When site specific and study population characteristics that impact pedestrian 105 crossing time are not implemented in the formulae, it is not possible to estimate crossing time properly. b. Some important variables are missing from the existing formulations. For example, presence of turning vehicles that share the same right-of- way with pedestrian traffic, two-directional crossing platoons, available crosswalk width, perceptual and kinetic characteristics of pedestrian users, weather conditions etc. may have an important effect on pedestrian crossing times at certain locations. Findings from this analysis clearly demonstrate the need for further testing and refinement of the existing methodologies for pedestrian crossing time calculation in order to reflect more accurately actual conditions. Pedestrian crossing times can be used to: a. provide information on proper signal timing for pedestrian signals, and b. determine pedestrian LOS of signalized intersection crosswalks. The results from these analyses are presented next. 4.4.2. Evaluation of Signal Settings Measured pedestrian crossing times are used to evaluate existing signal settings during the vehicular traffic off-peak and the PM-peak periods. The duration of existing pedestrian green (WALK) and flashing red (DON'T WALK) signals is compared to minimum pedestrian crossing time criteria. A proper selection of pedestrian WALK and flashing DON’T WALK times that allow for safe and comfortable crossing requires the minimum duration of 106 WALK and flashing DON’T WALK equal to the average crossing time of pedestrians who cross alone and/or in a platoon of pedestrians. A platoon of pedestrians is defined as more than five individuals crossing the street together. It is obvious that a platoon might require a longer crossing time due to restricted maneuvering ability in the platoon. Table 4.6 summarizes the results from the evaluation of the length of pedestrian WALK and flashing DON’T WALK intervals at the signalized intersection crosswalks. The results in Table 4.6 show that the duration of pedestrian WALK and flashing DON’T walk intervals is sufficient to provide safe and comfortable crossing for pedestrians. Table 4.6. Comparison of the length of pedestrian interval against the average measured pedestrian crossing times Vehicular Traffic off-peak Vehicular Traffic PM-peak Intersection Conditions Conditions Crosswalk Avg measured Existing Avg measured Existing pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian crossing time interval* crossing time interval" (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) Abbott 20.5 23+13 21.2 23+13 M.A.C. 18.3 21+10 17.8 25+10 Division 19.0 20+10 19.6 22+10 Collingwood -W 19.8 23+14 19.9 23+14 Collingwood- E 23.6 23+14 23.2 23+14 *: equals to the sum of WALK and flashing DON’T WALK times Given the characteristics of the study population and safety considerations, using the 85th percentile of crossing time (instead of the average 107 values) appears more appropriate for comparison purpose. In Table 4.7, the lengths of pedestrian interval (WALK and flashing DON’T WALK times) are compared against the 85th percentile values of crossing time. According to Table 4.7, the length of pedestrian interval at all the locations is sufficient. Pedestrian clearance intervals (flashing DON’T WALK) should allow pedestrians who begin crossing just before the start of flashing red to reach a refuge point by the time the red indication is displayed. The median is considered as the refuge point for divided facilities and the opposite curb for undivided ones. Table 4.7. Comparison of the length of pedestrian interval against the 85‘" percentiles of pedestrian crossing times Intersection 85th percentile of the Minimum pedestrian Crosswalk measured pedestrian interval (sec) crossing time (sec) Abbott 25.0 36 M.A.C. 19.0 31 Division 21 .0 30 Collingwood- W 25.0 37 Collingwood- E 22.0 37 To test if minimum pedestrian flashing red requirements are currently met, the available pedestrian flashing red time was compared to the time required for pedestrians to cross from curb to median. The latter was calculated by multiplying the measured pedestrian crossing time by the ratio of the distance 108 between curb and median over the total crosswalk length. As the distances between the median and the north and south side curbs were typically not the same, the longer of the two was considered. The results from the comparison are displayed in Table 4.8. It is found that the clearance intervals currently used met the minimum flashing red interval criteria for pedestrian crossing needs at these locations. Table 4.8. Evaluation of the length of existing clearance intervals Vehicular Traffic off-peak Vehicular Traffic PM-peak Intersection Conditions Conditions Crosswalks Average Clearance Average Clearance pedestrian interval * pedestrian interval crossing time to (sec) crossing time to (sec) median (sec) median (sec) Abbott 8.7 13 9.0 13 M.A.C. 7.8 10 7.4 10 Division 7.8 10 8.0 10 Collingwood -W 8.2 14 8.2 14 Collin wood- E 11.4 14 11.2 14 *: equals to the flashing DON’T WALK interval 4.4.3. Pedestrian LOS Estimation Pedestrian levels of service at the signalized crosswalks was estimated using the procedure proposed by the 1997 HCM (Chapter 13). The LOS estimation is based on average space per pedestrian, MC (m2/ped). The latter is a function of the available time-space for pedestrians, TS (mz-ped), the pedestrian crossing volume per cycle, V, and pedestrian crossing time, T (sec). The 85th percentile pedestrian crossing volume per cycle was used, instead of the 109 average pedestrian crossing volume per cycle, since the variance of pedestrian volume from cycle-to-cycle was high. Measured pedestrian crossing time data were used and the walk interval, G (sec), involved in the estimation of TS was taken as the sum of the pedestrian green and clearance (flashing red) intervals reduced by 3 sec to account for start up delays due to pedestrian perception- reacfion. Pedestrian levels of service for the off-peak period are shown in Table 4.9. Under the conditions, all the signalized crosswalks operate at an acceptable LOS (B or better). Table 4.9. Pedestrian level of service estimation—vehicular traffic off-peak conditions Signalized TS Mc LOS Crosswalks (mz-sec) (mzlped) Abbott 3983 48.58 A M.A.C. 2529 15.35 A Division 2037 5.28 B Collingwood-W 3473 58.47 A . Collingwood-E 4308 91.26 A Table 4.10 illustrates the pedestrian level of service estimations obtained for vehicular traffic PM-peak conditions. Examination of Table 4.10 indicates that all study signalized intersections operate at an acceptable pedestrian level of service during PM-peak pedestrian traffic conditions (LOS of B or better). The 110 high quality of service offered to pedestrians at the study signalized intersection crosswalks may explain the high crossing compliance rate at such locations as Table 4.10. Pedestrian level of service estimation—vehicular traffic PM peak conditions Signalized TS Mc LOS Crosswalks (mz-s e c) (m2 /p ed) Abbott 3983 18.69 A M.A.C. 2890 27.06 A Division 21 12 7.97 B Collingyvood-W 3473 63.46 A Collingwood-E 4308 49.51 A reported in Chapter 3. On the other hand, if a facility offers poor level of service to pedestrians, it is very likely that pedestrians will attempt to divert from the crosswalk or use it improperly. They typically do so by crossing at a different location (designated for crossing or not) or at the same location but at a different time (i.e., during pedestrian red interval if vehicle traffic gaps allow for crossing). 4.4.3.1. Calculation of Level of Service for the Maximum Surge Condition Pedestrian crosswalk LOS is calculated also for conditions in which the maximum number of pedestrians is in the crosswalk. The LOS values for the vehicular traffic off-peak and the PM-peak conditions are given in Tables 4.11 and 12. The LOS values presented in Tables 4.11 and 12 for the maximum surge condition did not differ from the ones calculated for average conditions during the 111 pedestrian intervals. Therefore, the LOS of the crosswalks during the times is in the acceptable range (LOS of B or better) when the maximum number of pedestrians is in the crosswalk. Table 4.11. Pedestrian level of service estimation for the maximum surge condition--vehicular traffic off-peak conditions Signalized Vm Ms LOS Crosswalks (pedestrians) (m2/ped) Abbott 2.03 59.52 A M.A.C. 5.22 17.29 A Division 13.39 5.64 B Collingwood-W 1 .30 78.43 A Collingwood-E 1.23 103.37 A Table 4.12. Pedestrian level of service estimation for the maximum surge condition—vehicular traffic PM-peak conditions Signalized Vm Ms LOS Cr osswalks (pedestrians) (m2/ped) Abbott 5.77 20.93 A M.A.C. 3.99 22.63 A Division 8.69 8.68 B Collingwood-W 1 .10 92.80 A . Collingwood-E 1.53 83.06 A 4.4. 3. 2. Estimating the Decrement to LOS Due to Turning Vehicles The decrement to LOS is calculated as the product of vehicle swept-path and crosswalk widths, and an estimate of the time that the vehicle preempts this 112 space. It is assumed that each left- or right-turning vehicle will preempt a time- space of (2.44m x Wx 2 sec) mz-sec/veh in each cycle. The decrements to Table 4.13. Decrements to crosswalk LOS due to turning vehicles-vehicular traffic off-peak conditions 85th 85"1 Reduction to Sign alize d percentile percentile available TS Crosswalks of of vehicle (mz-sec/cycle) pedestrian volume Mc L03 volume (veh/cycle) (m2/ped) (ped/Cyc'e) RT LT RT LT Abbott 4.00 0.65 1.18 10.88 19.75 48.39 A M .A.C. 9.00 N/A* N/A N/A N/A 15.35 A Division 20.30 N/A 6.39 N/A 84.51 5.06 B Collingwood-W 3.00 0.50 3.1 1 7.81 48.57 57.52 A I Collingwood-E 2.00 4.71 N/A 81.14 N/A 89.54 A Table 4.14. Decrements to crosswalk vehicular traffic PM-peak conditions LOS due to turning vehicles- 85th . 85th . Reduction to 333337; ””3”” 8:33.13: (ralfligifylli) pedestrian volume Mc L05 volume (veh/cycle) (mzlped) (ped/cyc'e) RT LT RT LT Abbott 10.05 2.28 2.44 38.16 40.84 18.32 A M.A.C. 6.00 N/A* N/A N/A N/A 27.06 A Division 14.00 N/A 4.49 N/A 59.38 7.76 B Collingwood-W 2.75 0.86 4.17 13.43 65.12 62.03 A Collingwood-E 3.75 6.19 N/A 106.63 N/A 48.29 A *NIA: not applicable 113 crosswalk LOS due to turning vehicles are presented in Tables 4.13 and 14 for the off-peak and PM-peak periods. According to the results presented in Tables 4.13 and 14, turning vehicles did not significantly affect the LOS at the study crosswalks. 4.5. Summary and Conclusions In this chapter, pedestrian crossing times and quantitative level of service (LOS) estimations of crosswalks at the signalized intersections were studied in detail. Existing methodologies for the estimation of pedestrian crossing times were reviewed and summarized, and their limitations were discussed in Chapter 2. Here, these methodologies were validated using measured pedestrian crossing times. The data were collected at all the four signalized intersection crosswalks within the study area during the vehicular traffic off-peak and the PM- peak conditions. Moreover, measured pedestrian crossing time data were used to check if existing signal settings at the study intersections meet minimum green and flashing red requirements for pedestrians. Finally, measured pedestrian crossing times were used to assess the pedestrian LOS at all the signalized intersection crosswalks. The following conclusions were reached: 0 The existing methodologies for pedestrian crossing time estimation systematically overpredicted pedestrian crossing times in the study site. Refinement of such methodologies is recommended so that they represent actual conditions in a more realistic manner. 114 Pedestrian crossing time is a key measure to the evaluation of signal settings and the assessment of operational efficiency at signalized intersections from the perspective of pedestrian users. Pedestrian crossing times can assist in proper selection of signal settings, including pedestrian green and flashing red interval lengths. Therefore, pedestrian crossing times should be determined or estimated properly in order to design efficient signal timing for pedestrians as well as for vehicles. Overall the observed crossing speeds are compatible with the findings of other research studies. The lengths of the existing pedestrian interval (WALK and flashing DON’T WALK times) in the study site are sufficient to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian crossing at the signalized crosswalks. The minimum pedestrian clearance (flashing red) time criterion is met at all the locations, too. All the signalized intersection crosswalks in the study area operate at an acceptable pedestrian level of service (LOS B or better) during both the vehicular traffic off-peak and PM-peak conditions. Pedestrian levels of service in the study crosswalks under the maximum surge conditions did not differ from the ones obtained for average conditions during the WALK interval. Turning vehicles at the signalized intersections did not significantly affect the LOS values in the crosswalks. 115 4.6. Recommendations for Future Research The research summarized in this part of the chapter focused on the validation of existing methodologies to estimate pedestrian crossing time and calculate pedestrian LOS at signalized crosswalks. All these methodologies overestimated observed crossing times at the signalized intersection crosswalks on Grand River Avenue. It is believed that the formulae overstate the length of the start-up delay (perception-reaction time) for pedestrians by choosing values from 4 sec to 7 sec. The field observations indicated that this value was in the range of 3 sec to 4 sec. Secondly, none of the formulae considers two-way platoon movements. Consideration of two-way platoons is very important for the application of formulae in places where high bi-directional pedestrian volumes exist (such as in downtown New York City, Chicago, Seattle, etc.). Thirdly, none of the formulae considers the effect of turning vehicles on individual pedestrians and platoons. All the formulae are valid under the conditions of little interaction between pedestrians and turning vehicles. Lastly, design (walking) speed, start-up delay and headway should reflect the characteristics of local users in designing signalized crosswalks in order not to increase delay for vehicles by allowing excessive green and flashing red for pedestrians. All these issues identified above should be further researched and addressed by specialized studies. 116 Chapter 5 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: PEDESTRIAN AND TURNING-VEHICLE INTERACTIONS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CROSSWALKS 5.1. Introduction It is a common practice for pedestrians to share the right-of-way with turning vehicles. At signalized intersections, right- and/or left-turning vehicles are often allowed to perform their maneuvers during the pedestrian “WALK” signal indication. This situation creates conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles that preempt the crosswalk space. Such conflicts introduce delays to pedestrians and turning vehicles, and increase the likelihood for a crash to occur. On the other hand, the reduction of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts through the application of proper traffic-control measures (e.g., early or late release of pedestrians) is expected to decrease the overall operational efficiency of the signalized intersection. Thus, a trade-off exists between providing pedestrian safety and crossing convenience, and generating operational efficiency. The existing pedestrian signal phasing at the signalized intersections with left-turns allowed from cross streets onto Grand River Avenue is called “combined pedestrian-vehicle interval” and is the most common form of pedestrian signal phasing used in practice. It is defined in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices as “a signal phasing wherein pedestrians may use certain crosswalks and vehicles are permitted to turn across these crosswalks.” Chapter 5 examines the interactions between turning vehicles and pedestrians crossing at the signalized intersections on Grand River Avenue. The 117 motive for this type of analysis was given by numerous comments from pedestrian users surveyed in a study by Sisiopiku and Akin (1999z1). Sisiopiku and Akin reported that pedestrian users preferred to cross at non-designated crosswalks on Grand River Avenue in order to avoid conflicts with turning vehicles during pedestrian green interval. Moreover, turning movements at intersections are much more hazardous than through movements in terms of crashes between vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian crosswalks that are independent from turning-vehicle pedestrian conflicts show a lower pedestrian accident experience (Fruin, 1973). Thus, conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians crossing at the signalized crosswalks are to be studied in this part of the study. The results from this analysis are used in order to classify intersections with respect to the risk they impose to pedestrian movements. Furthermore, a correlation between pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and/or crashes and geometry and signal timing/phasing can be examined to further assess safety at a crossing location and determine the need for geometric and/or signal timing/phasing improvements. Such analysis is beyond the scope of the subject research and is recommended for further study in the future. 5.2. Methodology First, the definition of potential conflict and potential conflict area are offered. Then, results from statistical modeling of potential pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles are presented. 118 5.2.1. Definition of Potential Conflict and Potential Conflict Area (PCA) A potential turning vehicle-pedestrian conflict is defined as a situation in which the paths of a turning vehicle and a pedestrian cross and both pedestrian and vehicle are present simultaneously within the conflict area. The conflict area is defined in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 for right— and left-turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, respectively. ‘A of the inner ........... lane width b.-..————-----.---—--------. --------------------------------------- __\i l Right turning vehicle- . £1.12 “‘ pedestrian conflict 1;.I.;I;I;I;I """""""""""""""" area .. ;—>———> I Right turning ' vehicle Figure 5.1. Right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflict area on a crosswalk Field data were collected at the four signalized intersection crosswalk locations along Grand River Avenue. First, potential conflicts, observed as a result of turning vehicle-pedestrian interactions, were counted. Then, regression analysis was performed to develop relationships between measured conflicts, and pedestrian and vehicle volumes. 119 _ Left-turning vehicle p-------—----------——------- L Left turning ........... ‘ vehicle-pedestrian conflict area ‘Aofthe :3' 3'3 3'3 outside lane :-:~:-:.:.'.:.‘ ---------------------------- width \ -';:;:;:®: Figure 5.2. Left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflict area on a crosswalk 5.2.2. Modeling of Potential Conflicts with Turning Vehicles Conflict analysis technique and the relationship between conflicts and accidents were studied by several researchers during the last 20 years. Cynecki (1980), Glauz et al. (1985), Garder (1989), Davis et al. (1989) and several others defined the calculation of a conflict as the product of two counteract movements, for example, turning vehicles and pedestrians walking in a crosswalk during pedestrian green interval. Modeling experiments with alternative formulations toward a model that is reasonable and intuitively correct led to the same form of equation found in the literature: Y = a (X1 . X2). The number of potential pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles is the dependent variable, Y; X1 is the volume of turning vehicles; X2 is the volume of pedestrians in the crosswalk; and 120 a is a regression parameter. Garder (1989) used a similar formula to calculate pedestrian accidents with motor vehicles: C = a (P.V)"2.10'2, where C is accidents per year, a is a constant and varied with the type of traffic control at intersections, and P and V are pedestrian and vehicle flows respectively. Similarly pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles are the product of turning vehicle flow and pedestrian flow. Thus the following model formulation is proposed and used for the determination of turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts: TVPC: A.(TVV.PV) ............................................................................ Eq.5.l where TVPC = number of turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts (conflicts/hr), TVV = turning vehicle volume at signalized intersections (veh/hr), PV = pedestrian volume in signalized intersection crosswalks (ped/hr), and A = regression coefficient. 5.3. Data Collection Potential turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts were counted over 30-min periods and then converted into the number of potential conflicts per hour for each signalized intersection crosswalk within the study site. Note that at the signalized intersection of M.A.C. Avenue, no pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles exist because the crosswalk is located at the east—side of the intersection and no left-turn movement is allowed from M.A.C. onto Grand River Avenue. The Abbott Street intersection crosswalk poses both left- and right-turn vehicle conflicts to pedestrians. The crosswalk at Division Street has only left- 121 turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts existed since the intersection does not have a south leg. The Collingwood-west intersection crosswalk poses both left- and right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts to pedestrians. At the Collingwood-east intersection crosswalk, left-turn vehicles are not allowed and, thus, only right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts were counted. Table 5.1 summarizes potential right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts observed at the signalized intersection crosswalks. As Table 5.1 indicates, the signalized intersection crosswalk at Abbott Street has the highest average potential right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts per hour (41 potential conflicts/hr) followed by the crosswalk at the east-side of Collingwood intersection (24 potential conflicts/hr). Table 5.1. Potential right-turn vehicle pedestrian conflicts (RTVPC) in study intersection crosswalks Crosswalks Average right— Average pedestrian Average potential turning vehicle volume (ped/hour) right-tum conflicts volume (veh/houQ (conflicts/ hour) Abbott St 40 154 41 Division St N/A 323 N/A Collingwood-W 20 50 5 Collingwood-E 1 51 56 24 N/A: not applicable Table 5.2 summarizes potential left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts observed at the signalized intersection crosswalks. As shown, the crosswalk at Division Street has the highest average left-turn potential pedestrian-vehicle conflict rate. Note that this intersection serves also the highest left-turning vehicle and pedestrian crossing volumes among all the signalized intersections studied. 