|
<br /> 14
<br />Test sites were chosen without any prior knowledge of their crash history. School crossings were not
<br />included in this study because the presence of crossing guards and/or special school signs and markings
<br />could increase the difficulty of quantifying the safety effects of crosswalk markings.
<br />
<br />Test sites were selected from the following cities:
<br />
<br />• East: Cambridge, MA; Baltimore, MD (city and county); Pittsburgh, PA; Cleveland, OH;
<br /> Cincinnati, OH.
<br />
<br />• Central: Kansas City, MO; Topeka, KS; Milwaukee, WI; Madison, WI; St. Louis, MO (city and
<br />county).
<br />
<br />• South: Gainesville, FL; Orlando, FL; Winter Park, FL; New Orleans, LA; Raleigh, NC; Durham, NC.
<br />
<br />• West: San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA.
<br />
<br />• Southwest: Austin, TX; Ft. Worth, TX; Phoenix, AZ; Scottsdale, AZ; Glendale, AZ; Tucson, AZ;
<br />Tempe, AZ.
<br />
<br />Detailed information was collected at each of the 2,000 sites, including pedestrian crash history (average
<br />of 5 years per site), daily pedestrian volume estimates, ADT volume, number of lanes, speed limit, area
<br />type, type of median, type and condition of crosswalk marking patterns, location type (midblock or
<br />intersection), and other site characteristics. It was recognized that pedestrian crossing volumes would
<br />likely be different in marked and unmarked crosswalks. This study design involved collecting pedestrian
<br />volume counts at each of the 2,000 sites, and controlled for differences in pedestrian crossing exposure.
<br />The study computed pedestrian crashes per million crossings to normalize the crash data for pedestrian
<br />crossing volumes, as described below in more detail.
<br />
<br />All of the 1,000 marked crosswalks had one of the marking patterns shown in figure 12 (i.e., none had a
<br />brick pattern for the crosswalk). Of the 2,000 crosswalks, 1,622 (81.2 percent) were at intersections; the
<br />others were at midblock. Very few of the marked crosswalks had any type of supplemental pedestrian
<br />warning signs. While not much information currently exists on the safety effects of various types of
<br />warning signs (under various conditions), a behavioral evaluation of several innovative signs performed
<br />in 2000 by Huang et al. may be found at www.walkinginfo.org/rd.(25) Furthermore, none of the test sites
<br />had traffic-calming measures or special pedestrian devices (e.g., in-pavement flashing lights). Estimates
<br />of daily pedestrian volumes at each crosswalk site and unmarked comparison site were determined based
<br />on pedestrian volume counts at each site, which were expanded to estimated daily pedestrian volume
<br />counts based on hourly adjustment factors. Specifically, at each of the 2,000 crossing locations, trained
<br />data collectors conducted onsite counts of pedestrian crossings and classified pedestrians by age group
<br />based on observations.
|