CHAPTER 24
Pedestrians

Task Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing in a Multiple-Threat Scenario

Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings

Speed-Calming Countermeasures at Crosswalks

Increasing Pedestrian Visibility and Conspicuity at Crosswalks

Selecting Beacons to Increase Pedestrian Conspicuity at Crosswalks

Influence of the Built Environment on Pedestrian Crossing Safety

Design Challenges for Older Pedestrians

Pedestrian Rail Crossing Safety

Key References for Pedestrian Crossing Safety Countermeasures

TASK ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN A MULTIPLE-THREAT SCENARIO

Introduction

This guideline highlights a situation for increased pedestrian crash potential at crosswalks: the multiple-threat scenario, in which a pedestrian crossing in front of a stopped vehicle can be struck by a second vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane. This task analysis of a pedestrian crossing on a four-lane divided highway with a pedestrian island shows the interactions that can take place between pedestrians and drivers and the actions that each could take to avoid vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. In the following task analysis table, the behavior of pedestrians and drivers is idealized and presented in a somewhat abstracted manner that does not necessarily express the typical behaviors of pedestrians or drivers or regulatory obligations or requirements in specific jurisdictions.

Design Guidelines

Agencies may use advance yield/stop lines, signs, beacons, and/or other countermeasures to increase vehicle compliance and to increase visibility and conspicuity of the pedestrian. See “Increasing Pedestrian Visibility and Conspicuity at Crosswalks” (page 24-8) for information about these countermeasures.

Long Description. A scale from 0 to 6 where 0 represents ‘Based Primarily on Expert Judgment,’ 6 represents ‘Based Primarily on Empirical Data,’ and 3 represents ‘Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data.’ This guideline ranks a 4 on the scale.

TASK ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN A MULTIPLE-THREAT SCENARIO

Long Description.

The Table has 3 column headings: Column 1: Pedestrian Tasks. Column 2: Vehicle 1 (V1) Tasks. Column 3: Vehicle 2 (V2) Tasks. Rows 1 to 4 are grouped in a section labeled Scenario Segment S1: Driver Approach. Row 1, Column 1: Scans roadway/listens for any approaching vehicles from the left. Column 2: Sees “yield to pedestrians” sign, yield line, and crosswalk markings. Column 3: Sees median pedestrian sign. Leaves enough time to react. Row 2, Column 1: Approaches crosswalk and stops in the staging area of the crosswalk if vehicles present. Column 2: Begins decelerating and scans for any pedestrians crossing from the right. Column 3: Notices V1 is braking in the right lane ahead. Row 3, Column 1: Waits for V1 to yield/come to a stop. Receives affirmation from V1 driver. Column 2: Identifies the pedestrian and stops before the yield line, affirming the pedestrian to cross. Column 3: Sees “yield to pedestrians” sign (on the right) outside cone of vision, yield line, and crosswalk markings. Row 4, Column 1: Based on previous knowledge, anticipates potential V2 approaching in the left lane. Column 2: Waits for the pedestrian to cross the road. Column 3: Begins decelerating and anticipates pedestrian(s) crossing from the right. Rows 5 to 8 are grouped in a section labeled Scenario Segment S2: Pedestrian-Driver Interaction. Row 5, Column 1: Sees V2 approaching the yield line where V1 is already stopped. Column 2: Remains stopped. Column 3: Sees the pedestrian at the crosswalk. Row 6, Column 1: Determines if V2 is slowing down. Column 2: Remains stopped. Column 3: Stops before yield line, affirming the pedestrian to cross. Row 7, Column 1: Once V2 comes to a stop/yield, enters the crosswalk. Column 2: Remains stopped. Column 3: Waits for pedestrian to cross the road. Row 8, Column 1: Maintains vigilance while crossing to the raised median island. Column 2: Resumes driving once right-of-way is obtained. Column 3: Resumes driving once right-of-way is obtained.

The figure shows the multiple-threat scenario with countermeasures to mitigate pedestrian–vehicle conflicts. In the Approach Segment (S1), the pedestrian and driver of V₂ cannot see one another because sight lines are obscured by V₁, which is stopping in the right lane. In the Pedestrian-Driver Interaction segment (S2), V₁ has stopped at the yield line, and the proximity of the two vehicles relative to the pedestrian provides a clear sight triangle between V₂ and the pedestrian. The placement of the advance yield line ensures the pedestrian is within the sight triangle. Without the advance yield line, the sight triangle would not include the pedestrian, increasing pedestrian crash potential if V₂ does not yield.

Long Description.

The first half of the illustration is S1, the driver approach. It shows that the V2 pedestrian view is obscured by V1. V2 is in the left lane and V1 is in the right lane. The sight triangle for V2 is shown. The second half of the illustration is S2, the pedestrian-driver interaction. It shows that V2 pedestrian view is not obscured by V1. V2 is in the left lane just behind V1 in the right lane. A sign beside the road shows a yield symbol, a pedestrian symbol, and the words “here to” next to a curved arrow. A pedestrian is shown approaching a crosswalk. The sight triangle for V2 reaches the pedestrian.

Discussion

The pedestrian crossing task analysis is derived from several reports on pedestrian and driver actions at crosswalks and in multiple-threat situations. These actions are important to understand in relation to one another since both the driver and pedestrian make decisions based on the actions and status of the other (1). Because of this, the multiple-threat pedestrian crossing scenario is split into two segments: Driver Approach and Pedestrian-Driver Interaction.

Referring to the figure on the previous page, in the Driver Approach segment, the drivers approach the yield markings ahead of the crosswalk. Both drivers and the pedestrian must individually recognize the potential multiple-threat situation. For pedestrians, they must notice that V₁ in the right lane could be blocking their view of a potentially unyielding V₂ in the far lane. For drivers, they must recognize the crosswalk, yield markings, and/or pedestrian crossing signs ahead (2). The driver of V₂ must also see that V₁ in the right lane ahead is not only braking or stopped but could also be obscuring a pedestrian positioned in the right lane, waiting to cross or already crossing in front of V₁. As V₂ nears the yield markings, the driver and pedestrian are able to see each other, initiating the Pedestrian-Driver Interaction segment.

In the Pedestrian-Driver Interaction segment, the pedestrian and drivers try to understand what the other will do based on different factors. For pedestrians, they will try to get a better view of the obscured lane and/or listen for an approaching vehicle. Before crossing, they must make sure that drivers have sufficient time to notice them and begin slowing down (3). Upon receiving acknowledgement from drivers and judging that the gap is sufficient, pedestrians may enter the crosswalk. For drivers, they must slow down enough to prepare for a situation where a pedestrian might step out from in front of the vehicle in the right lane ahead. As V₂ gets closer to the crosswalk, it becomes easier for the driver to see past the obscuring vehicle (V₁) and identify whether or not there is a pedestrian trying to cross. In the multiple-threat scenario, the V₂ driver would assume that V₁, stopped on the right, is stopped because he or she is yielding to a pedestrian.