122 Table 5.2. Potential left-turn vehicle pedestrian conflicts (LTVPC) in study intersection crosswalks Crosswalks Average left-turning Average pedestrian Average potential vehicle volume volume (ped/hour) left-turn conflicts (veh/hour) (ped/ hour) Abbott St 54 154 11 Division St 154 323 159 Collingwood-W 104 50 42 Collingwood-E N/A 56 N/A NIA: not applicable Also, according to Table 5.2, a very low left-turn conflict rate was observed at the Abbott Street crosswalk. This can be explained by the low left-turn vehicle volume (54 vph) as well as the fact that left turning vehicles are given a permissive phase during the movement of northbound traffic. Due to the lack of exclusive right of way, left-turning vehicles conflict first with northbound through traffic and then with pedestrian traffic at the crosswalk. As a result, many pedestrians can safely clear the conflict area while left-turning vehicles wait for northbound traffic to clear, prior to entering the conflict area at the crosswalk. The same situation occurs at the Collingwood-west intersection crosswalk. However, at this crosswalk, left-turn traffic from Collingwood Street onto Grand River Ave is not opposed by a heavy southbound through movement. 5.4. Analysis and Results The collection of turning vehicle-pedestrian conflict data in the field was a tedious and time-consuming process. The following paragraphs present the results from an effort to estimate potential conflicts based on turning vehicle and 123 pedestrian volumes. Regression analysis techniques were employed to model the relationship between potential turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and turning vehicle and pedestrian volumes. The results are presented next by turning movement type (i.e., right- or left- turning movement). 5.4.1. Right-turning Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts Figure 5.3 presents a plot of potential right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts (per hour) versus right-turn vehicle volumes. Figure 5.4 depicts the existence of a correlation between right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and pedestrian volume. Observation of the two plots shows a potential correlation between right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and both vehicle and pedestrian volumes. This correlation was modeled in Equation 5.2. 160 140 - 120 - 100 - 80 - 60 - 40 - 20» - 9 Right-turn Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts per hr 0 e 0 50 100 150 200 250 Right-turn Vehicle Volume (vehlhr) Figure 5.3. Relationship between right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and right-turn vehicle volume at the signalized intersection crosswalks 124 160 - E 3 e o. 140 . a .2 “E 120 - o 0 g 100 - 78 'o 80 . 8 0° 6 '3 60 ' E >“ 40 . E e. a , 0. .— . O m 0 .Q : ... . . . - . . 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Pedestrian Volume (pecflhr) Figure 5.4. Relationship between right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and pedestrian volume at the signalized intersection crosswalks Regression analysis yielded an A value equal to 4.641 *10 '3 as shown in the following model: RTVPC = 4.641.10‘3(RTVV. PV) ............................................................ Eq5.2 where RTVPC = number of right turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts (conflicts/hr), RTVV = right-turning vehicle volume (vehlhr), and PV = pedestrian volume (ped/hr). The regression analysis results are presented in detail in Table 5.3. The goodness of fit of the model, R2 value, is 0.872. Figure 5.5 shows the plot of 125 measured data and the model estimates based on Equation 5.2. Overall the model appears to predict potential right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts reasonably well when right turn vehicle and pedestrian volumes are known. Table 5.3. Linear regression analysis results for the RTVPC model Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig 1 Regression 31882.590 1 31882.590 136.326 0.000 Residual 4677.410 20 233.871 Total 36560.000 21 i Unstandardized Standardized Signifi 95% CI for Coefficients Coefficients t cance coefficients A Std. Error A level Upper Lower 4.641E-03 0.000 0.934 11.676 0.000 0.004 0.005 160 .5 .b. O O .3 N O RTVPC = 4.641 E-03 " (RTVV " PV) R square = 0.872 .L O O #0) CO Right-turn Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflics N on O O CD 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Right-turn Vehicle Volume * Pedestrian Volume Figure 5.5. Relationship between right-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, and right-turn vehicle and pedestrian volumes 126 5.4.2. Left-turning Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts Figure 5.6 presents a plot of potential left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts (per hour) versus left-turn vehicle volume. Figure 5.7 shows the correlation between left-turn vehicle-pedestrian potential conflicts and pedestrian volume. Again, observation of the two plots shows a possible correlation between left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and left-turning vehicle and pedestrian volumes. 500 » 450 , . 400 - 350 « 300 ~- 250 . 200 - 150 - - 100 . 50. , . . Left-tum Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts per hr 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Left-turn Vehicle Volume (vehlhr) Figure 5.6. Relationship between left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and left-turn vehicle volume at the signalized intersection crosswalks 127 500 450 ~ . 400 - 350 - 300 ~ 250 . 200 - 150 -I - 100 1 (11 O E. Left-turn Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts per hr t -- 0.42‘- .- , L -, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Pedestrian Volume (pedlhr) C Figure 5.7. Relationship between left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and pedestrian volume at the signalized intersection crosswalks The linear regression analysis yielded the following model with the R2 value of 0.945: LTVPC: 2.444.10‘3(LTVV. PV) ............................................................. Eq5.3 where LTVPC = number of left-turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts (conflicts/hr), LTVV = left-turning vehicle volume (vehlhr), and PV = pedestrians volume (ped/hr). 128 Summary results from the linear regression analysis are presented in Table 5.4. Table 5.4. Linear regression analysis results for the LTVPC model Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig+_ 1 Regression 304677.028 1 304677.028 362.814 0.000 Residual 17634.972 21 839.761 Total 322312.000 22 Unstandardized Standardized t Sig 95% CI* for Coefficients Coefficients coefficients B Std. Error B Upper Lower 2.444E-03 0.000 0.972 19.048 0.000 0.002 0.003 *CI: confidence interval, +Sig: significance Figure 5.8 shows the plot of the data and the model estimates resulting from the application of Equation 5.3. Both the high R2 (0.945) value obtained and the very good fit of the model to the data (as shown in Figure 5.8) indicate that Equation 5.3 can predict potential left-turning vehicle and pedestrian conflicts with reasonable accuracy when left-turning vehicle and pedestrian volumes are known. In Table 5.5, the study intersections are ordered based on the total potential turning vehicle-pedestrian conflict rates per hour per thousand vehicles and pedestrians as formulated in Equation 5.4. Such classification assists in identifying intersections with a greater risk for pedestrian-tuming vehicle collisions and setting priorities for potential improvements. 129 LTVPC = 2.444 E-O3* (LTVV* PV) ’ R square = 0.945 $§§§§§§ 150‘ 100‘ Left-tum Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts 0 20000400006000080000100000120000140000160000180000 Left-tum Vehicle Volume * Pedestrian Voiurne Figure 5.8. Relationship between left-turn vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, and left-turn vehicle and pedestrian volumes TPC.103 PCR — —— Eq5.4 — TVV. PV ..................................................................................... where PCR: Potential conflict rate (number of potential conflicts per hour per thousand vehicles and pedestrians), TPC: Total potential conflicts. The sum of both types of conflicts per hour (if applicable) on a crosswalk, TVV: Total vehicular volume. The sum of left- and right-turning vehicular volumes (vehlhr), and 130 PV: Pedestrian volume on a crosswalk per hour. Table 5.5. Classification of the signalized intersection crosswalks based on total potential turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts Intersection TPC TVV PV PCR Priority for consideration for action Collingwood-W 47 124 50 7.58 1 Abbott 52 94 1 54 3.59 2 Division 159 154 323 3.20 3 Collingwood-E 24 151 56 2.84 4 According to Table 5.5, the west crosswalk at Collingwood Street is clearly the one with the greatest potential for turning vehicle-pedestrian collisions on the basis of potential pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles. To improve the situation, early or late release or exclusive pedestrian signal timing can be used, to replace the concurrent signal timing currently in effect. Early or late release pedestrian signal timing is expected to assist in reducing the number of conflicts between pedestrians and turning traffic with expected benefits with respect to pedestrian safety and pedestrian crossing compliance. However, due to potential implications on operational efficiency, a detailed study is recommended to take place prior to implementation of an alternative signal-timing plan. 5.5. Summary and Conclusions In this chapter, pedestrian-turning vehicle interactions at the signalized intersection crosswalks were studied in detail. First, potential right— and left-turn 131 vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at the signalized intersection crosswalks were defined and measured at qualifying locations within the study area. Potential conflict estimation models were developed and discussed. The proposed models can be used to estimate potential right- and left- turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts when turning vehicle and pedestrian volumes are available. Determining the conflicts provide traffic engineers information about potential hazards at intersections. If the number of the conflicts is significantly higher compared to similar locations, then safety precautions need to be taken in order to reduce the number of conflicts by implementing early/late release of vehicles/pedestrians. The following conclusions were reached from the analysis described above: . The estimation of potential right- and left-turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts is possible through the application of regression models developed in this study and presented in Equations 5.2 and 5.3. . The models indicated that the product of pedestrian and turning vehicle volumes is highly correlated with the conflicts with pedestrians and turning vehicles. 0 Literature review indicated that early or late release pedestrian signal phasing could contribute to the reduction in turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and increase in pedestrian safety and crossing convenience. 132 5.6. Recommendations for Future Research The following recommendations were made for future research: . Although the models proposed in this chapter give very reasonable results, additional testing of the models is recommended to confirm their validity and applicability in different settings. 0 The models proposed for the estimation of potential turning-vehicle- pedestrian conflicts are applicable to combined pedestrian-vehicle phasing only. Validation of the models is needed for other pedestrian signal phasing schemes (e.g., early or late release). 0 The relationship between pedestrian crashes and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts was not studied. A future study should investigate this relationship. 133 Chapter 6 ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIANS’ PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES 6.1 . Introduction The main focus of this part of the study is to analyze users’ perceptions and preferences toward various pedestrian treatments, including signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks, midblock crosswalks, pedestrian signs and signals, physical barriers and more. Crossing preferences and habits of pedestrians were also studied to determine current crossing practices and explain the reasoning behind their choices. Users’ perceptions and preferences should be taken into account when the operation of pedestrian facilities is evaluated. Pedestrians should be offered the opportunity to identify treatments that create safe and desirable crossing options and environment that increase their likelihood to properly use pedestrian designated facilities. The latter is crucial toward the improvement of pedestrian safety. When pedestrians use sidewalks and properly cross at designated locations, the separation of pedestrians and vehicles increases and pedestrian- vehicle conflicts are minimized. 6.2. Methodology Pedestrian perception and preference data were collected through a pedestrian survey electronically distributed to potential users of the study site. 134 6.2.1. Survey Design Three important steps were considered in order to conduct the survey of users of the study site: a. selection of a target population, b. selection of a medium for easy distribution of the survey, and c. development of a survey instrument. The Michigan State University (MSU) community was selected as the target population for this study because of familiarity with the study site and a high likelihood of using the facility as pedestrians, motorists, or both. The reason that members of the MSU community were selected as the target population is that a considerable number of students as well as some faculty and staff live in the proximity of Grand River Avenue, in downtown East Lansing. Also, the facility is used by students and personnel who study and/or work at MSU for shopping, entertainment, or catering purposes. For easy distribution of the survey, electronic media (e-mail addresses) were used to send a copy of the survey to randomly selected receivers. The development of the survey instrument met the following criteria: . statement of study purpose and importance of participation; 0 clear definition of questions; . reasonable length; . lack of personal or potentially offensive questions; 0 appropriate format for electronic distribution; and . appropriate format for easy data coding. 135 The questions included in the questionnaire covered the following areas of interest: a. users’ profile (age group, gender, and frequency of use of the facility), b. users’ crossing patterns (crossing location, conditions, compliance), c. factors that affect pedestrian crossing choices (presence of certain types of control, user priorities), and d. users’ perceptions with respect to right-of—way and safety. The survey form included a total of eight questions with several of them soliciting more than one answer. It required approximately 2-3 minutes to complete. The full survey is shown in Figure 6.1. The questionnaire was pre- tested in order to identify any unclear questions with members of a department that is located next to the study site. The selection of the pre-test group was taken under consideration for the proximity of their work place to the study site as well as the availability of e-mailing the survey to the whole department at one time. 6.3. Data Collection and Reduction First, on-site surveys were conducted by survey staff (graduate students in transportation program at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of MSU) who was instructed to randomly approach pedestrians in the study site. Fifty-two pedestrians were approached and asked for their assistance in completing the survey. Twenty-two of those agreed to participate in it. Although 136 Figure 6.1. Grand River Avenue Pedestrian Survey 1. How often do you cross on Grand River Ave between Abbott and Bogue Streets on foot? (Please mark your answers by X). ____ 1. Daily ____ 2. Occasionally (a couple days a week) __ 3. Almost never 2. Where do you typically cross on Grand River Ave? __ 1- on designated signalized crosswalks _ 2- on designated midblock and unsignalized crosswalks _ 3- at any convenient location 3. When do you typically cross on Grand River Ave? ____ 1- only when pedestrian traffic light is green __ _ 2- when traffic clears completely __ 3- whenever a gap occurs in vehicular traffic 4. How often do you cross at a non-designated crossing location? _ _ 1- never ___ 2- rarely ____ 3- sometimes ___ 4- often ____ 5- almost always 5. If you choose to cross at a non-designated crossing location, what is the main reason? _ 1- convenience ____ 2- to save time ____ 3— traffic is light, there is no risk 6. In your opinion, when should vehicles yield to pedestrians? __ 1- always ____ 2— at designated crosswalks ____ 3- never, vehicles should have priority 7. Are the following statements true for Grand River Ave.? 4 __2. Y__ N__ a- motorists typically yield to pedestrians at designated crosswalks Y__ N__ b- left-tuming vehicles typically yield to pedestrians during pedestrian green Y__ N__ c- pedestrians typically cross at designated locations Y__ N__ d- bicycles do not pose a safety risk to pedestrians at designated crosswalks 8. Do the following influence your decision to cross at a certain location? 1 2 Y__ N__ 1- presence of a pedestrian signal Y__ N__ 2- presence of a midblock crosswalk Y__ N__ 3- red color brick pavement Y__ N__ 4- shelter over a midblock crosswalk Y__ N_ 5- "cross only when traffic clears” sign Y__ N__ 6- presence of other pedestrians that attempt to cross Y__ N__ 7- distance to a desired location Y__ N_ 8- vegetation or barriers on a median 137 Figure 6.1. Grand River Avenue Pedestrian Survey (continued) 9. How often are you willing to divert from your path in order to cross at a designated crosswalk? ____1- always _ 2- often _ _ 3- sometimes____ 4- rarely ___ 5- never 10. What is your age group? 1- less than 21 yrs _ 2- 21-55 yrs 3-over 55 yrs 11. What is your gender? ___ 1- male ____ 2- female 12. Do you perceive Grand River Ave between Abbott and Bogue St as a safe corridor for pedestrians? __ 1- Yes ___ 2- No 13. If your answer in Q. 12 is “No,” what is the major problem from your point of view? 138 the rate of participation of the on-site survey was good (42.3%), this data collection approach was found to be time consuming and costly. Thus a decision was made to distribute the survey instrument electronically instead. The survey was distributed to e-mail recipients selected randomly via the MSU computer network. Selection of 5,000 e-mail addresses was made randomly from the available e-mail addresses (over 90,000) in the computer network. A total of 897 completed questionnaires were returned and reviewed. The return rate was 17.9%. Given that the typical return rate of mail-in surveys reported in the literature is between 5 and 30%, the return rate of the subject survey was deemed acceptable. It should be noted that some of the e-mail addresses in the database are invalid or inactive. For this reason, it is believed that the real return rate would easily exceed 20%. Returned questionnaires were first screened to assess their completeness and ensure their uniqueness. During this process, duplicate copies and forms with several unanswered questions were eliminated. Eligible questionnaires were assigned a serial number. This allowed for future tracking of selected surveys to check for coding errors. After eliminating duplicate and incomplete survey forms a total of 855 questionnaires remained plus 22 on-site surveys. A decision was made to analyze responses from daily and occasional users, and non-users separately. it is believed that non-users completed the survey based on their previous experiences, not the experiences from the study site. So, combining all responses together could introduce some bias to the results. A total of 711 questionnaires from daily and occasional users were used in the 139 analysis. The sample size was deemed adequate to provide a fairly accurate picture of the users’ crossing habits, observations and perceptions toward the pedestrian facilities in the test site. The next section summarizes results from the analysis of survey data. 6.4. Analysis and Results The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program was used to create a file containing the responses from each questionnaire. This package has the capability to perform statistical analysis as well as produce graphs and data summaries. Each survey was coded to a single raw and a serial number was assigned in order to track it later, if necessary. There were 22 fields per questionnaire and 45 sec to 1 min per survey were required to complete a typical data entry. Out of the 877 pedestrians studied, 255 (29.1%) pedestrians used the study site “daily,” 456 pedestrians, or 52.0% was classified as “occasional users (who use the study site for a couple days a week),” and the rest (166 pedestrians, or 18.9%) were non-users who stated that they almost never used the study site. The percentage of respondents 21 years or younger was 32.7%, between 22 and 55 years of age was 61.6%, and the remaining 5.7% was over 55 years of age. The fairly normal age distribution is an indication of a representative and properly diverse sample population. 140 6.4.1. Daily and Occasional Users Out of the 711 daily and occasional pedestrian users studied, 255 (36%) pedestrians used the study site daily and the rest (456 pedestrians, or 64%) were occasional users. 6.4.1.1. Users’ Crossing Patterns The location at which pedestrians select to cross a road, the conditions under which they decide to cross and their compliance with pedestrian traffic control are important factors both from safety and operation perspectives. As Figure 6.2 shows, the majority of pedestrians surveyed (59%) said that they typically cross at designated locations (24% at signalized crosswalks, 31% at unsignalized and midblock crosswalks, and 4% at crosswalks of any type). The remaining 41% replied that they typically cross at any convenient location. 50 ‘°' 30 - 31 g, - S 5 e if 20 - 10 I 0 sign: lized xr-walks ' any conve'nienl location ' midblock a unsignalized x-walks any x-walk type Figure 6.2. Typical pedestrian crossing locations 141 Figure 6.3 depicts typical crossing conditions for respondents. 61 percent of the respondents admitted to cross when they perceive that an acceptable gap in vehicle traffic exists. On the other hand, 35% said they cross only when all traffic has cleared completely and a mere 4% was willing to wait for a green pedestrian light indication in order to cross. 50' 35 30_ LJ Percentage 20- 10' 0 g. ”‘3‘, 4 only when pedestrian light green whenever a gap occurs when traffic clears completely Figure 6.3. Typical pedestrian crossing conditions Pedestrians were also asked about the frequency of crossing at non- designated locations. Figure 6.4 summarizes the responses obtained. 