Laserfiche WebLink
<br />for 0 as the hourly pedestrian count for computing pedestrian ADT for use in computing pedestrian crash <br />rates. <br /> <br />Unmarked crosswalks (the control sites) tended to have lower pedestrian volumes than marked <br />crosswalks. This may be the result of pedestrians being drawn to marked crosswalks and/or due to <br />crosswalks being marked at locations with more pedestrian activity. <br /> <br />Speed Limit <br /> <br />Speed limits were obtained from local traffic engineers, local data collectors in the field, and watching <br />videotapes of the crosswalk inventory. The most common speed limits were 48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) <br />(37.4 percent), 40.25 km/h (25 mi/h) (33.0 percent), and 56.35km/h (35 mi/h) (22.8 percent). <br /> <br />Traffic ADT <br /> <br />Traffic volumes were obtained from local traffic engineers. Figure 44 shows that marked crosswalks had <br />similar traffic volumes to the unmarked crosswalks (the comparison sites). This was to be expected, <br />because the comparison sites were chosen to be close to, and similar to, their matching marked <br />crosswalks. <br /> <br />STEP 3—IDENTIFY SUITABLE CONTROL SITES <br /> <br />Each crosswalk was matched with a control site that was close to the crosswalk and had similar <br />characteristics (such as number of lanes, area type, estimated traffic and pedestrian volumes, and one-way <br />or two-way traffic flow), but which did not have crosswalk markings, stop sign, or traffic signal. This <br />was done either by watching the video or in the field. For example, if a marked crosswalk was present on <br />the east leg of an intersection but not on the west leg, then the west leg was often a good control site. If <br />the east and west legs of an intersection had marked crosswalks, then the east and west legs of a nearby <br />intersection along the same main road were often good control sites. The data items described in step 2 <br />were recorded for the control sites. <br /> <br />Some marked crosswalks were excluded because suitable control sites could not be found, or they were <br />school crossings. A total of 1,000 marked crosswalks, each matched with a control site (for a total of <br />1,000 control sites), was used in the analysis. The number of crosswalks by city is given in table 13. <br /> <br />STEP 4—COUNT PEDESTRIANS <br /> <br />Local data collectors were hired to count the number of pedestrians at the crosswalks and their <br />corresponding control sites. Each location was counted in 15-minute intervals for one hour. At 11 <br />crosswalks and 11 control sites, pedestrians were counted for 8 to 12 hours. These longer, all-day counts <br />were used as the basis from which daily pedestrian volumes at each crosswalk and control site were <br />estimated from the one-hour counts. All counts were done on weekdays. <br /> <br />STEP 5—OBTAIN CRASH DATA <br /> <br />Local city contacts provided crash data and hard-copy police reports for vehicle-pedestrian crashes that <br />occurred at or near the crosswalks and comparison sites, for an average of about 5 years per site. Some <br />cities had more than 5 years of crash data available, while other cities had 6 years of data that was <br />available for use. <br />68