Design Considerations

Decisions made by the pedestrian and drivers for this task analysis only show an example of a best-case scenario. Some cases/countermeasures for non-ideal situations are as follows:

• The driver of V₁ sees the pedestrian but chooses a response reflecting a lack of concern and maintains the same speed, in effect signaling to the pedestrian that they do not intend to yield. At the same time, a pedestrian is aggressive or inattentive and begins to cross without regard to the driverʼs behavior. Eventually, the driver must brake to avoid a crash, but because the response is delayed, more aggressive braking is required (1).
• The driver of V₁ becomes aware of the pedestrian late but does not have enough time to stop (2). The scenario described in the task analysis is designed with advance yield markings, a countermeasure used to improve driver behavior and limit situations where drivers donʼt have enough time to stop (4).
• As described in the task analysis, a pedestrian is crossing from the right, as seen from the driverʼs perspective. There is evidence for a difference in driver behavior between a multiple-threat with the obstructing V₁ being in the left lane as opposed to the right. A study conducted in 2014 found statistical significance in more glances to the left in the presence of advance yield markings (5).
• Crossings with no raised median island or advance yield/stop line and sign often fail to create adequate awareness of the crossing for drivers and even for pedestrians. Without the raised median island, the pedestrian must judge acceptable gaps in traffic from both directions and is unprotected mid-crossing. Without the yield line, drivers have limited time to see and react to emerging pedestrians, relying only on crosswalk markings and/or curb ramps as visual cues. A pedestrian sign could be added to the roadside or the median to increase driver understanding.

The task analysis is tailored for a specific setting: a four-lane road with a midblock crosswalk accompanied by yield lines, a pedestrian-crossing sign, and a raised median island. Only one-half of the road was analyzed because the raised median island allows the pedestrian to cross in two separate operations.

Cross References

Chapter 5: Sight Distance

Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings

Increasing Pedestrian Visibility and Conspicuity at Crosswalks

Selecting Beacons to Increase Pedestrian Conspicuity at Crosswalks

Key References

COUNTERMEASURES TO REDUCE PEDESTRIAN EXPOSURE TO VEHICLES AT CROSSINGS

Introduction

Countermeasures to reduce pedestrian exposure to vehicles at crossings refers to road treatments for consideration that provide some level of physical protection from surrounding traffic and/or reduce the time required to cross the street. Grade-separated pedestrian crossings offer additional protection by removing pedestrians from vehicular traffic altogether in locations where pedestrian crossing would be too challenging without them. This guideline summarizes the conditions of use and the effects that can be expected when using these countermeasures.

Design Guidelines

Long Description. The table has 3 column headings: Column 1: Countermeasure. Column 2: Suggested Conditions for Use. Column 3: Expected Effects. Row 1, Column 1: Curb Extension/Bulbout. Row 1, Column 2: Intersections and midblock crosswalk locations where shorter crossing distances are desired. Column 3: Reduced crossing time and pedestrian exposure. Increased visibility and sight distance for both pedestrians and vehicles. Reduced vehicle speeds. Reduced crash rates and severity. Increased driver yielding to pedestrians. Improved drainage. Row 2, Column 1: Raised Median and Pedestrian Crossing Island. Column 2: Signalized multilane crossings where a pedestrian may not be able to finish crossing in one cycle (e.g., crossing locations that are three or more lanes wide). Intersections or midblock crossings where pedestrians are not likely to find sufficient gap in traffic to cross all lanes without conflict, but where traffic controls are not justified. Column 3: Estimated 25 to 36 percent reduction in pedestrian crashes (1). Increased yielding, especially when combined with other countermeasures (1). Reduced vehicle speeds and speeding (2). Potential for motorists to strike the islands (1) Row 3, Column 1: Grade-Separated Crossings. Column 2: Connect land uses, buildings, facilities, etc., that are separated by a major roadway. Where other less expensive countermeasures are not practical. Column 3: Estimated 86 to 90 percent reduction in pedestrian crash locations with high crash potential (6). At-grade crossing attempts if pedestrians perceive the bridge or tunnel is too inconvenient, time-consuming, inaccessible, or lacking personal security

Long Description. A scale from 0 to 6 where 0 represents ‘Based Primarily on Expert Judgment,’ 6 represents ‘Based Primarily on Empirical Data,’ and 3 represents ‘Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data.’ This guideline ranks a 5 on the scale.

Long Description.

The extensions, crossing islands, angled cutouts, and warning surfaces are numbered 1 through 5 on the illustration.

Discussion

Curb extensions. Curb extensions narrow the road by extending the sidewalk or curb line into the street or parking lane, thus reducing pedestrian crossing time and exposure (1). In addition, this treatment can increase sight distance between pedestrians and vehicles by raising pedestrians above grade level and by preventing motorists from parking too close to the intersection. Further, they can reduce the effective turning radius, which can slow turning traffic. One simulator study found that driversʼ yielding behavior increased due to increased pedestrian visibility at the curb extension (3). Similarly, a literature review cited studies that found that curb extensions increased yielding and speed reductions (2). Curb extensions can be used where there is on-street parking and on streets that are not too narrow (1, 4, 5). Curb extensions should generally be one to two feet narrower than the parking lane (4). Curb extensions should not interfere with bicycle lanes (1), and landscaping or road furniture should not interfere with sight distance or impede visibility by other road users (5).

Raised medians and pedestrian median islands. Sometimes referred to as pedestrian refuge islands, safety islands, crossing islands, or center islands, these treatments provide pedestrians with a protective environment in the middle of an intersection or midblock crosswalk, reducing pedestrian exposure to traffic and allowing them to focus on crossing one direction of travel at a time. Pedestrian crash reductions of 25 to 36 percent have been estimated using raised medians and pedestrian median islands at various locations and configurations (1). Pedestrian median islands are recommended at crossing locations that are three or more lanes wide (4). It is recommended that the island be at least 6 feet wide to accommodate the length of a bicycle, or a parent pushing a stroller, and the cut-through or ramp width be equal to the crosswalk width. Crosswalk islands that cut through the median are preferred to raised median crosswalks, unless the median is wider than 17 feet; in that case, raised medians are preferred (4). Crossing a street in two signal cycles should be discouraged if at an intersection or a midblock, and the crosswalks line up. Crossing in two cycles works best with offset or staggered crosswalks and relatively wide medians (e.g., >20 feet) to accommodate waiting pedestrians.

Grade-separated crossings. These treatments, which include overpasses, overcrossings, or bridges, and underpasses, undercrossings, or tunnels, completely separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic and can be effective when used where grade-level crossings are dangerous and other countermeasures are inappropriate. Crash modification factors of between 0.1 and 0.14 (86 to 90 percent pedestrian crash reduction) have been estimated for these treatments (6). Pedestrians may still elect to cross the street at grade rather than use the bridge/tunnel if access is perceived to be too inconvenient, time-consuming, inaccessible, or is “not perceived to be safer . . . than crossing at street level” (1). In particular, access can be a challenge for pedestrians with disabilities unless the bridge or tunnel is designed to accommodate them. Lighting, signing, fencing, and other countermeasures have been used to discourage at-grade crossings at these locations (1).