29% of the users replied that they rarely (or never) crossed at a non-designated crosswalk. Approximately a quarter of the respondents said that they often or almost always jaywalk. 46% of the respondents appeared not having a predetermined crossing preference on the use of designated facilities in order to cross. These results are in reasonable agreement with the responses regarding preferred crossing 142 location presented above and the users’ willingness to divert from their path in order to cross at a designated location. 38% of users replied that were willing to divert, 20% refused to do so, and 42% said that they would sometimes divert from their path in order to use a crosswalk. 50 7' 40' 30'I Percentage ZOI 10‘ 6 4‘," never rarely sometimes often almost always Figure 6.4. Frequency of crossing at a non-designated crossing location It is also interesting to note that occasional users appear to be more conservative in their crossing choices. For example, only 18% of occasional users admit to cross frequently at non-designated locations compared to 34% of daily users. This leads to the conclusion that when pedestrian facilities are designed for primary use by pedestrian commuters more intensive efforts should be made in order to discourage pedestrians from crossing at non-designated 143 location. Such behavior may pose a risk for the personal safety of pedestrians and create undesirable disruptions of traffic flow. 6.4.1.2. Assessment of Factors Affecting Pedestrian Crossing Choices Pedestrians were asked to state the main reason based on which they make a decision to cross at a non-designated crosswalk location. The answers to this question were indented to assess the users’ priorities. Convenience is the number one priority sited by users (42%) while time savings was of major importance to 27% of the respondents. Interestingly enough, 30% responded that they do not perceive any major risk crossing the facility at any convenient location since traffic is light enough to allow for safe crossing. These results are summarized in Figure 6.5. 5G 40- a) 30 I 55 IE] F 27 8 I (D Q. 20 . 1 0 ' III 0 _ _ _ :7 convenience time savings no risk other Figure 6.5. Main reasons to cross at a non-designated crossing location 144 The effect of the presence of certain types of control on the decision of pedestrians to use pedestrian facilities properly (or not) is of major importance to traffic engineers in designing such facilities. Thus, the subjects were asked a series of yes-or—no questions about treatments that influence their decision to cross at a certain location. Such treatments included existence of pedestrian signal, presence of midblock crosswalk, red color brick pavement or shelter on the median at midblock crosswalk locations, vegetation or barriers on the median, and the location of the crosswalk relative to the desired destination. The results indicate that the distance to a desired destination is a major crossing-location choice determinant for a vast majority of pedestrians surveyed (90% of total), as is the presence of a midblock crosswalk and/or a pedestrian traffic light for 83% and 74% of survey respondents respectively (Figures 6.6 to 6.8). Vegetation and barriers Influenced the decision to cross of a relatively 10 90 80- 8 9 60- C a: 9 o 0- 40- 20 _ w i 0 yes no Figure 6.6 Distance to a desired location influences pedestrians’ decision to cross at a certain location 145 80' Eli; Percentage 201 , 17 : ' ' yes no Figure 6.7. Presence of a midblock crosswalk influences pedestrians’ decision to cross at a certain location 8 74 . 70 - 60' Q) c» .9 5 8 50I Q) 0. 40- 30I 20 1 ' _ ' yes no Figure 6.8. Existence of a pedestrian signal influences pedestrians’ decision to cross at a certain location 146 significant number of pedestrians surveyed (65%). On the other hand, respondents had mixed opinions about shelters and red brick paving. Only 35% said that shelters positioned in the median influenced their decision to cross at this location and 58% favored colored paving. Overall, these types of treatments may help pedestrians locate a crosswalk but appear not to have an important influence on their decision to cross at a certain location. Furthermore, statistical tests were performed to study if there is any significant difference between responses obtained from responders in different age groups or gender classification. The results from the analysis are summarized in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. In summary, it was found that differences in the responses obtained by age classification and gender are not statistically significant at the confidence level of 95%. Thus the use of aggregate results appears appropriate. The only exception occurred to the question about the effect of the distance to the desired location on the decision of an individual to cross. 92% and 90% of respondents in the age group below 21 and between 21 and 55 years of age responded positively, while 74% of elderly gave a positive Table 6.1. Effect of age on survey responses Most influential Age Group factors Chi-square Significance level Comment (95% CL)‘ Distance to 10.780 0.005 0.005<0.05 differences destination statistically significant Midblock crosswalk 4.550 0.103 0.103>0.05 differences presence not statistically significant Pedestrian signal 1.223 0.542 0.542>0.05 differences presence not statistically significant *: Confidence Level 147 Table 6.2. Effect of gender on survey responses Most influential Gender factors Chi-square Significance level Comment (95% CL)‘ Distance to 0.892 0.345 0.345>0.05 differences destination not statistically significant Midblock crosswalk 0.433 0.510 0.510>0.05 differences presence not statistically significant Pedestrian signal 1.799 0.180 0.180>0.05 differences presence not statistically significant I *: Confidence Level response to this question. The analysis indicated that the response of elderly pedestrians to this question was statistically different from the other two study groups at the confidence level of 95% (significance level 0.005<0.05). 6.4.1.3. Users’ Perceptions With Respect to Right-of-Way and Safety A number of questions were asked in order to assess the perceived level of safety and users opinions regarding right-of-way. It was found that 45% of pedestrians using the study site believed that drivers typically yielded to pedestrians in designated locations, especially at midblock crossings when stopped queues could otherwise occupy the crosswalk. It should be noted that, except from the pavement markings, motorists do not see any positive type of control indicating that pedestrians should be offered priority. Interestingly, when pedestrians surveyed were asked, “when should motorists yield to pedestrians?,” the majority (61%) of respondents answered that this should happen only at designated crosswalks. 31% felt that pedestrians should always have priority over motorized traffic, and 7% responded that 148 vehicles should always receive the right-of-way. Pedestrians' replies show that the majority of users understand the purpose of streets with mixed traffic and are willing to compromise in order to help create a fair and safe travel environment for all users. With respect to turning vehicular traffic, half of the respondents complained that turning vehicles do not respect pedestrians that attempt to cross at signalized intersections during green. This has also been verified by field observations. In most cases, pedestrians and right- or left-turning vehicles share the same green phase with pedestrians. This situation is cited as a reason for pedestrians choosing to cross the road at locations other than signalized intersection crosswalks during green. This is an important finding that demonstrates the important role of proper signal timing settings toward the improvement of safety and efficiency. Moreover, only 35% of the users said that a pedestrian sign displaying the message “Cross only when traffic clears” made a difference in their decision to cross. Analysis of respondents’ comments further indicates that this sign often confused or offended pedestrians that have selected to cross at a designated crosswalk under the impression that they can have the right-of-way. As pedestrians often compete with bicycles for the same space, the subjects were also asked to provide their input regarding safety issues that may result from this type of interaction. 59% of the users were not concerned with the interaction between pedestrians and bicycles and did not perceive bicycles as a safety risk factor to pedestrians that cross at designated locations. Finally, over 149 two thirds of the respondents (68%) agreed that the study site is a safe corridor for pedestrians to use. 6.4.2. Non-Users Responses of the non-users are summarized in Table 6.3 along with the responses of the daily and occasional users to the same questions in order to facilitate comparisons. Table 6.3. Summary of the responses of survey users to cross at a specific location? Questions of the survey applied to non-users Daily and Non-users occasional users 1. Frequency of Never — rarely 29.6% 35.2% crossing at a non- Sometimes 45.6% 42.1% designated crossing Often - almost always 24.8% 12.8% area 2. Main reason to cross Convenience 41.9% 47.0% at a non-designated To save time 27.4% 20.1% crossing area Light traffic; no risk 30.3% 32.2% Other 0.4% 0.7% 3. How frequently do Never —rarely 20.1 % 12.8% you divert your path to Sometimes 42.1 % 45.7% cross at a designated crosswalk? Often — almost always 37.8% 41.5% 4. When should Always 30.7% 26.2% vehicles yield to At designated x-walks 62.0% 70.1% pedestrians? Never 7.2% 3.7% 5. Does the presence Yes 73.9% 78.4% of a pedestrian signal influence your decision No 26.1% 215% to cross at a specrfic locafion? 6. Does the presence Yes 83.0% 74.7% of a midblock x—walk influence your decision No 170% 253% 150 Table 6.3. Summary of the responses of survey users (continued) Questions of the survey applied to non-users Daily and occasional users Non-users 7. Does the red-color Yes brick pavement 41.3% 27.6% influence your decision to cross at a specific N0 location? 58.7% 72.4% 8. Does the presence Yes of a shelter over a midblock crosswalk 34.2% 32.5% influence your decision NO to cross at a specific location? 65.8% 67.5% 9. Does the “cross only Yes when traffic clears” 35.2% 42.5% sign influence your No decision to cross at a specific location? 64.8% 57.5% 10. Does the presence Yes of other pedestrian attempting to cross 68.2% 58.6% influence your decision No to cross at a specific location? 31.8% 41.4% 11.Does the distance Yes to a specific location influence your decision 89.7% 87.5% to cross at a specific N0 location? 10.3% 12.5% 12. Does vegetation or Yes barriers on the median 64.7% 66.7% influence your decision to cross at a specific location? No 35.3% 33.3% Table 6.3 does not indicate any significant differences between the answers of both types of users. Differences in their answers do not allow one to reach to reasonable conclusions in terms of their differences in preferences and perceptions toward the existing facilities on Grand River Avenue. 151 6.4.3. Similarities Between Pedestrian Movement and Perception Data Pedestrian movement and perception data are independent from each other although both sets of data are obtained from the same study site. Some similarities were observed between both data sets. In this comparison, exact matching of numbers and figures was not sought. Similarity in trends observed in the field and reported by users increases the confidence on survey results and, helps to make concrete conclusions for the treatments that are of preference to pedestrians and are likely to be respected by them. The main similarities that were identified in movement and perception data trends are summarized as follows: 1. Midblock crosswalks are the crosswalk types of preference of pedestrians. Pedestrian crossing compliance is the highest at the marked midblock crosswalks among all the crosswalks studied in this research. The movement data revealed that 71.2 percent of pedestrians showed compliance with marked midblock crosswalks. The perception data disclosed that 83 percent of the survey respondents said that the presence of a midblock crosswalk influenced their decision to cross at the specific location. Signalized crosswalks are amongst the most preferable locations to cross a street. Movement data yielded 83.13 percent spatial compliance with signalized intersection crosswalks. Similarly, pedestrian perception data indicated that 74 percent of the 152 respondents agreed that the presence of a pedestrian signal influenced their decision to cross at the specific location. 3. Respondents of the pedestrian survey reported that the majority of turning vehicles failed to yield to pedestrians at the signalized intersection crosswalks. This observation was confirmed during the observation of turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at the signalized crosswalks. 4. Another similarity between two data sets concerns observed and perceived safety. Observed safety is expressed in terms of the spatial pedestrian compliance rate and calculated as the average of spatial pedestrian compliance rates at all types of crosswalks on Grand River Avenue. The average spatial compliance rate in the entire study crosswalk was found to be 74.5 percent. Similarly, perception data revealed that 68 percent of the respondents perceived Grand River Ave between Abbott and Bogue Streets as a safe corridor for pedestrians. The similarities summarized above strengthen the confidence about the dependability of the survey results. In the following, a summary and conclusions from the pedestrian perceptions and preferences study are presented. 153 6.5. Summary and Conclusions, and Recommendations for Future Research In Chapter 6, the procedure used to obtain information on pedestrian users’ preferences and perceptions was described, and the results from the survey analysis were discussed. The analysis of survey data provided important insights on attitudes and preferences of pedestrians using the study site. The following conclusions were drawn: Properly marked pedestrian facilities encourage users to cross at a certain location. More specifically, the marked midblock crosswalks were found to be very influential pedestrian facilities. This was also supported by actual movement data analysis. The signalized intersections with crosswalks helped channelize pedestrian traffic; however, they proved to be unable to persuade pedestrians to comply with the signal indication (low signal compliance). Both the actual movement and the survey data supported this conclusion. Approximately three-fourths of the users favored the pedestrian signals and the midblock crosswalks. Therefore, signalized and midblock crosswalks can be deployed with confidence wherever they are found to be necessary by traffic engineering analysis. The most influential factor cited by the pedestrians in making a decision to cross at a designated location was the distance of the crosswalk to the desired destination. Convenience was rated as the number one factor for jaywalking. These results indicate that proper selection of the position of a 154 crosswalk, with respect to land uses that generate or attract pedestrian traffic, has the potential to increase pedestrian compliance. lf facilities are properly located, user compliance can be increased by approximately 10 to 35% compared to base conditions. Pedestrians disapproved of the use of the pedestrian warning signs at the midblock crosswalks, as they believed that it conveyed a confusing message. Additional crash and conflict analyses are recommended to clearly assess the value of these signs and provide guidelines for their use. Many survey respondents (52.4%) reported that the majority of turning vehicles failed to give priority to pedestrians when pedestrians are available in the crosswalks during pedestrian green phase. This increases the chances that pedestrians will not select to cross at signalized crosswalks during green if they have a crossing alternative that reduces their delays and provides safer crossing conditions. To improve the situation, leading or exclusive pedestrian phasing scheme needs to be considered when significant turning vehicle and pedestrian crossing volumes exist. Such pedestrian phasing plans are expected to assist in reducing the number of conflicting movements and improve safety as well as pedestrian crossing compliance. Significant enhancement of pedestrian traffic flow conditions may be possible through signal coordination (Virkler, 1998). 155 o Careful design of signal phasing plans and proper installation of signs can greatly help to improve travel conditions for pedestrians and turning motorists alike. Furthermore, it is recommended that additional surveys be conducted to examine differences between drivers and pedestrians regarding the right-of-way at intersections. It should be noted that, although user preferences are important, they might not be highly correlated with safety considerations. It is recommended that additional analysis be performed to examine the relationship between safety and pedestrian acceptance in future research. Chapter 6 concentrated on pedestrians' perceptions and preferences with respect to the use of pedestrian facilities. It is also important to know how motorists perceive pedestrian-vehicle interactions. A motorist survey to collect information along these lines at the study site is desirable. 156 Chapter 7 SAFETY ANALYSIS OF CROSSING OPTIONS 7.1. Introduction Pedestrian deaths are mainly a problem in urban settings. Many pedestrians are killed in crosswalks, sidewalks, median strips, and traffic islands. The following statistics are based on data from Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) (Pedestrian Accident Statistics, online, 1999). 69 percent of pedestrian deaths in 1996 occurred in urban areas. However, the ratio of deaths to injuries is higher in rural areas because of higher impact speeds on rural roads. 33 percent of pedestrian deaths among people age 65 and older in 1996 occurred at intersections. Moreover, 12 percent of pedestrian deaths occurred among children age 4 and younger. FARS contains data on all vehicle crashes in the United States that occur on a public roadway and involve a fatality in the crash. A majority of the pedestrian-vehicle accidents in 1996 (82%) occurred in urban areas. Approximately 25 percent of pedestrians were killed or injured while crossing or entering intersections (Pedestrian Accidents Statistics, online, 1999). It should be noted that the vast majority of pedestrian accidents were caused by pedestrian violations of right-of-way (e.g., crossing during DONT WALK signal, crossing at a non-designated crossing area, and crossing without observing the right-of-way). 157 In the previous chapters of this study, the crossing options on Grand River Avenue were evaluated from the perspectives of pedestrian traffic operations, and pedestrian perceptions and preferences. This chapter provides an insight on safety of various pedestrian crossing options. The objectives of this chapter are: 1. to analyze pedestrian related crashes; and 2. to determine the effectiveness of various crossing locations with respect to safety. Such locations include signalized and unsignalized intersections and midblock crossing locations. First, pedestrian related crash data from the study site are reviewed and presented for periods before and after the street renovations. Then, pedestrian crash data from the entire state of Michigan are reviewed and discussed. 7.2. Methodology 7.2.1 . Before-and-After Analysis Historical crash data used in this study were obtained from the computerized crash files prepared by the Michigan Department of Transportation and Michigan State Police for the years of 1988 through 1998. Pedestrian crash data for the study site were extracted from the crash files with the control section number of 33082 (Grand River Avenue, East Lansing) and the mile points of 1.190 and 1.820 (Abbott and Bogue Streets) for a 10-year period (from 1988 to 1998). SPSS statistical software package was used in data analysis. In order to determine the effect of street renovations and improvements of pedestrian facilities and signalization on pedestrian safety, a before-and-after analysis was employed. Renovations on Grand River Avenue were started in 1994 and final signalization work was completed in 1996. The before period data 158 include pedestrian crashes from 1988 to the end of 1993, and the after period data included crashes after all renovations and signalization work were completed (years 1997 and 1998). It should be noted that the after period is short in length of time (two years). Thus, it is advisable to check with the crash data in the future to verify the conclusions to be presented below with additional data. Data used in this analysis were crosstabulated by highway location and intersection traffic control type. A t-test can be performed to test whether there is a difference between the number of pedestrian and/or total crashes between the before and after periods. If one wishes to compare crashes from before, during and after periods, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test can be utilized. 7.2.2. Safeg Analysis of Crossing Ogtions In order to study the relative safety of various crossing options, pedestrian related crashes from the state of Michigan over a five-year period (1994-1998) were retrieved and analyzed. The data were crosstabulated by highway location (intersection/interchange, midblock, etc.) and intersection traffic control type (signal, yield and stop signs, etc.). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test can be used to test the hypothesis that average crash rates for different types of crossing locations are equal. 7.3. Analysis and Results 7.3.1. Analysis of Pedestrian Crash Data for the Study Site The crash data for Grand River Avenue between Abbott and Bogue Streets are summarized in Table 7.1 and graphically illustrated in Figure 7.1. 159 Looking at Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1, a gradual decrease in both total and pedestrian crashes can be seen from 1988 to 1998 except during the first two- Table 7.1. Pedestrian crash data for the study site* Crashes Years All" Pedestrian Total lnju- Tot lnju Intersection Mid- ry -ry Sig na Yield Sto Non Total block I p e Before '88 179 53 1 1 1 1 8 0 3 0 11 N/A+ perm ‘89 175 46 7 7 2 0 2 3 7 N/A ‘90 1 58 38 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 N/A '91 1 37 34 3 3 2 0 0 1 3 N/A ‘92 140 47 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 N/A '93 1 36 36 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 N/A Total 925 254 26 25 15 0 5 6 24 N/A Average 154.2 42.3 4.3 4.2 2.5 0.0 0.8 1.0 4.0 N/A Median 149.0 42.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 N/A During '94 166 37 9 9 3 0 2 4 9 0 perm '95 150 35 11 11 5 0 3 3 11 0 '96 1 08 34 4 4 1 0 1 2 4 0 Total 424 106 24 24 9 0 6 9 24 0 N o on o oo o o 0 Average 141.3 35.3 8.0 8.0 3.0 0.0 Median 150.0 35.0 9.0 9.0 3.0 0.0 2 0 3 0 9.0 0 0 After ‘97 144 33 1 1 1 0 1 0 perm ‘98 90 20 4 4 1 0 1 2 4 0 Total 234 53 5 5 2 0 1 2 5 0 Average 117.0 26.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.0 Median 117.0 26.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.0 *2 No fatal crashes are reported. ": All crashes on the study site. +: NIA: Not applicable. During the before period, there were no designated midblock crosswalk locations on Grand River Avenue. 160 All Crashes on Grand River Ave Between Abbott and Bogue Streets 200 ~ - IDuring I I “‘3' I 150 7‘ MN 7 7 100 . ~ - - 50 M_. ”.7 . "Ni O . . . . L . ., L L . . ‘88 ‘89 ‘90 ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 '94 '95 '96 ‘97 ‘98 Years I—P—All injury crashes Number of crashes per year All Pedestrian Crashes on Grand River Ave Between Abbott and Bogue Streets 3. 12 ~ E 10 . g 8 if i i * All " '- 3 + u; 2,6 ' - pedestrian g 4' 7 7 '7 ' V -- - crashes .. 2 - . E z 0 . L f , . ‘88 '89 ‘90 ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 '94 '95 '96 '97 ‘98 Years Figure 7.1. Total, all injury and pedestrian crashes on the study section years of the construction period. Due to the small sample sizes for “during” and “after" periods and high variances in the crash data, it is decided to compare median values instead of averages. Comparison of the median of total crashes at the study site before and after renovations reveals a decrease of 21.5% in crashes (decrease from 149.0 crashes/year during the before period to 117.0 crashes/year during the after period). Similarly, the average number of injuries 161 during the after period is 36.9% lower than that during the before period (decreased from 42.0 crashes/year during the before period to 26.5 crashes/year during the after period). Interestingly, the median of the total pedestrian crashes during the before and after periods was not changed significantly (2.5 crashes/year). Therefore, it seems that the number of average pedestrian crashes during the before period is not necessarily higher than that of the after penod. It should be noted once again that the pedestrian crash data for the study site do not allow for making statistically sound statements with respect to the relative safety of the crossing options due to inadequate sample sizes with the data disaggregated by intersection traffic control type. However, the lack of midblock pedestrian crashes indicating that midblock locations seem to be safe options is evident. A reason for this is that potential pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at midblock locations are less in number compared to those at intersections. Also, pedestrians crossing the street at the midblock crosswalks of the study site are alerted by a sign saying that “cross only when traffic clears.” Moreover, pedestrians crossing the street at the signalized intersection crosswalks share the same green phase with turning vehicles since the signalized intersections on Grand River Avenue have the combined phasing scheme for turning vehicles and pedestrians. This situation increases the potential of vehicle-pedestrian crashes if turning motorists fail to yield to pedestrians in the signalized intersection crosswalks. A correlation of turning vehicle-pedestrian accidents with the combined phasing scheme should be 162 researched in a future study, when more after period crash data become available. 7.3.2. Analysis of Pedestrian Crash Data for the State of Michigan Michigan pedestrian crashes are summarized in Tables 7.2 through 7.4 and in Figure 7.2. Figure 7.2 reveals that the number of all types of pedestrian accidents were not changed drastically during the five-year period. Table 7.2. Pedestrian total crashes in the state of Michigan Years Number of total pedestrian crashes Mid block Accidents by traffic control type at intersections Total Signal Yield Stop Other Total 1994 1,096 654 13 369 1,640 2,676 3,812 1995 1,127 628 17 347 1,700 2,692 3,856 1996 1,054 728 16 323 1,632 2,699 3,789 1997 995 638 13 302 1 .525 2,478 3,503 1998 1,149 688 16 327 1,480 2,51 1 3,700 Table 7.3. Pedestrian fatality crashes in the state of Michigan Years Number of pedestrian fatal crashes Mid block Accidents by traffic control type at intersection Total Signal Yield Stop Other Total 1994 86 21 0 7 72 100 190 1995 83 11 0 7 87 105 190 1996 77 16 0 13 85 114 191 1997 72 18 0 59 80 1 54 1998 86 14 0 63 86 173 163 Table 7.4. Pedestrian injury crashes in the state of Michigan Years Number of pedestrian injury crashes Midblock Accidents by traffic control type at intersections Total Signal Yield Stop Other Total 1994 965 589 1 3 337 1 .444 2,383 3,383 1995 965 555 16 315 1 ,484 2,370 3,368 1996 912 645 14 277 1,407 2,343 3,291 1997 837 560 10 274 1,333 2,177 3,043 1998 981 594 15 291 1,291 2,191 3,208 Ml Pedestrian Crashes: 1994-1998 4,250 — b 4,000 ~ g 3,750 . >. 3.500 ~ - b 3,250 ~ 3. 3,000 .- 932,753 4 ___—___— : 2500 ,, , +Totalpedaccidents m r g 2,250 ~ , —e—Ped fatality accidents 1% f‘ - * ' °-,-e--;Peii"19~a°°idenjs . '5 1,500 - 3 1,250 2 , . a 1,000 ' - - -- g 750 e , , ~ , ~ 500 . L , , ,, z 250 ‘— e e KQ—H o . - i a L- .2- 2- I _, Figure 7.2. Summary of pedestrian crashes in Michigan (1994-1998) In Figures 7.3.a and b, pedestrian total crashes in the state of Michigan are summarized by crossing location including signalized intersection, unsignalized intersection (stop, yield and other type of control) and midblock locations. The highest number and percent of pedestrian total crashes occurred 164 in unsignalized intersections with non-existent traffic control. The lowest number and percent of pedestrian total crashes occurred in yield-controlled unsignalized intersections. Number of accidents per year Percent of accidents per year 1 ,500 ‘7' " Pedestrian Total Accidents by Location 1994-1998 2,000 " 1,750 ' + Sig nalized intersections 1,250 " W ‘ +Yield controlled 1,000 7 ' ' ' ’ ' ’ ' +Stop controlled . . 750 77 +Other unsrgnalized + Midblock locations 500 f’ “ " 7 7 7 * T 250 . - L - 2" L L 2" L - :"r, 2 -" - 0 .4 almj+e a- A- an m 4|, 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Pedestrian Total Accidents by Location 1994-1998 50%:" 45% " , 40% ’ 35% PM I+Signalized intersections 30% - " +Yield controlled 25% * 7 ' T ,, ,, " ‘ +Stop controlled 20% ‘ I+Other unsignalized 15% ill:- Midblock locations 10% . ’ 5% l 0% " 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Figure 7.3.a and b. Pedestrian total crashes from 1994 to 1998 165 Based on Figures 748 and b, unsignalized intersections (without positive traffic control) and midblock locations yielded the highest number and percent of pedestrian fatality crashes. The number and percentages of pedestrian fatality crashes were the lowest at signalized and stop-controlled intersections. No fatality crashes were reported for yield-controlled intersections. Similar trends are reported in Figures 7.5.a and b where pedestrian injury crashes are plotted. Pedestrian Fatal Crashes by Location 1 994-1998 100 > 80- 70" 60‘ e . I + SignalizedintErsections +Yield controlled ‘- - -A- - - Stop controlled ——9(-— Other unsignalized + Midblock locations 40.....,.....,... 30- ,, A a 20.2 10+ Number of accidents per year 8 C r o‘ 1’. ‘ D \ I, “. 'I‘ I I Figure 7.4.a. Pedestrian fatal crashes from 1994 to 1998 However, as stated earlier, such analyses can not allow for selection of crossing options that are safer than others as no information about exposure is provided such as pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes. An improved approach for meaningful comparisons of various crossing options with respect to pedestrian safety is discussed next. 166 Pedestrian Fatal Crashes by Location 1994-1998 60% or ‘2 o\ Percent of accidents per year 30% - 20% - 10% ‘ ............... “'u ~.. “....n" I 0% . , I E I A t a 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 —-iie—— Signalized intersections I + Yield controlled - - -A- - - Stop controlled ——x—— Other unsignalized + Midblock locations Pedestrian Injury Crashes by Location 1994-1998 Number of accidents per year 8 '8 O O owl e I e W~~ i —:— STgnalizedinteTsections + Yield controlled ‘. . -A- . . Stop controlled . I——x—-Other unsignalized ‘ + Midblock locations Figure 7.5.a. Pedestrian injury crashes from 1994 to 1998 167 Pedestrian Injury Crashes by Location 1994-1998 8 as 45% . . . . 40% . M . . 35% . . , , if +8ignalized intersections 30% . W - . +Yield controlled 25% , , , ,. _ _ - - -A- - - Stop controlled —x— Other unsignalized 20% .. , , . 15°/ W —-Jit— Midblock locations 0 ' 7’ ‘ ' i T T 7 T 7 ' 10% ‘ """""" ‘ ------- 2“ ......... ‘14 """" ‘ 5%.___-_-————--—Ae—-~ve~7- Percent of accidents per year Figure 7.5.b. Percentages of pedestrian injury crashes from 1994 to 1998 7.3.3. Safeg Analysis of Crossing Ogtions In order to properly determine which type of crossing location is safer, average daily pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and geometric characteristics of study sites should be taken under consideration. Instead of comparing the number or the percentage of crashes occurring in alternative crossing locations, it is more appropriate to compare pedestrian crash rates. Crash rates can be defined as the number of pedestrian crashes per million vehicles for spots and the number of pedestrian crashes per million vehicle-miles for a road section. In order to compare relative safety of crossing options, using crash frequencies or percentages alone does not account for the influence of vehicular and pedestrian 168 traffic on the occurrence of crashes. However, crash rate includes some measures of exposure such as ADTs and length of the section. A crash rate is defined in order to consider vehicular and pedestrian traffic exposures. Equation 7.1 presents the formulation of the crash rate for a spot: 10.106 P R: .................................................. E .7.1 C 365. N.(ADVT, ADPT,0r_b0th) q where PCR = pedestrian crash rate (accidents per million vehicles and/or pedestrians), P = number of reported pedestrian-vehicle crashes per year, N = number of analysis years, ADVT = average daily vehicular traffic (average number of vehicles entering the crosswalk per day). and ADPT = average daily pedestrian traffic (average number of pedestrians entering the crosswalk per day). 7.3.3.1. Comparison of Crash Rates Crash rates for total, fatal and injury (types of A, B and C) crashes can be used to compare the relative safety of the considered crossing locations, or crash rates can be adjusted to reflect higher costs of injury and fatal accidents. For this reason, property damage accidents can be used as a base type of accident. Other accidents, fatal and injury accidents, can be converted to the base type of 169 accident using equivalency factors. This approach can overcome the problem of small sample sizes of certain types of accidents especially fatal ones. The objective of comparing crash rates for pedestrian crossing options is to find out which type of location is the most hazardous. In addition to the number of crashes, information on volume (ADVT or ADPT) for each test site is needed. Volume and accident data should belong to same time period. Otherwise, volume data need to be adjusted by appropriate factors. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure is used to test the hypothesis that means of crash rates for different crossing locations are equal. The ANOVA procedure produces a one-way analysis of variance for a quantitative dependent variable (crash rate) by a single independent variable (type of crossing location). In addition to determining that differences exist among the means, it is possible to know which means differ. A priori contrasts test is the simplest one. Contrasts are tests set up before running the experiment. In the example of testing if crash rates are different for signalized and unsignalized intersections and midblock locations, the independent variable will be “type of crossing location” and coded as “1=signalized intersection,” “2=unsignalized intersection,” and “3: midblock location.” The contrast coefficients will be (1, -O.5, -0.5) to test if crash rates at signalized intersections are different from the ones at the other two types of locations. The coefficients will be (-O.5, 1, -0.5) test if crash rates at unsignalized intersections are different from the ones at the other locations, and so on. Doing this contrast analysis, it is possible to say which locations are safer than others, and the locations can be ranked based on their 170 relative safety of pedestrian. By examining the significance of differences between the means of crash rates for different crossing locations, the results of ANOVA procedure allows to determine whether the observed differences are statistically significant in the level of a desired confidence. 7. 3. 3. 2. Alternative Method for Calculation of Crash Rates It is a common practice use Equations 7.1 to compute accident rates. However, Hauer et al. (1988) claimed that in order to compute an overall intersection crash rate in Equation 7.1, using the total entering volume (ADVT) for an intersection is not a proper way because of the fact that left-turning movements are involved in accidents more frequently than through traffic. As an example, two identical intersections are considered with identical total entering volumes. One intersection has a high percentage of through traffic, while the other has a high percentage of left-turning movement. Because of the fact of a high accident involvement of left-turning vehicles, accident rate calculated using Equation 7.1 for the second intersection would be higher than that of the first intersection. However, this does not mean that the second intersection has a more correctable safety problem than the first intersection. Therefore, an alternative procedure needs to be utilized, which can take into account the types of traffic volumes rather than the overall entering volume (Robertson, et al., 1994). Hauer et al. (1988) developed a procedure that can rank intersections by hazard and accounts for different types of movement volumes. The procedure uses the variable of motorists’ intent instead of the variable of accident type 171 because the former provides more information than the latter about the nature of the accident. For example, many accidents involving left-turning vehicles will have accident type coded as angle because the vehicles collided at right angles. Through and turning movement counts must be available for each location that is examined. The procedure is summarized in the Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Robertson, et al., 1994, pp.206-8). 7.4. Summary and Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research In this chapter, pedestrian crashes occurring at various crossing locations in the study site are reviewed and discussed. The crash history of the study site does not provide usable information to reach to any conclusion or to make statistically reliable statements because of the low and dispersed number of pedestrian crashes. Therefore, using the available study site crash data, it is not possible to rank the crossing locations in the study site based on their relative safety. For this reason, it was decided to analyze pedestrian crashes that occurred on various types of pedestrian crossing locations in the state of Michigan. However, these data are not associated with traffic exposure data. For this reason, calculating crash rates is nearly impossible because associating exposure data with the number of crashes for the entire state of Michigan is also almost impossible. Therefore, the crash data cannot be used to rank the locations. It is suggested that ADT counts should be added to Michigan crash files for each accident. With this, it would be possible to calculate crash rates for various crossing locations (signalized intersection, unsignalized intersection, 172 midblock, etc.) and rank the sites based on crash rates using an appropriate statistical method. In the final section of this chapter, performing a meaningful crash analysis using crash rates was summarized. In a future research, a safety analysis can be conducted using ample before and after crash data with traffic exposure data (pedestrian and vehicle volumes) to compare relative safety of crossing locations on Grand River Avenue. 173 Chapter 8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 8.1. Summary and Conclusions In this section, the summary and the conclusions of Chapter 3 through 7 are presented, respectively. 8.1.1. Chapter 3 In Chapter 3, the effectiveness of various crossing options was assessed through the study of pedestrian crossing activity along Grand River Avenue between Abbott and Bogue Streets. The measure of effectiveness used to compare the pedestrian crosswalks was the pedestrian crossing compliance. Some important conclusions were summarized as follows: . A positive type of traffic control affects pedestrian crossing compliance positively with respect to the crossing location. The highest pedestrian spatial compliance rates were observed at the signalized intersection crosswalks (average PCR = 83.13%), followed by the marked midblock crosswalks (71 .19%). o Pedestrian spatial crossing compliance was greater at the midblock crosswalks than the unsignalized intersection crosswalks. Thus marked midblock crosswalks should be used with confidence when needed, e.g., in long blocks when the land use in midblock locations generates or 174 attracts high pedestrian flows, since a large majority of pedestrians appear to recognize and use them properly. . Although the use of the shelters as means to increase the pedestrian crossing safety is not verified, they can be used to improve the esthetics of crossing environments, which can help increase the qualitative level of service of pedestrian facilities according to the results of the studies conducted by Sarkar (1993) and Khisty (1993). 0 Overall crossing compliance rates at the signalized intersection crosswalks was found to be low (with an average value of only 42.98%). This indicates that the majority of pedestrians crossing at the signalized crosswalks violate the pedestrian WALK signal. . Barriers located between the sidewalks and the roadway seemed to increase spatial crossing compliance rate. 8.1.2. Chapter 4 In Chapter 4, pedestrian crossing times and the quantitative level of service (LOS) estimations at the signalized intersection crosswalks were studied in detail. The existing methodologies for the estimation of pedestrian crossing times were reviewed and summarized. These methodologies were validated using measured pedestrian crossing times collected at the study crosswalks. The data were collected at all the four signalized intersection crosswalks within the study area during the vehicular traffic off-peak and the PM-peak conditions. The measured pedestrian crossing time data were used to check if the current signal settings at the site meet the minimum green and flashing red requirements 175 for pedestrians. Additionally, the measured crossing times were used to assess the pedestrian LOS at the signalized crosswalks. The following conclusions were reached based on the results of the analyses: The existing methodologies for pedestrian crossing time estimation systematically overpredicted the pedestrian crossing times in the study site. Refinement of such methodologies is recommended so that they represent actual conditions in a more realistic manner. Pedestrian crossing time is a key measure to the evaluation of pedestrian signal settings and to the assessment of operational efficiency at signalized intersections from the perspective of pedestrian users. Pedestrian crossing times can assist proper selection of signal settings, including pedestrian green and flashing red interval lengths. Therefore, pedestrian crossing times should be determined or estimated properly in order to design efficient signal timing for pedestrians as well as for vehicles. The existing pedestrian interval lengths (WALK and flashing DON’T WALK times) are found to be sufficient to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian crossing activities at the signalized crosswalks. The minimum pedestrian clearance (flashing red) time criterion is met at all the locations. All the signalized intersection crosswalks in the study area operate at the acceptable pedestrian level of service (LOS B or better) during both the off-peak and the PM-peak conditions. 176 0 Turning vehicles at the signalized intersections did not significantly affect the pedestrian LOS values in the crosswalks. 8.1.3. Chapter 5 In Chapter 5, pedestrian-tuming vehicle interactions at the signalized intersection crosswalks were studied in detail. First, potential pedestrian conflicts with right— and left-turning vehicles at the signalized intersection crosswalks were defined and measured at the signalized locations within the study area. The total number of potential turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts observed was used to classify the study intersections with respect to the need for improvements. Potential conflict estimation models were developed and discussed. The proposed models can be used to estimate potential right- and left- turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts when turning vehicle and pedestrian volumes are available. Determining the conflicts provides traffic engineers information about the potential hazard of intersections with the defined conflicts. If the number of the conflicts is significantly higher compared to similar locations, then safety precautions need to be taken in order to reduce the number of the conflicts by implementing early/late release of vehicles/pedestrians. The following conclusions were reached from the results of the analyses described in Chapter 5: o The estimation of potential right— and left-turning vehicle—pedestrian conflicts is possible through the application of the regression models developed in this study. 177 o The models indicated that the product of pedestrian and turning vehicle volumes is highly correlated with the pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles at the signalized intersection crosswalks. 8.1.4. Chapter 6 In Chapter 6, the procedure used to obtain lnforrnation on pedestrian users’ preferences and perceptions was described, and the results from the survey analysis were analyzed. The analysis of survey data provided important insights on the attitudes and preferences of the pedestrians using the study site. The following conclusions are to be drawn from the analysis of the survey data: . Properly marked pedestrian facilities encourage users to cross at certain locations. More specifically, the marked midblock crosswalks were found to be very influential pedestrian facilities. This conclusion was also supported by the analysis of the movement data presented in Chapter 3. o The signalized intersections with pedestrian crosswalks helped channelize pedestrian traffic; however, they proved to be unable to persuade pedestrians to comply with the signal indication (yielded low signal compliance). 0 Approximately three-fourths of the users favored the pedestrian signals and the midblock crosswalks. Therefore, signalized and midblock crosswalks can be deployed with confidence in high user compliance wherever they are found to be necessary by traffic engineering analysis. 