Design Considerations

Although raised medians and pedestrian median islands provide some level of protection for pedestrians, yielding rates have been mixed at locations with pedestrian median islands and marked crosswalks (1). Additional countermeasures may be needed to encourage motorists to yield to pedestrians, especially on roads with high speed, high traffic volumes, many lanes, and/or wide widths. Recommendations for additional treatments include pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) with a red (stop) indication, advance yield/stop lines with advance “yield/stop here for pedestrian” signs, and signs with flashing beacons, such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) (1). When placing pedestrian median islands within a two-way left turn lane (TWLTL), designers should consider driveway locations and turnings to reduce the potential for left-turning vehicles entering the roadway to strike the island. A recent FHWA study (6) provides a number of recently studied countermeasures to help increase pedestrian safety.

Cross References

Methods to Increase Driver Yielding at Uncontrolled Crosswalks

Key References

SPEED-CALMING COUNTERMEASURES AT CROSSWALKS

Introduction

Speed-calming countermeasures at crosswalks refer to countermeasures for consideration that encourage drivers to slow their speeds in areas with crosswalks. Excessive vehicle speed makes it more difficult for drivers to perceive, react, and stop for pedestrians. A driverʼs useful field of vision decreases as travel speed increases, making it more difficult to detect and react to pedestrians in peripheral vision at higher speeds (1, 2). In addition, braking distance increases with speed, requiring more time to stop the vehicle. The combination of less/later pedestrian detection and longer braking times means more crashes with increased severity at higher speeds (1). This guideline provides information about common countermeasures for reducing speeds when approaching crosswalks.

Design Guidelines

Long Description. The table has 3 column headings: Column 1: Countermeasure. Column 2: Suggested Conditions for Use. Column 3: Expected Effects Row 1, Column 1: Raised crosswalk or speed table. Column 2: Midblock crosswalk on low-speed local streets (3). Column 3: Reduced speeds. Increased pedestrian visibility. Increased visual search patterns and yielding by drivers. Reduced pedestrian crashes. Row 2, Column 1: Raised intersection. Column 2: Intersections with substantial pedestrian traffic where other speed-calming treatments are unacceptable (e.g., due to loss of on-street parking). Note: Row 2 shares Column 3 with Row 1. Row 3, Column 1: Reduce corner radius/crossing distance. Column 2: Urban intersections with heavy pedestrian use, particularly where vehicles frequently turn across pedestrian paths. Column 3: Reduced turning speeds. Reduced pedestrian crossing times/distances. Larger pedestrian waiting areas. Increased visibility/sight lines in all directions. Increased potential for drivers to cut the corner and strike the curb while aggressively rounding corners (unintended side effect). Row 4, Column 1: Road diet (i.e., lane reconfiguration). Column 2: Four-lane, undivided roadways with high expected crash frequencies and/or where left lane is shared by high-speed and left-turning vehicles. Column 3: Reduced speeds. Estimated 19 to 47 percent fewer pedestrian crashes in urban and suburban areas, respectively (6). Reduced pedestrian crossing times/distances. Row 5, Column 1: Area-wide traffic calming. Column 2: Areas with widely scattered crashes. Column 3: Estimated total crash reductions of 10% on main roads and 25% on residential or local streets (7).

Long Description. A scale from 0 to 6 where 0 represents ‘Based Primarily on Expert Judgment,’ 6 represents ‘Based Primarily on Empirical Data,’ and 3 represents ‘Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data.’ This guideline ranks a 5 on the scale.

The following table from National Association of City Transportation Officials (2) illustrates how pedestrian crash and fatality potential increase substantially with speed. Speed-calming measures can reduce crash potential by encouraging vehicle speeds that are consistent with the intended design.

EFFECTS OF SPEED ON STOPPING DISTANCE, CRASH POTENTIAL, AND FATALITY POTENTIAL

* Stopping distance includes perception, reaction, and braking times.

Source: National Association of City Transportation Officials (2).

Long Description.

The table has four column headings. Column 1: Speed in miles per hour. Column 2: Stopping Distance in feet. Note that stopping distance includes perception, reaction, and braking times. Column 3: Crash Potential in percent. Column 4: Fatality Potential in percent. The data for each row are as follows: Row 1: 10 to 15; 25; 5; 2. Row 2: 20 to 25; 40; 15; 5. Row 3: 30 to 35; 75; 55; 45. Row 4: 40+; 118; 90; 85.

Discussion

Raised Crosswalk/Speed Table/Raised Intersection. These treatments elevate the crosswalk to the level of the sidewalk and are used to reduce vehicle speeds as they approach the crosswalks (4). Furthermore, they increase visibility of pedestrians and increase driver yielding (1). Typically, these treatments are used at midblock locations and intersections on low-speed local streets, collector roads, and specialty use locations, such as airport drop-off/pick-up zones, and access points to parks, waterfronts, campuses, and shopping centers (1, 4).

Reduce Corner Radius/Crossing Distance. The corner radius at intersections can affect vehicle turning speed. Slower speeds are required to maneuver a turn with a smaller radius. Where possible, a curb radius of 5 to 10 ft. is recommended for urban streets (4). An effective turning radius (i.e., path of a turning vehicle) of 15 to 20 ft. is recommended on urban streets with high pedestrian traffic, and an effective curb radius of 25 to 30 feet may be needed for arterials with buses and trucks (4). One source, however, recommends using stop bar setbacks and parking restrictions rather than large curb radii to facilitate large vehicle turns (2). Zegeer (1) recommends that corner radii should rarely exceed 15 feet. Although a small curb radius can reduce traffic speed, drivers might drive over the curb if the radius is too small in areas with high traffic volume. In addition to speed calming, a smaller curb radius reduces pedestrian crash potential by expanding the pedestrian area in the corner and providing improved pedestrian ramp alignment, shorter pedestrian crossing distances, and better sight distance for both motorists and pedestrians (5).

Road Diet. A road diet entails redesigning a roadway to reduce the number of vehicle lanes in a street. Road diets often allow improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as pedestrian buffer zones, curb extensions for crosswalks, and pedestrian median islands. Road diets have been demonstrated to reduce 85th percentile and average speed by 3 to 7 mi/h, with greater speed reductions occurring in high-traffic areas (6). Furthermore, road diets have been shown to reduce speed variability (6), increase speed limit compliance, and eliminate the multiple-threat scenario at crosswalks (7). Crash modification factors for road diets have been estimated at 0.81 for urban areas and 0.53 in rural areas (8).

Area-Wide Traffic Calming. Area-wide traffic calming uses a comprehensive approach to reducing traffic speed, density, or both using a variety of countermeasures (4). Overall, reduction of area speeds encourages lower speeds at intersection approaches and at midblock crosswalks, encourages more walking, and is associated with less pedestrian injury (7). Area-wide traffic calming measures designed to reduce speeds in urban areas include raised medians, narrow driveways, pinch points, chicanes, lane shifts, lane narrowing, speed humps, 2-way streets, traffic circles, signal timing, traffic diverters, and on-street parking (1, 4). When designing speed limits for urban streets, NACTO recommends using target speed rather than operating speed and applying measures to reduce vehicle operating speeds (2).