178 The most influential factor cited by the pedestrians in making a decision to cross at a designated location was the distance to a desired destination. Crossing convenience was rated as the number one factor for jaywalking (not choosing to cross at a designated crossing location). These results indicate that the proper selection of the position of a crosswalk, with respect to the landuse that generate or attract pedestrian traffic, has the potential to increase spatial crossing compliance. lf facilities are properly located, user compliance can be increased by approximately 10 to 35% compared to base conditions. Pedestrians disapproved of the use of the pedestrian warning signs (messaging "cross only when traffic clears") at the midblock crosswalks, as they believed it conveyed a confusing message. Additional crash and conflict analyses are recommended to clearly assess the value of this sign and provide guidelines for its use. Many survey respondents (52.4%) reported that the majority of turning vehicles failed to give priority to pedestrians crossing during pedestrian green phase. This increases the chances that pedestrians will not select to cross at signalized crosswalks during green if they have a crossing alternative that reduces their delays and provides safer crossing conditions. To improve the situation, leading/lagging or exclusive pedestrian phasing scheme needs to be considered when significant turning vehicle and pedestrian crossing volumes exist simultaneously. 179 0 Based on the literature review, alternative pedestrian phasing plans are expected to assist in reducing the number of conflicting movements and to improve safety and user compliance. Furthermore, careful design of signal phasing plans and proper installation of signs can greatly help to improve travel conditions for both pedestrians and turning motorists alike. Significant enhancement of pedestrian traffic flow along major corridors could also be possible through traffic signal coordination (Virkler, 1998). 8.1.5. Chapter 7 In Chapter 7, the pedestrian crashes occurring at various crossing locations in the study site and in the entire state of Michigan were presented and reviewed. It was seen that the pedestrian crash data on the study site were limited due to the shortness of the "after" construction period. In addition, the data are dispersed and do not provide an insight to reach reasonable conclusions. For this reason, it was decided to analyze the pedestrian crashes, which occurred on various types of pedestrian crossing locations in the state of Michigan. Although there were ample data, due to the lack of exposures again it was not meaningful to compare the sites based on the plain number and percent of accidents. Because without the exposure data (e.g., pedestrian and vehicular volumes) as well as geometric features of locations, comparing the number of accidents occurring on candidate locations does not disclose any information of whether unsignalized intersections, for example, are safer than signalized ones even if unsignalized intersections have fewer accidents than signalized ones. In 180 the final section of this chapter, performing a meaningful crash analysis using crash rates was summarized. 8.2. Recommendations for Future Research 8.2.1. Chapter 3 In Chapter 3, the assessment of pedestrian crosswalks based on user compliance was conducted. The data collected on a 1-km long urban boulevard were limited in terms of different pedestrian signal timing and phasing schemes. Therefore, the effect of different signal timings and phasing plans on pedestrian compliance was not studied. Effect of signal timing and phasing schemes at signalized intersections, and signal progression along a corridor on pedestrian crossing compliance should be studied in a future study. By doing so, necessary adjustments can be done to encourage pedestrians to comply with pedestrian signals. 8.2.2. Chapter 4 The research summarized in Chapter 4 focused on the validation of the existing methodologies to estimate pedestrian crossing time and calculate pedestrian LOS at signalized crosswalks. All these methodologies overestimated observed crossing times at the signalized intersection crosswalks on Grand River Avenue. It is believed that the formulas overstate the length of start-up delay (perception-reaction time, D) for the pedestrians by utilizing the values of D from 4 sec to 7 sec. The field observations indicated that this value was in the range of 181 3 sec to 4 sec for the pedestrians studied. Secondly, none of the formulas considers two-way platoon movements. The consideration of two-way platoons is very important for the application of the formulas in places where high bi- directional pedestrian volumes are observed such as in downtown of metropolitan areas. Thirdly, none of the formulas considers the effect of tuming- vehicles on individual pedestrians and platoons of pedestrians. All the formulas are valid under the conditions of a little interaction between pedestrians and turning vehicles. Lastly, design (walking) speed, start-up delay and headway between pedestrians should reflect the characteristics of local users in designing signalized crosswalks in order not to increase delay for vehicles by allowing an excessive green and flashing red time for pedestrians. All these issues should be further researched and addressed by specialized studies. 8.2.3. Chapter 5 The following recommendations were made for future researches based on the results of the subject study in Chapter 5: 0 Although the regression models proposed in this chapter yield very reasonable results, additional testing of the models is recommended to confirm their validity and applicability in different settings. 0 The models estimating potential pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles were developed using the data for the combined pedestrian— vehicle phasing only. For other pedestrian signal phasing schemes 182 (e.g., early or late release), the same models can be tested and/or different parameters/models can be developed. 0 The relationship between pedestrian crashes and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts was not studied in detail. A future study should analyze this relationship. 8.2.4. Chapter 6 Based on the findings from the analyses covered in Chapter 6, the following recommendations for future researches are made: Additional crash and conflict analyses are recommended to clearly assess the value of the pedestrian warning sign (messaging "cross only when traffic clears") at midblock crosswalk locations and provide guidelines for its use. It is recommended that additional surveys be conducted to examine differences between drivers and pedestrians regarding the right-of-way at intersections. It should be noted that, although user preferences are important, they might not be highly correlated with safety considerations. It is recommended that additional analysis be performed to examine the relationship between safety and pedestrian acceptance in a future research. Chapter 6 concentrated on the perceptions and preferences of the users of the pedestrian facilities on Grand River Avenue. A future study should 183 analyze the perceptions and preferences of drivers who use the study section regularly because motorists’ opinions toward pedestrian facilities are as important as pedestrians’ are. However, for this type of survey, locating the target population could not be an easy task. 8.2.5. Chapter 7 In a future research, a pedestrian safety analysis in crosswalks should be conducted using ample before and after crash data with related exposures (pedestrian and vehicle volumes) to compare the relative safety of the crossing locations on Grand River Avenue. 184 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Abdulsattar, H. N., Tarawneh, M. S., McCoy, P .T., and Kachman, S. D. Effect on Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts of "Tuming Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians" Sign. In Transportation Research Record 1553, TRB, Washington, DC, 1996, pp. 38- 45. Abrams, C. M. and Smith S. A. Selection of Pedestrian Signal Phasing. ln Transportation Research Record 629, TRB, Washington, DC, 1977, pp. 1-6. Akin, D. and Sisiopiku, V. P. Study of Pedestrians’ Crossing Preferences and Perceptions. Proceedings of the 2000 ITE International Conference on “Transportation Operations: Moving Into the 21St Century,” April 2-5, 2000, Irvine, CA, USA. Akin, D. and Sisiopiku, V. P. Estimating Crossing Compliance at Pedestrian Crosswalks in an Urban Environment. Proceedings of the 70th ITE Annual Meeting, August 6-9, 2000, Nashville, TN, USA (accepted). Almuina, A. L. Pedestrian Accidents and Left-Taming Traffic at Signalized Intersections. M.Eng. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1989. Baerwald, J. R. Traffic Engineering Handbook, 3rd ed. Institute of Traffic Engineers, Washington, DC, 1965. Bowman, B. L., and Vecellio, R. L. Pedestrian Walking Speeds and Conflicts at Urban Median Locations. ln Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, Washington, DC, 1994. PP. 67-73. Braun, R. and Roddin, M. Quantifying the Benefits of Separating Pedestrians and Vehicles. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 189, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1978. Cynecki, M. J. Development of a Conflicts Analysis Technique for Pedestrian Crossings. In Transportation Research Record 743, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1980, pp. 1-4. 186 Dahlstedt, S. Walking Speeds and Walking Habits of Elderly People. National Swedish Road and Traffic Research Institute, Stockholm, undated. Davis, 8. E.; Robertson, H. D.; and King, L. E. PedestrianNehicle Conflicts: An Accident Prediction Model. In Transportation Research Record 1210, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1989, pp.1-11. Davis, 8. E.; Robertson, H. D.; King, L. E.; Mingo, R.; and Washington, J. R. Measuring Pedestrian Volumes and Conflicts: Volume I. Pedestrian Volume Sampling. Final Report (DTFH61-85-C-00079). Prepared by Analysis Group, Inc. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, December 1987, Washington, DC. Davis, 8. E.; Robertson, H. D.; King, L. E.; Mingo, R.; and Washington, J. R. Measuring Pedestrian Volumes and Conflicts: Volume 2. Accident Prediction Model. Final Report (DTFH61-85—C—00079). Prepared by Analysis Group, Inc. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, December 1987, Washington, DC. Forsythe, M. J. and Berger, W. G. Urban Pedestrian Accident Countermeasures Experimental Evaluation. Vol 1, Appendix C: Behavioral Evaluation Summary Data. Biotechnology, Inc. Falls Church, VA; US Department of Transportation, 1973. Fruin, J. J. Pedestrian Accident Characteristics in a One-way Grid. In Highway Research Record 436, 52"d Annual Meeting, HRB, 1973, pp. 1-7. Fruin, J. J. Pedestrian Planning and Design. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, New York, NY, 1971. Fruin, J. J. and Benz, G. Pedestrian Time-Space Concept for Analyzing Corners and Crosswalks. ln Transportation Research Record 959, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1984. Gailitis, J. Pedestrian Safety: An Examination of Crosswalks. CE 844: Highway and Traffic Safety. Student Paper, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 1995, unpublished. 187 Garder, P. Pedestrian Safety at Traffic Signals: A Study Carried Out With the Help of A Traffic Conflicts Technique. In Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1989, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 435-44. Glauz, W. D.; Bauer, K. M.; and Migletz, D. J. Expected Traffic Conflict Rates and Their Use in Predicting Accidents. In Transportation Research Record 1026, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1985, pp. 1-12. Habib, P. A. Pedestrian Safety: The Hazards of Left-Turning Vehicles. In ITE Journal, 1980, pp. 33-37. Hauer, E., C. N. NG, J., and Lovell, J. Estimation of Safety at Signalized Intersections. ln Transportation Research Record 1185, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1988. Homburger, W.S., Kelfer, L. E., and McGrath, W. R. Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, 2"d Edition, Prentice Hall, lnc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982. Highway Capacity Manual: Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1997. Institute of Traffic Engineers. A Program for School Crossing Protection-A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Traffic Engineering, Oct. 1962. pp. 51-52. ITE Committee 4A-6. Traffic Control Devices for Elderiy and Handicapped Pedestrians. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 1992. ITE Technical Council Committee 5-R. Characteristics and Service Requirements of Pedestrians and Pedestrian Facilities, Traffic Engineering, May 1976. Khisty, C. J. Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities: Beyond the Level-of-Service Concept. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, Washington, DC, 1993. pp. 45-50. Knoblauch, R. L., Pietrucha, M. T., and Nitzburg, M. Field Studies of Pedestrian Walking Speed and Start-up Time. In Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, Washington, DC, 1996, pp. 27-38. 188 Koike, H. Current Issues and Problems of Bicycle Transport in Japan. In Transportation Research Record 1294, TRB, Washington, DC, 1991, pp. 40-46. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, 1988 (amended through 1994). McShane, W. R., Roess, R. P., and Prassas, E. 8. Traffic Engineering. 2"d ed. Prentice Hall, NJ, 1998. Michigan Crash Reports, 1988-98, Michigan Department of Transportation and Michigan State Police, Lansing, MI, 1999. Mortimer R. G. Behavioral Evaluation of Pedestrian Signals. In Traffic Engineering. Nov 1973. pp. 22-26. Novak, P. M. and Robinson, M. D. Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Michigan Department of Transportation and Michigan Department of State Police, 1994. Orne, D. E. A Preliminary Evaluation of Special Pedestrian Signals. Ph.D. Thesis. Bureau of Highway Traffic, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, May 1959. Pedestrian Accident Statistics. [Online] Available http://prpd.netrom.com/ pedfacts.html, August 3, 1999. Perkins, S. R. and Harris, J. l. Traffic Conflict Characteristics- Accident Potential at Intersections. In Highway Research Record 225, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1968, pp. 35-43. Pignataro, L. J. Traffic Engineering: Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1973. Quaye, K., Leden, L., and Hauer, E. Pedestrian Accidents and Left-Taming Traffic at Signalized Intersections. Safety Studies Group, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, March, 1993. 189 Robertson, H. D. Pedestrian Signal Displays and Operation. In Urban Intersection Improvements, Vol. 4. Report FHWA-RD-77-145. FHWA, US Department of Transportation, Dec 1977. Robertson, H. D. Signalized Intersection Controls for Pedestrians. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, 1982. Robertson, H. D. and Carter, E. C. The Safety, Operational, and Cost Impacts of Pedestrian Indications at Signalized Intersections. In Transportation Research Record 959, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1984, pp. 1-7. Robertson, H. D., Hummer, J. E., and Nelson, D. C. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994. Rouphail, N. M. Midblock Crosswalks: A User Compliance and Preference Study. In Transportation Research Record 959, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1984, pp. 41-47. Sarkar, Sheila. Determination of Service Levels for Pedestrians, with European Examples. In Transportation Research Record 1405, TRB, Washington, DC, 1993. pp. 35-42. Sisiopiku, V. P. and Akin, D. Pedestrian Perceptions Toward Various Pedestrian Treatments. Proceedings of the 78th TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 10—14, 1999. Sisiopiku, V. P and Akin. D. Grand River Avenue (M-43) Pedestrian Study. Final Report. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Prepared for the Michigan Department of Transportation, April 30, 1999. Sisiopiku, V. P. and Akin, D. Assessment of Pedestrian Crossing Options. Proceedings of the 79‘" TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, 0.0., January 9-13, 2000. Sleight R. B. The Pedestrian. In Human Factors in Highway Traffic Safety Research (editor: T. W. Forbes). Wiley-lnterscience, New York, 1972, pp. 224- 253. 190 Tanaboriboon, Y. Pedestrian Characteristics Study in Singapore. In Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol, 112, no. 3, 1986, pp. 229-35. Tanaboriboon, Y. and Guyano, J. A. Analysis of Pedestrian Movements in Bangkok. In Transportation Research Record 1294, TRB, Washington, DC, 1991. pp. 52-56. Tanaboriboon, Y. and Jing, Q. Chinese Pedestrians and Their Walking Characteristics: Case Study in Beijing. In Transportation Research Record 1441, TRB, Washington, DC, 1994, pp. 1626. Traffic Control Devices Handbook. F HWA, US. Department of Transportation, 1983. Tarrall, M. B. and Dixon, K. K. Conflict Analysis for Double Left-tum Lanes with Protected-Plus-Permitted Signal Phases. In Transportation Research Record 1635, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1998, pp. 105-112. Virkler, M. R. Pedestrian Compliance Effects on Signal Delay. In Transportation Research Record 1636, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1998, pp. 88-91. Virkler, M. R. Elayadath, S, and Saranathan, G. High-Volume Pedestrian Crosswalk Time Requirements. In Transportation Research Record 1495, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 41-48. Virkler, M. R. and Guell, D. L. Pedestrian Crossing Time Requirements at Intersections. ln Transportation Research Record 959, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1984, pp. 47-51. Webster, F.V. and Cobbe, B.M. Traffic Signals. Road Research Laboratory, Technical Paper No. 56, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, 1956. Zegeer, C. V.; Cynecki, M. J. and Opiela, K. 8. Evaluation of Innovative Pedestrian Signalization. In Transportation Research Record 959, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1984, pp. 7-18. 191 Zeeger, C. V. Pedestrian Safety in Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. Presented at the ITE Meeting: Enhancing Transportation Safety for the 21“ Century, March 28—31, 1999, Kissimmee, Florida. 192 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Summaries of Pedestrian Movement Data 194 GD RIVER AVE (LI-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/23/99, Monday, 35 F, cold, partly sunny Time: 2:46p 1- Abbott St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts-30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 47 2 0 11 49 PS (VR) 14 1 0 2 15 S 32 2 2 3 36 LS 9 1 0 1 10 Total 102 6 2 17 1 10 RU: Regular users 8: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 110 + 5 + 3 = 118 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2427 veh/hr LCM = 38.4 m (126.0 ft) no of RUs + no PS(VS)s on—crosswalk 47 Overall compliance rate = = - total peds in the crosswalk area 118 = 39.8% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 118 * 2 = 236 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 86.44% Violation of flashing red signal = 9.09% Compliance to signal only = 44.55% 2- Midblock Crosswalk wl shelter (in front of the MSU Student Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Totalj Eedestrian 45 5 4 l 54 l count-30min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 54 + 0 + 2 = 56 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2418 veh/hr Lem = 85.50 m (280.5 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 45 Crossing compliance rate '“ = total peds in the crosswalk area 56 = 80.4% Total Pedestrian Volume in the Crosswalk Influence Area = 56 * 2 = 112 peds I hr 195 GD RIVER AVE (M-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/23/99, Monday, 35 F, cold, partly sunny Tlme: 2:46p 3- M.A.C. Ave. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 15 5 1 6 21 PS (VR) 15 1 1 2 17 S 13 3 0 1 16 LS 8 2 0 2 10 Total 51 1 1 2 1 1 64 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 8 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 64 + 8 + 1 = 73 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2312 veh/hr Lem = 97.25 m (319.06ft) no of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 15 Overall compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 73 = 20.5% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 73 * 2 = 146 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 69.86% Violation of flashing red signal = 15.63% Compliance to signal only = 32.81% 4- Mldblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of Jacobson’s) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA| Total 1 tedestrlan 14 4 2 I 20 I count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 20 + 2 + 3 = 25 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = N/A veh/hr LCM = 71.95 m (236.06ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 14 Crossing compliance rate = = ~- totaI peds in the crosswalk area 25 = 56.0% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 25 * 2 = 50 peds / hr 196 GD RIVER AVE (In-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/23/99, Monday, 35 F, cold, partly sunny Tlme: 2:46p 5- Charles St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA| Total lPedestrian 29 10 1 l 40 count-30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 40 + 6 + 7 = 53 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = N/A veh/hr LCM = 97.85m (321.03 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 29 Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 53 = 54.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 53 * 2 = 106 peds I hr 6- Division St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 70 1 1 4 72 PS (VR) 18 0 0 0 18 S 19 12 1 8 32 LS 17 0 0 1 17 Total 124 13 2 13 139 RU: Regular users 8: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 13 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 139 + 13 + 6 = 158 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = N/A veh/hr LCM = 96.0 m (314.96 ft) no of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 70 Overall compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 158 = 44.3% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 158 * 2 = 316 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 78.48% Violation of flashing red signal - 12.23% Compliance to signal only = 51.80% 197 GD RIVER AVE (Ill-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 5/28/98, Thursday, mid 70 F, sunny Time: 3:15p 1- Abbott St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 7 0 0 4 7 PS (VR) 10 1 0 0 1 1 S 5 0 0 4 5 L8 6 0 0 3 6 Total 28 1 0 11 29 RU: Regular users 8: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 29 + 0 + 3 = 32 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2168 veh/hr LCM = 38.40 m (125.98 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 7 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 32 = 21 .9% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 32 * 2 = 64 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 87.50% Violation of flashing red signal = 20.69% Compliance to signal only = 24.14% 2- Midblock Crosswalk wl shelter (in front of the MSU Student Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total I count- 30 min Pedestrian 12 2 1 I 15 I Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 15 + 1 + 1 = 17 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2184 veh/hr Lem = 85.50 m (280.51 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 12 Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 17 = 70.6% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 17 * 2 = 34 peds I hr 198 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 5/28/98, Thursday. mid 70 F, sunny Time: 3:15p 3- M.A.C. Ave. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Signalized On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total around CA RU + PS (VS) 15 0 0 2 15 PS (VR) 7 2 0 0 9 S 2 1 0 3 3 LS 6 0 0 2 6 Total 30 3 0 7 33 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 33 + 2 + 1 = 36 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2223 veh/hr LCM = 97.25 m (319.06 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on—crosswalk 15 Overall compliance rate = Total peds in the crosswalk area 36 = 41.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 36 * 2 = 72 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 83.33% Violation of flashing red signal = 18.18% Compliance to signal only = 45.45% 4- llllidblock Crosswalk on shelter (in front of Jacobson’s) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total Pedestrian 7 1 0 count— 30 min I 8 Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 8 + 2 + 2 = 12 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2198 vehlhr Lem = 71.95 m (236.06 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 12 * 2 = 24 peds I hr 199 12 58.3% GD RIVER AVE (Ill-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 5/28/98, Thursday, mid 70 F, sunny Time: 3:15p 5- Charles St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total I Eedestrians 12 0 2 I 14 I Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 14 + 2 + 2 = 18 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2156 vehlhr Lem = 97.85 m (321.03 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 12 Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 18 = 66.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 18 * 2 = 36 peds I hr 6- Dlvision St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Signalized On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total around CA RU + PS (VS) 28 0 0 2 28 PS (VR) 7 0 0 0 7 S 6 1 0 2 7 LS 4 0 0 1 4 Total 45 1 0 5 46 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 46 + 2 + 6 = 54 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2337 vehlhr Lem = 96 m (314.96 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 28 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 54 = 51.9% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 54 * 2 = 108 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 83.33% Violation of flashing red signal = 8.70% Compliance to signal only = 60.87% 200 GD RIVER AVE (Ill-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/10/98, Tuesday, Low 40 F, warm Time: 10:43a 1- Abbott St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 23 1 0 2 24 PS (VR) 5 0 0 1 5 S 8 1 0 5 9 LS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 Total 47 2 0 9 49 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 4 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 49 + 4 + 0 = 53 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1526 vehlhr LCM, = 38.40 m (125.98 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 23 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 53 = 43.4% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 53 * 2 = 106 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 88.68% Violation of flashing red signal = 22.45% Compliance to signal only = 48.98% 2- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Student Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 20 6 1 27 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 10 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 27 + 0 + 10 = 37 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1746 vehlhr LCM = 85.50 m (280.51 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 20 Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 37 = 54.1% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 37 * 2 = 74 peds I hr 201 GD RIVER AVE (M-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/10/98, Tuesday, Low 40 F, warm Tlme: 10:43a 3- M.A.C. Ave. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 45 2 0 4 47 PS (VR) 38 2 0 4 40 S 19 2 0 1 21 LS 11 1 0 0 12 Total 1 1 3 7 0 9 1 20 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 120 + 7 + 7 = 134 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1833 vehlhr Lem = 97.25 m (319.06 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 45 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 134 = 33.6% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 36 * 2 = 72 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 84.33% 39.17% Compliance to signal only = 4- Mldblock Crosswalk on shelter (in front of Jacobson's) Violation of flashing red signal = 10.00% On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Total I Pedestrian 21 3 0 I 24 I count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 24 + 3 + 3 = 30 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2198 vehlhr LC“, = - 71.95 m (236.06 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 21 Crossing compliance rate = = - Total peds in the crosswalk area 30 = 70.0% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 30 * 2 = 60 peds I hr 202 GD RIVER AVE (M-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/10/98, Tuesday, Low 40 F, warm Time: 10:43a 5- Charles St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk _ On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Total IPedestrians 79 12 3 I 94 Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 12 peds in 30 mins Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 4 peds in 30 mins Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 94 + 12 + 4 = 110 peds I hr Vehicular Volume (W) = 2230 vehlhr LCM = 97.85 m (321.03 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 79 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 110 = 71.8% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 110 * 2 = 220 peds I hr 6- Division St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Signalized On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total around CA RU + PS (VS) 149 3 0 5 152 PS (VR) 26 0 0 0 26 S 34 1 0 2 35 L8 24 2 0 2 26 Total 233 6 0 9 239 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 239 + 3 + 7 = 249 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2156 vehlhr LCM = 96.00 m (314.96 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 149 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 249 = 59.8% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 249 * 2 = 598 peds I hr Compliance to location only= Compliance to signal only= 203 93.57% Violation of flashing red signal= 10.88% 63.60% GD RIVER AVE (M-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/14/98, Saturday, High 30 F, cold, partly cloudy 1- Abbott St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Time: 12:44p Pedestrian counts- 30 min On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA Bikes Total RU + PS (VS) 24 0 12 24 PS (VR) 5 0 S 7 0 0) L8 9 #N-F-FO 1 12 Total 45 1 17 RU: Regular users PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) S: Sneakers LS: Late starters Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 50 + 2 + 0 = 52 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2540 vehlhr LCM = Overall compliance rate = 38.40 m (125.98 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk Total peds in the crosswalk area Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 52 * 2 = 104 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 86.54% 48.00% Compliance to signal only = Violation of flashing red signal = 2- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Student Union) f Jaywalkers around CA I Total I 24 52 46.2% 24.00% On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Pedestrian count- 30 min 32 10 1 l’3I Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 43 + 0 + 2 = 45 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2682 vehlhr LC”, = Crossing compliance rate = Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 45 " 2 = 90 peds I hr 85.50 m (280.51 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk Total peds in the crosswalk area 204 32 45 71.1% co RIVER AVE (M-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT — eocue STS) Date: 2/14/98, Saturday, High 30 F, cold, partly cloudy 3- M.A.C. Ave. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Time: 12:44p Pedestrian counts- 30 min On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA Bikes Total RU + PS (vs) 19 0 21 PS (VR) 9 0 10 S 0 0 L8 1 0 Total 29 “CO-8N 0 “HOON 32 RU: Regular users PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) 8: Sneakers LS: Late starters Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 32 + 5 + 2 = 39 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2800 vehlhr LCM, = Overall compliance rate = Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 39 " 2 = 78 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 74.36% 65.63% 97.25 m (319.06 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk Compliance to signal only = Total peds in the crosswalk area 4- Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of Jacobson’s) Violation of flashing red signal = 19 39 48.7% 3.13% On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Total I Pedestrian count- 30 min 10 1 0 I 11 I Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 11 + 2 + 2 = 15 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2441 vehlhr LC“ = Crossing compliance rate = Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 15 * 2 = 30 peds I hr no of Pedestrians on-crosswa/k 71.95 m (236.06 ft) total peds in the crosswalk area 205 10 15 66.7% GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/14/98, Saturday, High 30 F, cold, partly cloudy 5- Charles St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk Time: 12:44p On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Total J Pedestrian count- 30 min 21 2 0 I23I Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 23 + 3 + 5 = 31 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2655 vehlhr L0,, = 97.85 m (321.03 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 31 * 2 = 62 peds I hr 6- Division St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk 21 31 67.7% Pedestrian count- 30 min On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA Bikes Total RU + PS (VS) 24 0 PS (VR) 0 S 0 LS 4 0 Total 33 4000-9 0 NOONON fissure?” S: Sneakers LS: Late starters RU: Regular users PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 34 + 1 + 7 = 42 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2602 vehlhr LCM = 96.00 m (314.96 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk Overall compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 42 * 2 = 84 peds I hr 24 42 57.1% Compliance to location only = 78.57% Violation of flashing red signal = 11.76% Compliance to signal only = 73.53% 206 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/26/98, Thursday, High 40 F, warm and sunny Time: 10:35a 1- Abbott St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 13 4 0 1 17 PS (VR) 4 0 0 0 4 S 20 1 1 2 22 LS 2 1 0 0 3 Total 39 6 1 3 46 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 46 + 0 + 2 = 48 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1394 vehlhr LCM, = 38.40 m (125.98 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 13 Overall compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 48 = 27.1% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 48 * 2 = 96 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 81.25% Compliance to signal only = 36.96% 2- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Student Union) Violation of flashing red signal = 6.52% On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Total I Pedestrian 16 5 2 I 23 I count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 4 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 19 + 1 + 4 = 24 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1564 vehlhr LCM = 85.50 m (280.51 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 16 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 24 = 66.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 24 * 2 = 48 peds I hr 207 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/26/98, Thursday, High 40 F, warm and sunny 3- M.A.C. Ave. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Tlme: 102353 Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 55 3 0 4 58 PS (VR) 34 0 0 5 34 S 21 2 1 3 24 L8 7 1 0 0 8 Total 1 1 7 6 1 1 2 124 RU: Regular users 8: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 8 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 124+ 8 + 6 = 138 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1807 vehlhr LCM = 97.25 m (319.06 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 55 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 138 = 39.9% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 138 * 2 = 276 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 84.78% Violation of flashing red signal = 6.45% Compliance to signal only = 46.77% 4- Mldblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of Jacobson's) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Total Pedestrian 13 10 1 I 24 I count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 24 + 2 + 3 = 29 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2091 vehlhr LCM = 71.95 m (236.06 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 13 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 29 = 44.8% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 29 * 2 = 58 peds I hr 208 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/26/98, Thursday. High 40 F, warm and sunny Time: 10:35a 5- Charles St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total I IPedestrian 58 12 2 I 72 J count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 11 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 8 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 72 + 11 + 8 = 91 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2192 vehlhr Lem = 97.85 m (321.03 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 58 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 91 = 63.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 91 * 2 = 182 peds I hr 6- Division St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 189 7 0 7 196 PS (VR) 69 0 0 2 69 S 51 7 0 5 58 LS 35 0 1 0 36 Total 344 14 1 14 359 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 10 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 359 + 10 + 7 = 376 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2344 vehlhr Lcm = 96.00 m (314.96 ft) no of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 189 Overall compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 376 = 50.3% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 376 * 2 = 752 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 91.49% Violation of flashing red signal = 10.03% Compliance to signal only = 54.60% 209 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/25/98, Wednesday, High 40 F, warm and sunny Time: 2:36p 1- Abbott St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 69 0 0 15 69 PS (VR) 21 0 0 0 21 S 24 2 0 26 LS 16 2 0 0 18 Total 130 4 0 23 134 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 9 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 134 + 9 + 1 = 144 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2430 vehlhr Lem = 38.40 m (125.98 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 69 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 144 = 47.9% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 144 * 2 = 288 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 90.28% Violation of flashing red signal = 13.43% Compliance to signal only = 51.49% 2- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Student Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total Pedestrian 16 1 1 I 18 count- 30 min f Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 18 + 0 + 6 = 24 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2430 vehlhr Lem = 85.50 m (280.51 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 16 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 24 = 66.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 24 * 2 = 48 peds I hr 210 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/25/98, Wednesday, High 40 F, warm and sunny 3- M.A.C. Ave. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Time: 2:36p Pedestrian counts- 30 min On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA Bikes Total RU + PS (VS) 53 2 55 PS (VR) 30 1 31 S 17 1 18 L8 6 0 iNbU’l Total 106 d-‘OOO 4 111 RU: Regular users PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) 8: Sneakers LS: Late starters Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 111+ 6 + 2 = 119 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2346 vehlhr LC.A = 97.25 m (319.06 ft) Overall compliance rate = no of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk total peds in the crosswalk area Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 119 * 2 = 238 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 89.08% 49.55% Compliance to signal only = 4- Midblock Crosswalk on shelter (in front of Jacobson's) Violation of flashing red signal = 53 119 44.5% 6.31% On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total Pedestrian count- 30 min 23 2 2 I 27 Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 27 + 6 + 2 = 35 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2356 vehlhr LC... = Crossing compliance rate = Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 35 * 2 = 70 peds I hr no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 71 .95 m (236.06 ft) total peds in the crosswalk area 211 23 35 65.7% GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/25/98, Wednesday, High 40 F, warm and sunny Time: 2:36p 5- Charles St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total I Pedestrian 32 3 4 39 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 8 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 39 + 1 + 8 = 48 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2408 vehlhr LC... = 97.85 m (321.03 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 32 Crossing compliance rate = = - total peds in the crosswalk area 48 = 66.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 48 * 2 = 96 peds I hr 6- Division St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU+PS(VS) 117 17 2 8 136 PS (VR) 18 2 1 2 21 S 57 8 2 5 67 LS 20 4 0 1 24 Total 212 31 5 16 248 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 12 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 11 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 248 + 12 + 11 = 271 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2537 vehlhr LC... = 96.00 m (314.96 ft) no of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 117 Overall compliance rate = .-. total peds in the crosswalk area 271 = 43.2% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 271 * 2 = 542 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 78.23% Violation of flashing red signal = 9.68% Compliance to signal only = 54.84% 212 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/19/98, Thursday, Mid 30 F, cold, cloudy Time: 2:33p 1- Abbott St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian counts- 30 min On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA Bikes Total RU + PS (VS) 50 53 PS (VR) 15 15 S 19 25 LS 14 N-b—I-h 14 Total 98 GOOION 107 RU: Regular users PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) S: Sneakers LS: Late starters Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 107 + 6 + 1 = 114 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2488 vehlhr Overall compliance rate = LCIA = 38.40 m (125.98 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk Total peds in the crosswalk area Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 114 * 2 = 228 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 85.96% 49.53% Compliance to signal only = Violation of flashing red signal = 2- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Student Union) 50 114 43.9% 13.08% On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total I Pedestrian count- 30 min 45 5 1 I 51 Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 8 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 51 + 1 + 8 = 60 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2484 vehlhr Crossing compliance rate = LCIA= 85.50 m (280.51 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk Total peds in the crosswalk area Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 60 * 2 = 120 peds I hr 213 45 60 75.0% co RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - eoeue STS) Date: 2I19I98, Thursday, Mid 30 F, cold, cloudy Tlme: 2:33p 3- M.A.C. Ave. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 22 0 0 4 22 PS (VR) 8 1 0 1 9 S 7 0 0 2 7 LS 7 0 0 0 7 Total 44 1 0 7 45 RU: Regular users 8: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 10 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 45 + 10 + 1 = 56 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2346 vehlhr LC... = 97.25 m (319.06 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 22 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 56 = 39.3% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 56 * 2 = 112 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 78.57% Violation of flashing red signal = 15.56% Compliance to signal only = 48.89% 4- Mldblock Crosswalk on shelter (in front of Jacobson's) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total I Pedestrian 15 1 0 I 16 I count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 16 + 1 + 3 = 20 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2185 vehlhr LCM = 71 .95 m (236.06 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 15 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 20 = 75.0% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 20 * 2 = 40 peds I hr 214 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 2/19/98, Thursday, Mid 30 F, cold, cloudy Time: 2:33p 5- Charles St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total count- 30 min Pedestrian 35 5 0 I 40 I Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 40 + 6 + 7 = 53 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2425 vehlhr Lem = 97.85 m (321.03 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 35 Crossing compliance rate = = -------- total peds in the crosswalk area 53 = 66.0% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 53 ' 2 = 106 peds I hr 6- Division St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 70 1 1 6 72 PS (VR) 18 0 1 0 19 S 23 4 1 2 28 LS 15 2 0 2 17 Total 126 7 3 10 136 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 4 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 13 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 136 + 4 + 13 = 153 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2533 vehlhr LC... = 96.00 m (314.96 ft) no of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 70 Overall compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 153 = 45.8% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 153 * 2 = 306 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 82.35% Violation of flashing red signal = 12.50% Compliance to signal only = 52.94% 215 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 5/27/98, Wednesday, Mid 80 F, sunny Time: 10:36a 1- Abbott St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU 4» PS (VS) 14 1 0 1 15 PS (VR) 5 1 0 0 6 S 8 0 3 3 1 1 LS 2 0 0 1 2 Total 29 2 3 5 34 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 34 + 1 + 2 = 37 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1516 vehlhr LC... = 38.40 m (125.98 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswaIk 14 Overall compliance rate = = -- Total peds in the crosswalk area 37 = 37.8% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 37 ' 2 = 74 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 78.38% Violation of flashing red signal = 5.88% Compliance to signal only = 44.12% 2- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Student Union) f On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Total I Pedestrian 9 o 2 I 11 I count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 11 + 1 + 2 = 14 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1600 vehlhr LC... = 85.50 m (280.51 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 9 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 14 = 64.3% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 14 * 2 = 28 peds I hr 216 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 5/27/98, Wednesday, Mid 80 F, sunny Tlme: 10:36a 3- M.A.C. Ave. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 6 0 0 0 6 PS (VR) 0 0 0 0 0 S 5 1 0 2 6 L8 1 0 0 3 1 Total 12 1 0 5 13 RU: Regular users 8: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 13 + 3 + 0 = 16 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1652 vehlhr LC... = 97.25 m (319.06 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 6 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 16 = 37.5% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 16 * 2 = 32 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 75.00% Violation of flashing red signal = 7.69% Compliance to signal only = 46.15% 4. Midblock Crosswalk on shelter (in front of Jacobson's) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total I Pedestrian 16 4 0 I 20 I count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 20 + 2 + 2 = 24 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1939 vehlhr LCM = 71 .95 m (236.06 It) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 16 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 24 = 66.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 24 " 2 = 48 peds I hr 217 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 5/27/98, Wednesday, Mid 80 F, sunny Time: 10:36a 5- Charles St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk 7 On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CA I Total I Pedestrian 72 4 ‘0 I 76 I count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 10 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 76 + 10 + 7 = 93 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2148 vehlhr LC... = 97.85 m (321.03 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 72 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 93 = 77.4% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 93 * 2 = 186 peds I hr 6- Division St. Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 45 0 0 7 45 PS (VR) 14 0 0 2 14 S 21 1 0 4 22 LS 1 1 0 0 0 11 Total 91 1 0 13 92 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 92 + 5 + 5 = 102 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2061 vehlhr LC... = 96.00 m (314.96 ft) No of RUS + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 45 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 102 = 44.1% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 102 * 2 = 204 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 89.22% Violation of flashing red signal = 11.96% Compliance to signal only = 48.91% 218 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/24/98, Friday, High 60 F, sunny Time: 3:26p 7- Midblock Crosswalk wl shelter (in front of the MSU Federal Credit Union 8. Berkeley Hall) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around CAI Total I Pedestrian 80 7 1 I 88 I count- 30 mln Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 88 + 7 + 3 = 98 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2506 vehlhr LCM = 59.90 m (196.52 ft) Crossing compliance rate = No of Pedestrians on-crosswaIk 80 Total peds in the crosswalk area 98 = 81.6% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 98 * 2 = 196 peds I hr 8- 1st Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (In front of SPLASH) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 23 0 10 33 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 33 + 3 + 0 = 36 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2464 vehlhr LCM = 31.70 m (104.00 ft) Crossing compliance rate = no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 23 total peds in the crosswalk area 36 = 63.9% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 36 * 2 = 72 peds I hr 219 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I24/98, Friday, High 60 F, sunny Tlme: 3:26p 9- 2nd Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk on shelter (in front of University Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total . CA Pedestrian 15 0 3 18 count— 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 18 + 3 + 2 = 23 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2574 veh/hr LC... = 48.16 m (158.01 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 15 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 23 = 65.2% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 23 * 2 = 46 peds / hr 10- Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (Bailey St, in front of Good Time Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total , CA Pedestrian 39 0 0 39 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 39 + 3 + 1 = 43 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2799 vehlhr Lev. = 72.55 m (238.02 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 39 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 43 = 90.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 43 * 2 = 86 peds I hr 220 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I24I98, Friday, High 60 F, sunny Time: 3:26p 11- Collingwood St. West-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 8 2 0 2 10 PS (VR) 0 0 0 0 0 S 5 0 1 1 6 L8 1 2 0 1 3 Total 14 4 1 4 19 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 19 + 1 + 0 = 20 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2812 vehlhr LC... = 35.35 m (115.98 ft) No of RUS + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 8 Overall compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 20 = 40.0% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 20 * 2 = 40 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 70.00% Violation of flashing red signal = 15.79% Compliance to signal only = 52.63% 12- Collingwood St. East-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 10 0 0 5 10 PS (VR) 0 0 0 0 0 S 3 0 0 0 3 LS 2 0 0 0 2 Total 15 0 0 5 15 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 15 + 0 + 6 = 21 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2708 vehlhr Lem = 50.90 m (166.99 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 10 Overall compliance rate = = = 47.6% Total peds in the crosswalk area 21 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 16 * 2 = 32 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 71.43% Violation of flashing red signal = 13.33% Compliance to signal only = 66.67% 221 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I24I98, Friday, High 60 F, sunny Tlme: 3:26p 13- Orchard St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 21 0 0 21 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 21 + 6 + 1 = 28 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2813 vehlhr LCIA = 101.80 m (333.99 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 21 Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 28 = 75.0% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 28 * 2 = 56 peds / hr 14- Bogue St Intersection (no crosswalk) Jaywalkers I Pedestrian 24 count- 30 min Jaywalkers in the Bogue St area = 24 peds in 30 min Pedestrian compliance = not applicable (because there was no crosswalk during data collection) Total pedestrian volume in the intersection area = 24 * 2 = 48 peds I hr 222 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/23I98, Thursday, Low 70 F, sunny Time: 11:02a 7- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Federal Credit Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 59 13 1 73 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 73 + 5 + 7: 85 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1706 vehlhr LcrA = 59.90 m (196.52 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 59 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 85 = 69.4% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 85 * 2 = 170 peds I hr 8- 1st Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk on shelter (in front of SPLASH) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total , CA Pedestrian 42 0 27 69 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 69 + 3 + 0 = 72 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1860 vehlhr Lem = 31.70 m (104.00 ft) no of Pedestrians on—crosswalk 42 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 72 = 58.3% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 72 * 2 = 144 peds I hr 223 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I23/98, Thursday, Low 70 F, sunny Time: 11:02a 9- 2nd Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of University Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total - CA Pedestrian 47 0 18 65 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 4 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 65 + 0 + 4 = 69 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1880 veh/hr LC... = 48.16 m (158.01 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 47 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 69 = 68.1% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 69 * 2 = 138 peds I hr 10- Midblock Crosswalk on shelter (Bailey Street) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total _ CA Pedestrian 74 7 1 82 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 10 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 82 + 10 + 3 = 95 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2339 vehlhr Lem = 72.55 m (238.02 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 74 Crossing compliance rate = = ---—--- total peds in the crosswalk area 95 = 77.9% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 95 * 2 = 190 peds I hr 224 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I23/98, Thursday, Low 70 F, sunny Time: 11:02a 11- Collingwood St. West-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU «1» PS (VS) 9 0 0 4 9 PS (VR) 4 0 0 0 4 S 6 0 0 5 6 LS 5 0 0 2 5 Total 24 0 0 11 24 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 24 + 1 + 0 = 25 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2270 vehlhr LCM = 35.35 m (115.98 ft) no of RUS + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 9 Overall compliance rate = = --- = 36.0% total peds in the crosswalk area 25 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 25 * 2 = 50 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 96.00% Violation of flashing red signal = 20.83% Compliance to signal only = 37.50% 12- Collingwood St. East-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 14 0 0 4 14 PS (VR) 7 0 0 1 7 S 2 1 1 8 LS 1 0 0 0 1 Total 27 2 1 6 30 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 9 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 30 + 0 + 9 = 39 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2468 veh/hr LC... = 50.90 m (166.99 ft) No of RUS + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 14 Overall compliance rate = = = 35.9% Total peds in the crosswalk area 39 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 39 * 2 = 78 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 69.23% Violation of flashing red signal = 3.33% Compliance to signal only = 46.67% 225 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (ABBOTT - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/23/98, Thursday, Low 70 F, sunny Time: 112023 13- Orchard St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total , CA Pedestrian 64 10 1 75 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 75 + 5 + 2 = 82 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2760 vehlhr LC... = 101.80 m (333.99 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 64 Crossing compliance rate = = - totaI peds in the crosswalk area 82 = 78.0% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 78 * 2 = 156 peds / hr 14- Bogue St Intersection (no crosswalk) Jaywalkers I Pedestrian 20 I counts- 30 min Jaywalkers in the Bogue St area = 20 peds in 30 min Crossing compliance = not applicable (because there was no crosswalk during data collection) Total pedestrian volume in the intersection area = 20 * 2 = 40 peds I hr 226 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I28/98, Tuesday, Low 60 F, sunny Time: 10:58a 7- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Federal Credit Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total , CA Pedestrian 88 8 3 99 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 14 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 99 + 14 + 7: 120 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1922 vehlhr LC... = 59.90 m (196.52 ft) no of pedestrians on-crosswalk 88 Crossing compliance rate = = -- total peds in the crosswalk area 120 = 73.3% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 120 * 2 = 240 peds I hr 8- 1st Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of SPLASH) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 15 0 3 18 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 4 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 18 + 2 + 4 = 24 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1804 vehlhr LC... = 31.70 m (104.00 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 15 Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 24 = 62.5% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 24 * 2 = 48 peds I hr 227 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I28I98, Tuesday, Low 60 F, sunny Time: 10:58a 9- 2nd Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk on shelter (in front of University Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 24 0 10 34 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 4 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 34 + 3 + 4 = 41 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1942 vehlhr L0... = 48.16 m (158.01 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 24 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 41 = 58.5% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 41 * 2 = 82 peds I hr 10- Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (Bailey St, in front of Good Time Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total , CA Pedestrian 40 8 0 48 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 10 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 48 + 10 + 1 = 59 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2156 vehlhr LC... = 72.55 m (238.02 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 40 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 59 = 67.8% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 59 * 2 = 118 peds I hr 228 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I28I98, Tuesday, Low 60 F, sunny 11- Collingwood St. West-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Time: 102583 Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 19 1 0 7 20 PS (VR) 3 0 0 1 3 S 5 0 0 5 5 L8 5 1 0 0 6 Total 32 2 0 13 34 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 34 + 1 + 0 = 35 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2198 vehlhr LC... = 35.35 m (115.98 ft) No of RUS + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 19 Overall compliance rate = = = 54.3% Total peds in the crosswalk area 35 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 35 * 2 = 70 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 91.43% Violation of flashing red signal = 17.65% Compliance to signal only = 58.82% 12- Collingwood St. East-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 18 0 0 2 18 PS (VR) 0 0 0 1 S 0 0 1 1 LS 6 0 0 0 6 Total 26 0 0 3 26 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 12 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 26 + 0 + 12 = 38 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2370 vehlhr LC... = 50.90 m (166.99 ft) No of RUS + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk Overall compliance rate = = = 47.4% Total peds in the crosswalk area Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 38 * 2 = 76 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 68.42% Violation of flashing red signal = 23.08% Compliance to signal only = 69.23% 229 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Time: 102583 Date: 4I28I98, Tuesday, Low 60 F, sunny 13- Orchard St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total J CA IPedestrians 43 10 3 I 56 I Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 56 + 7 + 5 = 68 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2556 veh/hr LCM = 101.80 m (333.99 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 43 Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 68 = 63.2% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 68 * 2 = 136 peds I hr 14- Bogue St Intersection (no crosswalk) IPedestrians Jaywalkers I 18 Jaywalkers in the Bogue St area = 18 peds in 30 min Crossing compliance = not applicable (because there was no crosswalk during data collection) Total pedestrian volume in the intersection area = 18 * 2 = 36 peds I hr 230 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I30I98, Thursday, High 60 F, cloudy Time: 102593 7- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Federal Credit Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total - CA Pedestrian 84 9 3 96 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 15peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 9 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 96 + 15 + 9= 120 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1768 vehlhr LCM, = 59.90 m (196.52 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 84 Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 120 = 70.0% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 120 * 2 = 240 peds I hr 8- 1st Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of SPLASH) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 21 0 3 24 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 10 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 24 + 0 + 10 = 34 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1992 vehlhr LC... = 31.70 m (104.00 ft) no of Pedestrians on—crosswalk 21 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 34 = 61.8% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 34 * 2 = 68 peds I hr 231 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4I30I98, Thursday, High 60 F, cloudy Time: 102593 9- 2nd Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of University Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 21 0 5 26 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 26 + 6 + 1 = 33 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 1912 vehlhr LC... = 48.16 m (158.01 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 21 Crossing compliance rate = = - total peds in the crosswalk area 33 = 63.6% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 33 * 2 = 66 peds I hr 10- Midblock Crosswalk on shelter (Bailey St, in front of Good Time Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA IPedestrian 70 2 1 73 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 73 + 3 + 1 = 77 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2372 vehlhr LC“, = 72.55 m (238.02 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 70 Crossing compliance rate = = Total peds in the crosswalk area 77 = 90.9% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 77 * 2 = 154 peds I hr 232 so RIVER AVE (rm-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (orvrsrou - eoeue STS) Date: 4/30/98, Thursday, High 60 F, cloudy Time: 10:593 11- Collingwood St. West-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 17 0 0 7 17 PS (VR) 4 0 0 3 4 S 5 0 1 5 6 LS 1 0 0 1 1 Total 27 0 1 16 28 RU: Regular users 3: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 28 + 0 + 0 = 28 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2358 vehlhr LCM = 35.35 m (115.98 ft) No of RUS + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 17 Overall compliance rate = = --- = 60.7% Total peds in the crosswalk area 28 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 28 ' 2 = 56 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 96.43% Violation of flashing red signal = 3.57% Compliance to signal only = 60.71% 12- Collingwood St. East-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 15 0 0 2 15 PS (VR) 4 0 0 0 4 S 1 0 0 0 1 LS 2 0 0 0 2 Total 22 0 0 2 22 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 8 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 22 + 0 + 8 = 30 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2552 vehlhr LCM = 50.90 m (166.99 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 15 Overall compliance rate = = = 50.0% Total peds in the crosswalk area 30 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 30 * 2 = 60 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 73.33% Violation of flashing red signal = 9.09% Compliance to signal only = 68.18% 233 GD RIVER AVE (In-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/30/98, Thursday, High 60 F, cloudy Time: 10:593 13- Orchard St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total , CA Pedestrian 39 6 1 46 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 46 + 5 + 5 = 56 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2928 vehlhr LCM = 101.80 m (333.99 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 39 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 56 = 69.6% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 56 * 2 = 112 peds / hr 14- Bogue St Intersection (no crosswalk) Jaywalkers | tedestrian count- 30 