Design Considerations

When designing curb radius for speed calming, the effective curb radius must be large enough to accommodate emergency vehicles (1). Speed tables and speed humps can be constructed with gaps wide enough for emergency vehiclesʼ wheels to pass through (4); however, on streets with bicycle lanes, such ‘wheel gaps’ could result in motorists swerving into the bicycle lane to avoid the gap (5). It is recommended that the hump go through the bicycle lane, and only leave a gap at the curb for drainage.

Cross References

Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings

Speed Perception, Speed Choice, and Speed Control, Chapter 14

Key References

INCREASING PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY AND CONSPICUITY AT CROSSWALKS

Introduction

Increasing pedestrian visibility and conspicuity at crosswalks refers to countermeasures that increase driver awareness of the crosswalk, draw attention to pedestrians, and make pedestrians easier to detect. Other countermeasures that also increase pedestrian visibility and conspicuity by raising them above road grade level and/or improving sight lines are curb extensions and raised medians. These countermeasures are discussed in “Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings” on page 24-4. Lighting countermeasures for increasing pedestrian visibility are found in “Characteristics of Lighting that Enhance Pedestrian Visibility,” on page 20-10.

Design Guidelines

Long Description. The table has three column headings. Column 1: Design or Treatment. Column 2: Suggested Conditions for Use. Column 3: Expected Effects Row 1, Column 1: Advance Stop/Yield Lines and Signs. Column 2: Crosswalks at uncontrolled, multilane approaches with parking restrictions. Column 3:Increased visibility of pedestrians (1, 2). Increased motorist scanning for pedestrians (1). Increased motorist stopping/yielding, especially when used in combination with other treatments, such as rectangular rapid-flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons (2). 25% fewer multiple-threat crashes when used alone and 57% when combined with pedestrian hybrid beacons (3). Row 2, Column 1: Parking Restrictions. Column 2: Crosswalks where sight distance is insufficient for driver compliance. Column 3: Increased visibility of pedestrians (1). 30% fewer pedestrian crashes (4). Row 3, Column 1: Gateways. Column 2: Unsignalized crosswalks on low-speed roads with high pedestrian traffic/traffic generators; trail crossings. Column 3: Increase in driver yielding (5). Yielding further from the crosswalk (5). Reduced speeds, even when pedestrians are not present or detected (5).

Long Description. A scale from 0 to 6 where 0 represents ‘Based Primarily on Expert Judgment,’ 6 represents ‘Based Primarily on Empirical Data,’ and 3 represents ‘Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data.’ This guideline ranks a 5 on the scale.

In Figure (a) below, the pedestrian is not visible to the driver of the approaching vehicle because the leading parked vehicle is blocking the line of sight to the pedestrian. In Figure (b), parking has been set back from the crosswalk, which widens the sight triangle for increased visibility to the pedestrian. Also, the advance yield line in Figure (b) provides additional time and stopping distance for the driver to perceive and react to the pedestrian by requiring earlier yielding.

Long Description.

The two illustrations, labeled figure a and figure b, show a sign next to the road with a yield symbol, a pedestrian symbol, and the words “here to” next to a curved arrow. Figure a shows an illustration of a road where parking is allowed near the crosswalk. The yield line and sign are at the crosswalk. A sight triangle extending from the vehicle shows that a pedestrian at the crosswalk is not visible to the approaching traffic. Figure b shows an illustration of a road that has a no parking zone 20 to 50 feet from the crosswalk. The road has an advance yield line and sign. A sight triangle extending from the vehicle shows that a pedestrian at the crosswalk is visible to the approaching traffic.

Discussion

Advance stop/yield lines and signs. Advance stop and yield lines increase the distance ahead of a crosswalk at which drivers are required to stop or yield to allow pedestrians to cross. Requiring vehicles to stop or yield further from the crosswalk increases the stopping sight distance to the pedestrian, which can reduce crash potential in multi-threat situations, where visibility of the pedestrian is occluded by a vehicle in the adjacent lane (e.g., see 1, 2, 6). “Yield Here to Pedestrians” signs combined with advance yield lines have been demonstrated to improve motorist yielding distance, increase pedestrian crosswalk use, and reduce conflicts (7, 8). For uncontrolled multilane approach crosswalks, advance stop/yield lines may be set back from the crosswalk 20 to 50 feet to ensure that a clear sight triangle exists between drivers and pedestrians (6). Also, parking may be prohibited between the stop/yield line and the crosswalk to prevent parked vehicles from obscuring visibility (6, 9). In a field study of advance yield lines, adding one empty parking space between an occluding vehicle parked at the yield line and the crosswalk increased yielding from 8 percent to 27 percent (1). For uncontrolled multilane approach crosswalks, the MUTCD requires that R1-5 series signs (“Stop Here for Pedestrians” or “Yield Here to Pedestrians”) be used in conjunction with stop and yield lines, respectively (6).

Parking Restrictions. Parking restrictions that prohibit vehicles from parking near the intersection can reduce pedestrian crashes by increasing sight distance. The further from the crosswalk that parking is prohibited, the wider the sight triangle becomes, allowing both driver and pedestrian to see each other and react sooner. The minimum recommended setback is 20 feet when speeds are 25 mi/h or less, and 30 feet for speeds between 26 and 35 mi/h. Blackburn, Zegeer, and Brookshire (10) recommend considering using parking restrictions on both crosswalk approaches at all established pedestrian crossings to ensure adequate sight distance for both pedestrians and motorists. Curb extensions can enhance the effect of parking restrictions by offering a larger area for pedestrians to congregate and be seen by drivers.

Gateways. A gateway configuration consists of R1-6 street signs (6) installed in the street on the centerline or pedestrian median island, edges, and lane markers at an intersection or midblock crosswalk. These signs are highly conspicuous because they are placed near driversʼ central vision, regardless of which lane motorists are traveling in. Consequently, the signs increase driver awareness of the crosswalk and remind drivers to watch for and yield to pedestrians. In one study, driver yielding increased from 15 percent before installation of the gateways to 70 percent after treatment, and the effects were consistent long term (5).

Design Considerations

Although improvements in driver yielding rates and distances can be achieved using advance stop/yield lines and “Stop Here for Pedestrians” or “Yield Here to Pedestrians” signs, the effectiveness of these countermeasures may be enhanced by combining them with additional countermeasures. For example, one study (8) found that median refuge islands, refuge islands with Danish offsets (a type of crosswalk design that incorporates an S-shaped median that orients the pedestrianʼs line of sight toward oncoming traffic), high-visibility crosswalk markings, and advance yield lines increased driver yielding and pedestrian use of the crosswalk, and additional crash reduction benefits were found when countermeasures were combined.

Cross References

Determining Stopping Sight Distance

Methods to Increase Driver Yielding at Uncontrolled Crosswalks

Task Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing in a Multiple-Threat Scenario

Key References

SELECTING BEACONS TO INCREASE PEDESTRIAN CONSPICUITY AT CROSSWALKS

Introduction

Selecting beacons to increase pedestrian conspicuity at crosswalks refers to a heuristic for determining whether to use a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) or a rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) at an uncontrolled, marked crosswalk. These pedestrian-activated treatments are used to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians in the crosswalk. As such, PHBs could be considered for every road with a speed limit greater than 40 mi/h. It may be unclear to most safety professionals which treatment offers the best solution in terms of the cost-benefits for a particular location. This guideline provides information for assisting in the choice between using PHBs or RRFBs at locations where engineering studies, traffic warrants, and engineering judgment do not support the installation of full signalization.