min 17 l Jaywalkers in the Bogue St area = 17 peds in 30 min Crossing compliance = not applicable (because there was no crosswalk during data collection) Total pedestrian volume in the intersection area = 17 * 2 = 34 peds / hr 234 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/20/98, Monday, Low 60 F, partly cloudy Time: 3:26p 7- Midblock Crosswalk wI shelter (in front of the MSU Federal Credit Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 95 13 1 109 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 109 + 7 + 5= 121 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2304 vehlhr LCM = 59.90 m (196.52 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 95 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 121 = 78.5% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 121 * 2 = 242 peds / hr 8- 1st Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of SPLASH) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 29 0 9 38 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 38 + 1 + 3 = 42 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2444 vehlhr Lem = 31.70 m (104.00 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 29 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 42 = 69.0% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 42 * 2 = 84 peds / hr 235 GD RIVER AVE (NI-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/20/98, Monday, Low 60 F, partly cloudy Time: 3:26p 9- 2nd Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of University Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 45 0 1 3 58 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 58 + 6 + 3 = 67 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2444 vehlhr Lem = 48.16 m (158.01 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 45 Crossing compliance rate = = ------- total peds in the crosswalk area 67 = 67.2% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 67 * 2 = 134 peds / hr 10- Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (Bailey St, in front of Good Time Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total - CA Pedestrian 46 3 0 49 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 49 + 3 + 0 = 52 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2436 vehlhr LCM, = 72.55 m (238.02 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 46 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 52 = 88.5% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 52 "' 2 = 104 peds / hr 236 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/20/98, Monday, Low 60 F, partly cloudy Time: 3:26p 11- Collingwood St. West-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 13 0 0 4 13 PS (VR) 8 0 0 4 8 S 4 0 0 4 4 LS 1 0 0 0 1 Total 26 0 0 12 26 RU: Regular users 8: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 26 + 2 + 0 = 28 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2444 vehlhr LCM = 35.35 m (115.98 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 13 Overall compliance rate = = = 46.4% Total peds in the crosswalk area 28 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 28 * 2 = 56 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 92.86% Violation of flashing red signal = 3.85% Compliance to signal only = 50.00% 12- Collingwood St. East-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 11 0 0 4 11 PS (VR) 12 0 0 4 12 S 6 0 0 0 6 LS 3 0 0 1 3 Total 32 0 0 9 32 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 4 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 32 + 0 + 4 = 36 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2568 vehlhr Lem = 50.90 m (166.99 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 11 Overall compliance rate = = = 30.6% Total peds in the crosswalk area 36 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 36 * 2 = 72 peds I hr Compliance to location only = 88.89% Violation of flashing red signal = 9.38% Compliance to signal only = 34.4% 237 GD RIVER AVE (NI-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/20/98, Monday, Low 60 F, partly cloudy Time: 3:26p 13- Orchard St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 30 6 0 36 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 7 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 36 + 3 + 7 = 46 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2745 vehlhr Lem = 101.80 m (333.99 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 30 Crossing compliance rate = = -—------ total peds in the crosswalk area 46 = 65.2% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 46 * 2 = 92 peds / hr 14- Bogue St Intersection (no crosswalk) Jaywalkers Pedestrian 28 count- 30 min Jaywalkers in the Bogue St area = 28 peds in 30 min Crossing compliance = not applicable (because there was no crosswalk during data collection) Total pedestrian volume in the intersection area = 28 * 2 = 56 peds / hr 238 GD RIVER AVE (M43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/17/98, Friday, High 50 F, partly cloudy Tlme: 3:29p 7- Midblock Crosswalk wl shelter (in front of the MSU Federal Credit Union) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA ‘Pedestrian 95 8 0 103 count— 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 9 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 103 + 9 + 6= 118 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2790 vehlhr Lem = 59.90 m (196.52 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 95 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 118 = 80.5% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 118 * 2 = 236 peds I hr 8- 1st Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of SPLASH) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total - CA Pedestrian 28 0 7 35 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 5 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 35 + 2 + 5 = 42 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2782 vehlhr Lem = 31.70 m (104.00 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 28 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 42 = 66.7% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 42 * 2 = 84 peds / hr 239 GD RIVER AVE (Ill-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4117/98, Friday, High 50 F, partly cloudy Time: 3:29p 9- 2nd Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (in front of University Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total - CA Pedestrian 27 0 4 31 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 4 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 31 + 6 + 4 = 41 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2894 vehlhr LCM = 48.16 m (158.01 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 27 Crossing compliance rate = = ---—----- total peds in the crosswalk area 41 = 65.9% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 41 * 2 = 82 peds / hr 10- Midblock Crosswalk wlo shelter (Bailey St, in front of Good Time Pizza) On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 37 2 0 39 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 6 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 39 + 6 + 1 = 46 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2905 vehlhr LCM. = 72.55 m (238.02 ft) no of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 37 Crossing compliance rate = = total peds in the crosswalk area 46 = 80.4% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 46 * 2 = 92 peds / hr 240 GD RIVER AVE (ll-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/17/98, Friday, High 50 F, partly cloudy Tlme: 3:29p 11- Collingwood St. West-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 10 0 0 4 10 PS (VR) 1 0 0 0 1 S 3 0 0 2 3 LS 5 0 0 0 5 Total 19 0 0 6 19 RU: Regular users S: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 1 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 19 + 1 + 0 = 20 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2798 vehlhr LCM = 35.35 m (115.98 ft) No of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 10 Overall compliance rate = = = 50.0% Total peds in the crosswalk area 20 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 20 * 2 = 40 peds / hr Compliance to location only= 95.00% Violation of flashing red signal= 26.32% Compliance to signal only= 52.63% 12- Collingwood St. East-Side Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Pedestrian On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers Bikes Total counts- 30 min around CA RU + PS (VS) 13 0 0 3 13 PS (VR) 13 0 0 1 13 S 0 0 0 1 0 LS 5 0 0 1 5 Total 31 0 0 6 31 RU: Regular users 8: Sneakers PS (VS): Partial sneakers (vehicles stopped) LS: Late starters PS (VR): Partial sneakers (vehicles running) Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 0 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 3 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 31 + 0 + 3 = 34 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 2980 vehlhr LCM = 50.90 m (166.99 ft) no of RUs + no PS(VS)s on-crosswalk 13 Overall compliance rate = = = 38.2% total peds in the crosswalk area 34 Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 34 * 2 = 68 peds / hr Compliance to location only = 91.18% Violation of flashing red signal = 16.13% Compliance to signal only = 41.9% 241 GD RIVER AVE (M-43) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (DIVISION - BOGUE STS) Date: 4/17/98, Friday, High 50 F, partly cloudy Time: 3:29p 13- Orchard St. Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk On-crosswalk Partial Jaywalkers Jaywalkers around Total CA Pedestrian 10 4 0 14 count- 30 min Jaywalkers from west side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Jaywalkers from east side of the crosswalk = 2 peds in 30 min Total pedestrians in the crosswalk area = 10 + 2 + 2 = 14 peds in 30 min Vehicular Volume (W) = 3203 vehlhr LCM = 101.80 m (333.99 ft) No of Pedestrians on-crosswalk 10 Pedestrian compliance = = total peds in the crosswalk area 14 = 71.4% Total pedestrian volume in the crosswalk area = 14 * 2 = 28 peds / hr 14- Bogue St Intersection (no crosswalk) Jaywalkers I Pedestrian I count- 30 min Jaywalkers in the Bogue St area = - peds in 30 min Crossing compliance = not applicable (because there was no crosswalk during data collection) Total pedestrian volume in the intersection area = - * 2 = - peds / hr 242 ‘— _ APPENDIX B: Pedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Marked Midblock Crosswalks 243 100 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1 0 Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%) O Section 1 000 O , O .0“ .0 .60 Std.Dev= 9.1372 N=16 Mn: 44.8 Max: 80.4 ’ Avg: 65.15 85th prcntl= 75.00 Section ZJ : O .-----‘----‘---—----‘--q , N= 12 Min: 67.8 Max= 90.9 Avg= 79.23 85th prcntl= 90.71 Std.Dev= 7.9238 N= 28 Mn: 44.8 Max= 90.9 Avg: 71.19 85th prcntl= 81.22 Std.Dev= 11.0600 MSU Student Union Jacobson's Marked midblock crosswalk locations Berkeley Hall Bailey St Figure 8.1. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates of all the marked midblock crosswalks—all data collection sessions 100 ~ 20 Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%) O 80~ 40- Average Crossing Compliance Rate = 67.4% ] 71.1 75.0 80.4 ‘------1-—-D-—‘ 66.7 57.1 5.4 -§ 70.6 _- 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure 8.2. Pedestrian crossing compliance ratesnMSU Student Union marked midblock crosswalk 244 75‘0 Average Crossing Compliance Rate = 62.9% G) O 70.0 66.7 65.7 66.7 C) O l 44.8 & O Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%) N O O . _ __ __ ,, , A . 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates FigureB.3. Pedestrian crossing compliance ratequacobsogvs marked midblock crosswalk wlo shelter 100 ~ ,, ,, . [ Average Crossing Compliance Rate=75.8% ] 80.5 78.5 81.6 on O ---l——-l——-—l-——b————Bg:4-————-l>——-p ————————————————— b O} O O Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%) N O 17-Apr 20-Apr 23—Apr 24-Apr 28-Apr 30-Apr Data Collection Dates Figure 3.4. Pedestrian crossingcompliance rates—Berkeley HallnTarked midblock crosswalk 245 Average Crossing Cornplianoe Rate = 82.7% 100 g 88.5 90.7 90.9 3 80.4 77 9 E 80 ---------- ’-- ------------- II-‘Dtl- ——————————— db..-“- 8 c 67.8 .2 2 60 . o 0 or .E 3 40 - 2 O r: N '5 20 < e - tn O 1: 0 o. 0 .. _ _ ._ . 17- r 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 28-Apr 30-Apr Data Collection Dates Figure 3.5. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates—Bailey Street marked midblock crosswalk wlo shelter 246 APPENDIX C: Pedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Non-striped Midblock Crosswalks 247 O E 100 _ __ _,, .__ ._ _ _ ._ _ _ _ ___ ._ ___ ___. _. ___—~— .—.--.—-. —_~— — 4——-. O 2 ,9 80 E t 8 60 i . a 7 .5 2 ill 40 N =12 Min= 58.3 Max=69.0 l 5:, Avg = 64.23 85th prcntl = 68.15 1: Std. Dev = 3.4797 f .g 20 , til 8 g 0 1st Non-striped Midblock 2nd Non-striped Midblock Non-striped Midblock Crosswalk Locations Figure C.1. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates of all the non-striped midblock crosswalks- all data collection sessions 80 I Average Crossing Compliance Rate = 63.7% .0 69 58.3 551-8 62.5 61-8 or o l Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%) N -b O O 0 , ,,,, , - 1 7-Apr 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 28-Apr 30-Apr Data Collection Dates Figure C.2. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates- 1st non-striped midblock crosswalk in front of Berkeley Hall 248 (I) O L Average Crossing Compliance Rate = 64.8% ] 65.9 57-2 63" *‘t'r' ..... -------.--.---.-- -_E_355 ..... .--. O} O l Pedestrian crossing compliance rate (%) N is O O O l 17-Apr 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 28-Apr 30-Apr Data Collection Dates Figure C.3. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates- 2nd non-striped midblock crosswalk in front of Berkeley Hall 249 APPENDIX D: Pedestrian Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalks 250 0 g 100 Section 1 Section 2 E : a . i 8 60 ’ + ‘* 2’ :3 N -14 M' - - 3 L. — rn - 54.7 Max-78.0 8 40 Avg = 66.95 85th prcntl = 76.80 '5 Std. Dev. = 7.1512 g 20 ‘; .5 l 0 l B 0 J 0. Charles St Orchard St Unsignalized Intersection Crosswalk Locations Figure 0.1. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates of all the unsignalized intersection crosswalks- all data collection sessions 100 ~ :3 Average Crossing Compliance Rate = 66.8% 3 77.4 s 80 - ~ - e - - o 71.8 g —- --I—- —---— — --------------- h-JP-I- — _- a g 54.7 0 or .5 3 40 - 9 0 C E 3 20 ' O 1: 0 1L 0 . W i, i 10—Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26—Feb 27-May 28—May Data Collection Dates Figure D.2. Pedestriancrossing compliance rates- Charles St unsignalized intersection crosswalk 251 100 g Average Crossing Compliance Rate = 67.1% J o .. 75.0 8 69.6 g 61 2 63.2 = ———5—5.—6 ————————————— I.-- ----- p-uld) ----------- ----- g 60 - o O or CE 3 40 2 o r: .9 I: 20 - tn 0 u o o. 0 , 1 7-Apr 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 28-Apr 30-Apr Data Collection Dates Figure D.3. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates- Orchard St unsignalized intersection crosswalk 252 APPENDIX E: Pedestrian Spatial Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Signalized Intersection Crosswalks 253 [Section1 l I Section2 I 2 g 100 8 90 ‘ ‘ 7 z D ’ ’ D g 80 . ’ z , , z W , ,, Q , , '71 70 - 9 L E 60 _ N = 16 Min = 69.90 Max = 90.30 N = 20 Min = 68.40 Max = 98.20 8 ,3. Avg = 82.78 85th prcntl = 88.88 Avg = 83.40 85m prcntl = 93.50 a 2‘, 50 ' Std.Dev. = 5.9662 Std.Dev. = 9.5419 3% 40 - - ~ , 1 ~ 7 in 30 . 7, N = 36 Min = 68.40 Max = 98.20 8 20 ‘ Avg = 33.13 85th prcntl = 91.45 _ Std.Dev. = 8.0473 .g 10 4 — — fi- 0 . _ Abbott M.A.C. Division Collingwood- Collingwood- west east Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Locations Figure E.1. Pedestrian—spatial crossing compliance rates of all the signalized intersection crosswalks- all data collection sessions [ Average Spatial Crossing Compliance Rate = 85.6% j 100 A ~ A f 4 ~ — ... 88.7 90.3 3 d 86.5 86.0 86.4 P 81.3 87.5 : - -----=---- — --d-----h-d ........ al--A-h-I- E 80- . fl 7 _-- A - 0 O C .2 a 60- E O 0 O .E 40- , r I» W 2 0 .2.; 20., N O. U) 0. , . ,' 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure E.2. Pedestrianspatial crossing compliancerates- Abbott Stfi signalized intersection crosswalk 254 100 . " 84 3 89'1 84 8 32 - - 83.3 i; 74.4 78.6 75-0 a 80 ‘—d-——-i—-ffi—-* ! ’---i—--‘-d-—-i-lb-uni-'--i-’-_--_— ; 69.9 2 . l 1. . g 60 ., Average Spatral Crossrng Compliance Rate = 79.9% o. E o 0 a: .E 40 - ~ ,, ~ 2 m U) 2 0 .g 20 . , I! o. rn 0 fl, , 7 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure E.3. Pedestrign spatial crossing compliance rates- M.AiC. Ave signalized intersection crosswalk 100 - :5 93.6 91,5 89.2 g, 78.6 82.4 735 78.2 83.3 o -—dD-- —————————————————————————— h-db--—--I--— -- 3 80 - 3 1 l_l 5 Average Spatial Crossing Compliance Rate = 84.4% “E 60 - ~ #9 E o 0 2’ .. 40 . . 3 2 0 :9; 20 ,- a m 0 . , a, 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figuie E.4. Pedestrian spgial gassing cornirlianc; rates-Divgion St signalized intersection crosswalk 255 100 95.0 98.2 92-9 91.4 A -..—l —- —-————— ——————————————————— I-r—— ----Jh-- b-- cfi L ‘ 82.8 1 2 80 - , 7 g 70.0 2 . . .1 1 g 60 . Average Spatral Crossrng Compliance Rate = 88.4% a. E o 0 a .E 40- a Q 2 0 L! 20» fl a in 0 17-Apr 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 28-Apr 30~Apr Data Collection Dates Figure E.5. Pedestrian compliance rates- Collingwood-west St signalized intersection crosswalk (compliance to location) 100 , ~~ ---- 1 2 13 9 83-9 Average Spatial Crossing Compliance Rate = 77.1% ‘3 80 » - ~ ~ 5 ; ----------'--'----6'9-2 ------------- 6 5,2 ---------- g 71 4 73.3 .2 a 60 - E o 0 E 40 . a M 2 U 3 20 - ‘8': a. U) 0 . 17-Apr 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 28-Apr :30-Apr Data Collection Dates Figure E.6. Pedestrian spatial crossing compliance rates- Collingwood-east St signalized intersection crosswalk 256 APPENDIX F: Pedestrian Temporal Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Signalized Intersection Crosswalks 257 3 [ Section 1 ] . E 100 _ - [ Section 2 l f 1 § 90 ‘ N = 16 Min = 24.14 Max = 65.63 N = 20 Min = 34.40 Max = 73.53 g 80 . Avg = 45.14 85th prcntl = 50.42 , Avg = 55.02 85th prcntl = 67.95 E 70 . Std.Dev. = 9.0797 9 Std.Dev. = 10.4402 3 60 . 4 -, A 4 3°55" t r i + 4 ~ . a 40 " W . T O Q .” A O 9 30 ~ N = 36 Min = 24.14 Max = 73.53 * 2 20 . ’ Avg = 50.63 85th prcntl = 64.51 g 10 . Std.Dev. = 10.9232 Q l- Abbott M.A.C. Division Collingwood- Collingwood- west east Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Locations FigureF.1. Pedestrian temporal crossing compliancerates of all the signalized intersection crosswalks- all data collection sessions 60 49.53 51.49 48.98 4&00 44.55 36.96 44.12 ----_--db-d---_-ap-—d--—--dr-d -------- .-- ------- 40. u- A. .a-- Average Temporal Crossing Compliance Rate = 43.5% 24.14 20- Temporal crossing compliance rate (%) 0 . 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 213-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure F.2.Pedes7trian tempgral c7ossirig compliance rates- Afiott St signalized intersection crosswalk 258 80- 60~ 40‘ 20~ Temporal crossing compliance rate (%) 0 65.63 AverageTemporal Crossing Compliance Rate = 46.8% 48.89 49.55 dh—----F--------—-th-- - ------------- 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25oFeb 26—Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure F3 Pedestrian temporal crossing compliance rates- MIC. Ave signalized intersection crosswalk 80’ 60- 40- 20~ Temporal crossing compliance rate (%) O . A 73.53 Average Temporal Crossing Compliance Rate = 57.6% 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figu7e F.4. Pedestrian temporal crossing cofimpliance rates- Division St signalized intersection crosswalk 259 60.71 60 58.82 52.63 52.63 --...- ___-5000 ............ -_ “"4--- ________ .. 40' Average Temporal Crossing Compliance Rate = 52.1% 20~ Temporal crossing compliance rate (%) 17-Apr 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 28-Apr 30-Apr Data Collection Dates Figure F.5. Pedestrian temporal crossing compliance rates- Collingwood- west St signalized intersection crosswalk Average Temporal Crossing Compliance Rate = 54.5% 80 66.67 6923 68.18 60‘ ------------------------ db-—qb-----------al--4p-— 40' 20~ Temporal crossing compliance rate (%) 17-Apr 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 28—Apr 30-Apr Data Collection Dates Figure F6 Pedestrian temporal crossing compliance rates- Collingwood- east St signalized intersection crosswalk 260 APPENDIX 6: Pedestrian Overall Crossing Compliance Rates of all the Signalized Intersection Crosswalks 261 E100 _ I Section1 I I , 7 LSectionZ I 3 90 . N=16 Min=20.50 Max: N=20 Min=30.60 Max=60.70 52 48.70 Avg = 46.68 85th prcntl = 56.68 3 80 ' Avg= 38.36 85th prcntl=46.97 Std.Dev. =8.0451 5 70 . Std.Dev. =8.6026 “'5 so .- e 5 50 : ° 0 ‘ i g i 0 . * 2 8 .3 4° * Q * * * 3 * s 3 30 ~ , N=36 Min=20.50 Max=6o.7o a 9 20 . O Avg=42.98 85th prcntl=51.02 U = 10 , Std.Dev.=9.1896 8 g 0 . , ,, . *2 . , , , . . - ° Abbott M.A.C. Division Collingwood- Collingwood- west east Signalized Intersection Crosswalk Locations Figure 6.1. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance rates of all the signalized intersection crosswalks- all data collection sessions 60 . ~ 777W: , ,,, , ~ I Average Overall Crossing Compliance Rate = 38 5%? 50 - 47.9 46.2 434 43.9 g 40 39.8 % ——---i———-0——I-——-_-Id-——fi—-tI-——-In-.. —————————— Jla --------- O U C 3 '5 § 30 . a 27.1 .E I O 2 3 219 ii '5 20 , 5 10 0 10-Feb tat-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure 6.2. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance rates- Abbott St signalized intersection crosswalk 262 O) O Average Overall Crossing Compliance Rate = 38.2% 48.7 01 O 44.5 * b O l 20.5 N O Overall crossing compliance rate (%) 3 8 o ,2 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure 6.3. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance rates- M.A.C. Ave signalized intersection crosswalk 60 . 59'8 57'1 Average Overall Crossing Compliance Rate = 49.6% 40 ' 7 i’ 20~ Overall crossing compliance rate (%) 0 10-Feb 14-Feb 19-Feb 213-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-May 28-May Data Collection Dates Figure 6.4. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance rates- Division St signalized intersection crosswalk 263 60 40- 54.3 Average Overall Crossing Compliance Rate = 47.9% 20- Overall Crossing Compliance Rate (%) 17-Apr 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr Data Collection Dates 28-Apr 60.7 —-—---___--__----------------—-dI--1---—d----- 30-Apr Figure 6.5. Pedestrian overall crossing compliance rates- Collingwood- west St signalized intersection crosswalk 60 ,2, I Average OverallCrossing Compliance Rate = 41.6% J 47.4 b--- P---- Z: 33 2 35 9 47.6J . ----------------------------- __- E 40 e E g 306 o .E 3 8 7: 20 ~ 5 0 W , 17-Apr 20-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr Data Collection Dates 28-Apr 50 0 h----- 30-Apr Figure 6.6 Pedestrian overall crossing compliancerates-Collingwood-east St signalized intersection crosswalk 264 nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARI llHI"111111111111111111”IIIINIIWHIHHI 31293020484097