Design Guidelines

The decision matrix below, from Hunter-Zaworski and Mueller (2), provides a general framework for determining when to implement PHBs or RRFBs at uncontrolled marked crosswalks. The decision matrix is intended as a suggested starting point for design and should not supersede results of engineering studies, crash history analyses, traffic engineering warrants, and expert engineering judgment when determining which beacon to use, or if to use a beacon. * Note: Only applies to roads for which a median is feasible but not present. FHWA requires the 4 RRFB configuration when a median is present (3). Long Description. The first step is to check if the speed limit is greater than 40 miles per hour. If yes, the suggested treatment is PHB, if no, check if the median is present or feasible. If no or yes, check for obstructed visibility. If yes to obstructed visibility, the suggested treatment is PHB. If no, check if there are more than 3 lanes and high traffic volume. It can be both, either or neither. Then check if located in a high-risk surrounding environment. The suggested treatment for yes and no for both and yes for either is PHB. The suggested treatment for either, no or neither, yes is RFB. The suggested treatment for neither no is XW. If the answer to Median present or feasible is yes, then the suggested treatment is 4 RRFB for all answers to more than 3 lanes and high traffic volume and located in high-risk surrounding environment. If the answer to obstructed visibility is no, the suggested treatment is RRFB if the answer to more than 3 lanes and high traffic volume is either and XW if the answer to more than 3 lanes and high traffic volume is neither. A note applies to RRFB: Only applies to roads for which a median is feasible but not present. FHWA requires the 4 RRFB configuration when a median is present (3). LEGEND Source: Adapted from Hunter-Zaworski and Mueller (2).

Long Description. A scale from 0 to 6 where 0 represents ‘Based Primarily on Expert Judgment,’ 6 represents ‘Based Primarily on Empirical Data,’ and 3 represents ‘Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data.’ This guideline ranks a 2 on the scale.

Discussion

PHBs and RRFBs have been shown to reduce pedestrian crash potential at crosswalks by alerting drivers to the presence of pedestrians in crosswalks. These treatments are inactive (dark) until activated by the pedestrian via pushbutton or by automated pedestrian-detection technology (passive activation). The MUTCD provides warrants and requirements for the use of PHBs, but RRFBs are not yet formally codified in the MUTCD because they are a newer device. At this time, the FHWA has granted interim approval to implement RRFBs in crosswalk designs because they have been shown to be highly effective at improving driver yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks (3).

Whether to install PHBs or RRFBs at some locations may not be obvious because a variety of factors can influence the suitability of the lower-cost RRFBs for different situations (2). Among these factors are traffic volume, number of lanes, speed limit, presence of a median, presence of advance yield or stop signs, high visual clutter, schools, crossing distance, crossing approach, and one- or two-way direction of travel (2, 4).

PHBs are less expensive than traditional midblock signalization with green-yellow-red indication, but they provide similar information and requirements for drivers to stop during the walk interval (solid red). They also minimize delays to vehicular traffic by allowing drivers to continue during the pedestrian clearance interval (flashing red) if the pedestrian is no longer in the driverʼs lane (5). PHBs have been found to consistently produce high yielding rates of 90 percent or greater and fewer pedestrian conflicts (6). Expected crash reductions of 55 percent are associated with PHBs alone and 57 percent when implemented at a location with advance yield and stop markings and signs (7).

When used in appropriate locations, RRFBs have been shown to compare favorably with PHBs and exceed other types of beacons in terms of effectiveness. In one study (8), the installation of RRFBs increased yielding to 88%, and yielding distance also increased compared to yield signs alone. RRFBs were also significantly more effective than both overhead and sign-mounted circular beacons. In another study, average yielding compliance was also 88% (9). By comparison, standard overhead beacons resulted in 15% yielding, and no signal resulted in 10.9% yielding (9).

An evaluation of RRFBs conducted for the Oregon DOT recommends that “RRFBs be installed on medians when side-mounted devices are considered and at locations with posted speeds of 40 mi/h or less unless additional features such as striping, signing, and advance warning RRFBs are used” (2). In addition, they recommend using overhead PHBs in areas that require high compliance and where a side-mounted device is not possible.

Design Considerations

One concern regarding PHBs is that drivers might not fully understand the meaning of the flashing red signal. Surveys of drivers (2, 5) and empirical observations (10) at midblock crosswalks found that most drivers understood the dark and steady red indications, moderately understood the flashing and steady yellow indications, but poorly understood the flashing red indication. The MUTCD (1) provides specific guidance for the use of PHBs and RRFBs. FHWA (3) provides specific requirements and characteristics for implementing RRFBs. To prevent displays from being misunderstood by users, designers should act as “virtual users” before implementation.

Cross References

Countermeasures for Increasing Pedestrian Conspicuity at Crosswalks

Methods to Increase Driver Yielding at Uncontrolled Crosswalks

Methods to Increase Driver Compliance at Uncontrolled Crosswalks

Key References

INFLUENCE OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ON PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SAFETY

Introduction

Influence of the built environment on pedestrian crossing safety refers to factors within the built environment that contribute to the potential for a pedestrian–vehicle crash. This guideline highlights factors in the surrounding environment that have the largest influence on crash potential and provides countermeasures for consideration.

Design Guidelines

The table identifies specific environmental factors, how they affect pedestrian crash potential, and available countermeasures for reducing the potential of pedestrian crashes. The final column provides the page number of related guidelines that provide further information about the countermeasure. Long Description. The table has 4 column headings. Column 1: Environmental Factor. Column 2: Effect on Pedestrian Crash Potential. Column 3: Potential Countermeasure. Column 4: Relevant Guideline. Row 1, Column 1: Pedestrian volume. Column 2: Higher pedestrian volume increases pedestrian exposure to traffic. Column 3: Sidewalks (1). Right turn on red restrictions (2, 3). Leading pedestrian interval (4). Curb extensions (3). Pedestrian overpasses or underpasses (3). Column 4: page 11-4 page 24-4 page 24-4 Row 2, Column 1: Number of Pedestrian Crossings. Column 2: More crossings reduce the crash potential for any individual pedestrian but increase the overall crash frequency. Note: Row 2 shares columns 3 and 4 with Row 1. Row 3, Column 1: Mainline Traffic Volume. Column 2: Pedestrian exposure to traffic increases with traffic volume.. Column 3: Corridor-wide traffic calming (3). Road diet (3).Column 4: page 24-6, page 24-6. Row 4, Column 1: Right-Turn Only Lanes. Column 2: More right-turn only lanes increase pedestrian exposure to turning traffic, where line of sight may be blocked or where drivers’ attention is divided. Column 3: Right turn on red restrictions (2, 3). Column 4: page 11-4 Row 5, Column 1: Non-Residential Driveways Near Intersection. Column 2: Higher density of driveways increases pedestrian exposure to vehicles, where line of sight may be blocked. Column 3: Raised medians to prohibit left turns to and from driveways (5). Small driveway entrance radius (5). Channelized island between in- and out-bound movements (5). Minimize driveway width (5). Sidewalks with clear sight lines (5). Access management. Column 4: page 24-6; page 24-4 Row 6, Column 1: Commercial Properties Near Intersection. Column 2: Higher density of commercial properties increases pedestrian exposure to vehicles, where pedestrians may be unexpected. Note: Row 6 share columns 3 and 4 with Row 5. Row 7, Column 1: Bus Stops. Column 2: Higher density of bus stops means increases in pedestrians waiting in proximity to traffic. Occluded visibility of crossing pedestrians. Column 3: Relocate bus stops (6). Curb extensions (6). Provide adequate sight distance to bus stops and shelters (6). Sidewalks to bus stops (6). Column 4: page 15-10; page 24-4 Row 8, Column 1: Neighborhood Residents Under 18. Column 2: Children are more inexperienced as road users and are more prone to lack caution and be inattentive. Furthermore, small children can be more difficult for drivers to see. Column 3: Corridor-wide traffic calming (3). Dynamic speed feedback signs (7). Provide sidewalks (1). Column 4: page 24-6 Row 9, Column 1: Presence of Median. Column 2: Medians provide a refuge for crossing pedestrians, reducing traffic exposure. Column 3: Raised median (5, 3). Column 4: page 24-4 Row 10, Column 1: Presence of Sidewalks. Column 2: Sidewalks separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic, reducing exposure. Column 3: Sidewalks (1). Wider sidewalks where justified. Column 4: blank.

Long Description. A scale from 0 to 6 where 0 represents ‘Based Primarily on Expert Judgment,’ 6 represents ‘Based Primarily on Empirical Data,’ and 3 represents ‘Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data.’ This guideline ranks a 5 on the scale.

Discussion

The density of pedestrians, vehicular traffic, or both in an area has been positively associated with pedestrian crashes (2, 4). One study found that the likelihood of any one pedestrian being involved in a crash decreased with increased pedestrian density, but the overall number of pedestrian crashes is likely to increase with increased pedestrian density (2).

An examination of pedestrian crash data in Seattle, WA, found that areas with a high density of intersections having four or more legs had more pedestrian crashes and greater crash potential (1). Pedestrian crashes at intersections have also been associated with the number of non-residential driveways near the intersections (2). Each driveway represents a potential point of exposure to pedestrian conflict, and driver attention may be concentrated on interactions with other vehicles rather than looking for pedestrians while entering or exiting the driveway. Raised medians that prevent left turns to and from driveways can reduce pedestrian exposure to conflict with these vehicles (5). The presence of right-turn lanes is associated with higher pedestrian crash frequencies, particularly when a pedestrian island is not present (2, 3). This could be because the additional lane requires longer pedestrian crossing distances and creates a more complex set of interactions between drivers and pedestrians.

The potential for crashes resulting in fatal injury is higher in urban areas with retail, food, entertainment, and accommodation services, where pedestrian activity is likely to be higher. Furthermore, these areas may be associated with behaviors that lead to elevated crash potential, such as driving or walking while intoxicated or speeding (8). Intersections near commercial properties have been associated with increased pedestrian crashes (2). A driverʼs attention may be centered on searching for stores or restaurants, maneuvering into parking spaces, or other driving tasks with elevated cognitive load, rather than on scanning for pedestrians. Also, pedestrians may be crossing outside of crosswalks or between cars to take the most direct route to their destinations (2).

Chen and Zhou (1) found that areas with a higher bus stop density were likely to have more pedestrian crashes than areas with fewer bus stops. Stopped buses may occlude the visibility of crossing pedestrians for other drivers. Furthermore, areas with transit service are likely to encourage more pedestrian use as they walk to and from the bus stop, increasing exposure to pedestrian crashes. An analysis of pedestrian crashes near bus stops found that pedestrians near the bus stop often crossed the street outside of the crosswalk or against the signal, sometimes to avoid missing the bus (9).

Pedestrian demographics also influence pedestrian crash frequencies at intersections, which are greater at intersections near neighborhoods with higher concentrations of children, who lack the experience and maturity to exercise caution when crossing (2). Treatments such as signs and radar-based dynamic speed feedback signs can increase driver awareness of pedestrians and reduce motor vehicle speeds with this population (3, 7). Areas with higher density of sidewalks have lower crash potential and fewer crashes (1). Sidewalks provide separation from vehicular traffic while facilitating pedestrian travel along the same routes as vehicles. Similarly, the presence of medians is associated with fewer pedestrian crashes (2). Medians, especially those with cutouts for pedestrian refuge, allow pedestrians to cross each direction of traffic separately, reducing the complexity of timing their crossing.

Design Considerations

Some of the recommended countermeasures, such as corridor-wide speed calming and road diets, are not individual countermeasures but holistic approaches to design and combinations of multiple countermeasures. Strategic combinations of countermeasures can be more effective than single countermeasures; the key is that the presented messages are clear for all users at all times, regardless of the intersection leg. Countermeasures focused on pedestrian safety may provide benefits to others; for example, improving sight lines to pedestrians could provide crash reduction for bicyclists.

Cross References

Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings

Key References

DESIGN CHALLENGES FOR OLDER PEDESTRIANS

Introduction

Design challenges for older pedestrians refers to roadway designs that may accommodate pedestrians who have physiological and/or cognitive age-related impairments. These pedestrians face a diverse set of challenges, in terms of crash potential, that might not be addressed by standard design practices. Older pedestrians have a higher potential than most younger pedestrians of being involved in crashes and of suffering more severe injury during crashes because of fragile skeletal and tissue systems (1). This guideline contains special considerations for designing pedestrian crossings that help older pedestrians to cross the street in a timely manner. Note that the impairments discussed in this guideline can be caused by issues other than age and can affect younger pedestrians as well as older pedestrians.

Design Guidelines

Long Description. Longer Start-up/Reaction Time: Older pedestrians may have slower reaction times, causing them to take longer to begin crossing and respond more slowly to potential threats. Slower Walking Speeds: Older pedestrians may have a substantially slower walking speed than is accounted for in standard signal timing. This is also true for pedestrians with mobility impairments/disabilities. Cognitive/Behavioral Considerations: Older pedestrians may not be as aware of their surroundings or be cognizant of the increased time it takes them to cross the street. Potential Countermeasures for these issues include the following: Adjust design walking speed to include older pedestrian capabilities when determining pedestrian crossing intervals. Use a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) to give older pedestrians a head start, increasing their visibility and compensating for longer walking start-up times. Apply lane width reduction using lane narrowing, curb extensions, and/or road diet to reduce crossing distance. Use pedestrian hybrid beacons, which require vehicles to stop at midblock or unsignalized crosswalks when pedestrians activate the signal. Provide medians and refuge islands for older pedestrians to focus on one direction of traffic at a time.

Long Description. A scale from 0 to 6 where 0 represents ‘Based Primarily on Expert Judgment,’ 6 represents ‘Based Primarily on Empirical Data,’ and 3 represents ‘Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data.’ This guideline ranks a 5 on the scale.

The figures below compare a potential danger that older pedestrians face when crossing the road, as opposed to younger pedestrians who can cross within the crossing signal time.

Discussion

Longer Start-Up/Reaction Times and Slower Walking Speeds. Some pedestrians have physical and cognitive challenges that increase crash potential when compared to younger pedestrians because they not only have slower walking speeds, but they also take longer to begin crossing, particularly when slowed by the use of walkers and canes or by medical issues such as arthritis (1). Designers in the United States use 1.22 m/s (4.00 ft/s) as the standard for pedestrian crossing speed in their algorithms for crossing signal timing (2). Although this speed may accommodate younger pedestrians who have an average walking speed of 1.32 m/s (4.33 ft/s), the average walking speed for older pedestrians is 1.07 m/s (3.5 ft/s), well below the standard crossing speed used for signal timing (3). Average start-up times for pedestrians under 65 years old were 1.82 seconds compared with 2.39 seconds for pedestrians over 65 years old (2). Reducing crossing distances through lane width reduction can increase their safety by shortening travel lengths and times; adjusting pedestrian crossing signal times can provide more time for crossing (4). Another countermeasure is a leading pedestrian interval (LPI). LPIs give pedestrians a 3–7 second head start to better establish their presence in crosswalks before vehicles get priority to turn left (5). LPIs also increase visibility of crossing pedestrians, increase the likelihood of vehicles yielding to pedestrians, reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, and enhance safety for older pedestrians who are slower to start walking into the intersection (5). An LPI evaluation of 115 sites across three cities showed a 13% reduction in pedestrian crashes (6). Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) may help pedestrians cross busy or high-speed roads at midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections (5). Design of the pedestrian walking zones and clearance intervals might consider older pedestrian walking speeds and start-up/reaction times to provide sufficient time for older pedestrians to cross (5). PHBs implemented at locations with a median refuge can further accommodate older pedestrian needs by providing a two-stage crossing with individual PHBs at each stage (5).

Cognitive/Behavioral Considerations. A study simulating pedestrian road crossing found that a majority of older pedestrians judged their time to cross a single-lane road to be the same as young pedestrians, suggesting that most older pedestrians donʼt recognize the decline in their walking ability (7). Their crossing decisions were the same as those of younger subjects, giving them a relatively smaller margin of error in decision-making to cross with an increased likelihood that the crossing conditions will be less than ideal. Pedestrians, in general, are not sensitive or perceptive to changes in oncoming vehicle speeds. In addition to this, crash potential is elevated for older pedestrians because of their lack of recognition of their declining mobility (7). In another simulated road crossing, older pedestrians showed that when their attention was divided, they were more susceptible to making inappropriate decisions that could lead to crossings with greater crash potential (8). Reducing the complexity of crossing the road by installing pedestrian refuges allows for a crossing movement to occur in two stages, allowing older pedestrians to focus on and cross one direction of traffic at a time (4, 5).

Design Considerations

While it may be desirable to allow enough time for older pedestrians to easily finish a crossing, this must be balanced by maintaining appropriate signal timing for reasonable flow of traffic. At locations where longer signal timings are not feasible, it may be worthwhile to consider other countermeasure ideas that would not impact traffic, such as pedestrian over/underpasses (when justified) or pedestrian refuges. Longer crossing signal periods may lead to more frequent instances where pedestrians “race against” the signal or begin crossing during the “donʼt walk” phase (2).

Cross References

Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicles at Crossings

Countermeasures for Improving Accessibility for Visually Impaired Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections

Key References

PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING SAFETY

Introduction

Though rare, pedestrian-rail crashes are generally caused by pedestrians ignoring warnings, possibly due to inattentiveness, lack of situational awareness, or direct disobedience to catch a train (1). The crash potential at any individual crossing depends on the ability of the crossing design to adequately provide warnings, force the pedestrian to look for trains, or prevent crossings entirely. There are a large number of potential countermeasures for many different crossing situations.

Design Guidelines

Long Description. The table has 5 column headings: Column 1: Category. Column 2: Treatment. Column 3: Appropriate Location. Column 4: Type of Rail Service. Column 5: Passive / Active.. Legend for the data in Column 3: 1 stands for pedestrian-rail crossings adjacent to a motor vehicle crossing. 2 stands for pedestrian rail-grade crossings at stations adjacent to motor vehicle crossings. 3 stands for pedestrian rail-grade crosswalks at stations. 4 stands for pedestrian rail-only crossings. The data by row are as follows: Row 1: General; All; All; Passive. Row 2: General; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Passive. Row 3: Offset pedestrian crossing; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Passive. Row 4: Maze fencing; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Passive. Row 5: Pedestrian fencing; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Passive. Row 6: Between-car barriers; 2, 3; Light rail, commuter rail; Passive. Row 7: Temporary; All; All; Passive. Row 8: Defined pedestrian crossing; All; All; Passive. Row 9: Smooth and Level Surface; All; All; Passive. Row 10: Sight distance improvements; All; All; Passive. Row 11: Stops and Terminal Design; All; All; Passive. Row 12: Illumination; All; All; Passive. Row 13: Pedestrian refuge; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Passive. Row 14: Sidewalk relocation; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Passive. Row 15: On-road bollards; 1, 2; All; Passive. Row 16: Audible crossing warning devices; All; All; Active. Row 17: Pedestrian automatic gates; 1, 2, 4; Light rail, commuter rail; Active. Row 18: Pedestrian automatic gates with horizontal hanging bar; 1, 2, 4; Light rail, commuter rail; Active. Row 19: Pedestrian swing gates; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Active. Row 20: Passive; All; All; Passive. Row 21: Unique warning messages; All; All; Passive. Row 22: Enforcement; All; All; Passive. Row 23: Blank-out warning; All; All; Active. Row 24: Timing considerations near railroad crossings; 1, 2; All; Active. Row 25: Flashing-light signal assembly; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Active. Row 26: In-pavement flashing lights; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Active. Row 27: Pedestrian stop lines; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Passive. Row 28: Detectable warning; All; All; Passive. Row 29: Words or symbol; All; All; Passive. Row 30: Dynamic envelope marking; All; All; Passive. Row 31: Required stop; All; Light rail, commuter rail; Active. Row 32: Reduce train speed; All; All; Active. Row 33: Rail safety ambassador; 2, 3; All; Active.

Long Description. A scale from 0 to 6 where 0 represents ‘Based Primarily on Expert Judgment,’ 6 represents ‘Based Primarily on Empirical Data,’ and 3 represents ‘Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data.’ This guideline ranks a 5 on the scale.

Source: Adapted from Fitzpatrick et al. (1).

Discussion

There are several ways to reduce crashes and increase pedestrian safety around rail crossings. Among the most common countermeasures are implementations of effective barriers and infrastructure.

Barriers. These devices are used to control or restrict the lateral movement of pedestrians, keeping them separate from passing trains at rail crossings. Fencing, in particular, has been shown to be an effective barrier tool as a safeguard between trains and pedestrians. One compilation (2) describes some safety devices being used across the United States for pedestrians at grade crossings. California, for example, uses several channelization strategies to improve pedestriansʼ observations of any approaching trains by creating Z-crossings and fencing around rail crossings. In a review of pedestrian crossing safety countermeasures used in practice (3), Z-crossings, oversized ballasts, bedstead barriers, and fencing were among the tools identified as key safety measures. Z-crossings are designed to channel pedestrians in a way that forces them to look down the tracks while approaching the crossing, and they have a low to moderate cost of installation. Oversized ballasts along ramps and rail corridors discourage pedestrians from taking shortcuts around approved pedestrian crossings and are a low-cost treatment. Bedstead barriers can be used in tight urban spaces to create a maze-like passageway that causes pedestrians to face the direction of approaching rail vehicles and has a low installation cost. Fencing is used to separate the railroad right-of-way from highways and pedestrian walkways, and has a low installation cost, but could have high maintenance costs in the long run.

Infrastructure. Similar to barriers, infrastructure countermeasures are used to block pedestrians from entering into the rail crossing when a train is approaching. However, while barriers control the lateral movement of pedestrians through channelization, infrastructure treatments restrict movement along the direct path of pedestrians using pedestrian swing gates, pedestrian automatic gates, and gate skirts. Swing gates have been shown to draw the attention of pedestrians toward the direction of approaching trains (2). These swing gates have led to reduced incidents of inattention by passengers waiting to board trains in rail station areas. Pedestrian automatic gates are found to be more effective when a secondary horizontal gate arm is installed, called a gate skirt, to further block pedestrians from crossing railroads when a train is approaching (4). After installation, pedestrian rail crossing violations, such as maneuvering underneath or around the gates, dropped from 80% to 45%. Audible crossing warning devices can be a helpful supplement to gate treatments when considering pedestrians with visual impairments and rail crossings where transit vehicles are quiet and ambient noise levels are high (1).

Design Considerations

When implementing any active countermeasure, the countermeasure should communicate with the train and other countermeasures properly so that activation occurs at the appropriate time and does not result in the ‘storage’, or unintentional entrapment of pedestrians or vehicles (5). Furthermore, some of the countermeasures mentioned here may be difficult for elderly pedestrians or pedestrians with disabilities to operate. Any installed countermeasures should be ADA compliant and thoroughly tested, with any necessary adjustments made. The primary cause of pedestrian-rail crashes is pedestrians ‘gate-dashing’ or trying to cross against countermeasures. While more countermeasures may prevent this, one solution is to remove the crossing entirely; over/underpasses can provide secure and convenient crossings. If convenient over/underpass designs are unavailable for the crossing site, crossings can be rerouted to a safer crossing at another location.

Cross References

Rail-Highway Grade Crossings, Chapter 19

Key References

KEY REFERENCES FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES

Introduction

There are numerous resources available to aid in the selection of potential countermeasures at pedestrian crossing locations that experience an unacceptable number of crashes. This guideline summarizes key resources available for finding information about countermeasures that improve pedestrian safety.

Design Guidelines

The following list summarizes and provides a breakdown of relevant chapters from each key reference source for pedestrian crossing countermeasures. Toolbox of Pedestrian Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness (1) Three tables provide crash modification factors that estimate crash reductions associated with 33 pedestrian crash countermeasures. Countermeasures include: Table 1 (Signalized Countermeasures), Table 2 (Geometric Countermeasures), and Table 3 (Signs, Markings, and Operational Countermeasures). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2) NCHRP Synthesis 498 compiles existing practices and resources for improving pedestrian crossing safety. The main chapters include Chapter 2 (Policies Guiding Selection of Pedestrian Crossing Improvements), Chapter 3 (Guidance and Current Practices Regarding Selecting and Prioritizing Pedestrian Improvements), Chapter 4 (Recommended Applications, Effectiveness, and Current Use of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments), and Chapter 5 (Examples of Guidance Tools and Original Case Examples on Provision of Safer Pedestrian Crossings). NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (3) The Streets section describes different designs for streets and accompanying crosswalks given the road setting (e.g., downtown 2-way street, neighborhood main street). The Intersection Design Elements section includes details on the design features of different crosswalks and intersection signalization for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (4) The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices contains various sections associated with pedestrian crossing safety countermeasures. These include Chapter 2B (Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates), Chapter 3B (Pavement and Curb Markings), Chapter 3J (Marking and Delineation of Islands and Sidewalk Extensions), Chapter 4D (Design Features of Traffic Control Signals), Chapter 4I (Pedestrian Control Features), Chapter 4J (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons), and Chapter 6C (Pedestrian and Worker Safety). Part 7 (Sections 7A-7D) is an entire chapter dedicated to traffic control in school areas. Rulings about designs that have not yet been formally codified into the MUTCD are available as interim approvals (see discussion section). Web-Based Tools: PEDSAFE Countermeasure Selection Tool, http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/selectiontool.cfm (5) Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org (6) The following additional resources provide high-quality, useful guidance, but are older, and some countermeasures may not represent the most current designs or policies. NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (7) AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (8) NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians (9)

Long Description. A scale from 0 to 6 where 0 represents ‘Based Primarily on Expert Judgment,’ 6 represents ‘Based Primarily on Empirical Data,’ and 3 represents ‘Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data.’ This guideline ranks a 5 on the scale.

Discussion

The Toolbox of Pedestrian Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness (1) provides estimates of expected crash reductions associated with the application of pedestrian crash countermeasures. The estimates are presented in the form of crash modification factors that, when multiplied by expected crashes without the countermeasure, yield the estimated number of crashes with the countermeasure.

NCHRP Synthesis 498 (2) highlights key resources and tools regarding pedestrian crossing improvements. Examples of emerging guidance and practices at the state and local level are also included.

The NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (3) gives insight into street configurations in different settings and how these varying designs are used by the nationʼs foremost engineers, planners, and designers in cities today. It provides a blueprint for both transforming existing corridors and creating new complete-street designs that integrate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and motor vehicle traffic in urban environments. However, designers should use caution because some treatments in the Urban Street Design Guide are not in compliance with requirements in the MUTCD.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (4) provides uniform standards for the design of all signs, signals, markings, and other devices that are used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic and that are placed on, over, or adjacent to streets, highways, pedestrian facilities, and bikeways. These features on the roadway have a significant impact on pedestrian safety when they are crossing roads.

The PEDSAFE Countermeasure Selection Tool (5) is a web-based tool that allows users to review possible countermeasures to use based on their information provided. The user enters the name of the location, the goal of the treatment, and a description of the site, and the selection tool returns a range of treatments that can be used.

The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse (6) website connects users with countermeasures related to their search terms. The countermeasures are organized into different categories, including pedestrians, bicyclists, shoulder treatments, and more. In the respective subcategories, specific countermeasures are listed, and their characteristics are shown, such as quality, crash type, area type, and more.

NCHRP Report 562 (7) recommends engineering treatments to increase pedestrian safety for crossing high-speed, high-volume roadways at unsignalized intersections.

The AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (8) focuses on identifying safety measures for interactions between pedestrians and traffic as well as appropriate methods for accommodating pedestrians in roadway and facility design.

NCHRP Report 500 (9) aims to reduce the number of crashes involving pedestrians through several strategies addressing different types of crashes.

Design Considerations

None.

Cross References

None.

Key References