Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Figure 12. Crosswalk marking patterns. <br /> <br />Pedestrian counts were collected simultaneously for 1 hour at each of the crosswalk and comparison sites. <br />Full-day (8- to 12-hour) counts were conducted at a sample of the sites and were used to develop <br />adjustment factors by area type (urban, suburban, fringe) and by time of day. The adjustment factors <br />were then used to determine estimated daily pedestrian volumes in a manner similar to that used by many <br />cities and States to expand short-term traffic counts to average annual daily traffic (AADT). Performing <br />the volume counts simultaneously at each crosswalk site and its matched comparison site helped to <br />control for time-related influences on pedestrian exposure. Further details of the data collection <br />methodology are given in appendix A. <br /> <br />STATISTICAL ANALYSIS <br /> <br />Analysis Approach <br /> <br />This study was structured to address a variety of questions related to crosswalks and pedestrian crashes. <br />The primary analysis question was, “What are the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks?” <br /> <br />Several other analysis questions needed to be answered as well, including: <br /> <br />• What traffic and roadway features have a significant effect on pedestrian cashes? Specifically, how <br />are pedestrian crashes affected by traffic volume, pedestrian volume, number of lanes, speed limit, <br />presence and types of median, area type, type of crosswalk marking, condition of marked crosswalks, <br />and other factors? <br /> <br />• Do pedestrian crashes differ significantly in different cities and/or regions of the country? <br /> <br />• How does pedestrian crash risk differ by pedestrian age group? <br /> <br />The amount of pedestrian crash data varied somewhat from city to city and averaged approximately 5 <br />years per site (typically from about January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1998). Police crash reports were <br />obtained from each of the cities except for Seattle, WA, (where detailed computerized printouts were <br />obtained for each crash). Crashes were carefully reviewed to assign crash types to ensure accurate <br />matching of the correct location and to determine whether the crash occurred at the crossing location (i.e., <br />at or within 6.1 m (20 ft) of the marked or unmarked crossing of interest). <br /> <br />Standard pedestrian crash typology was used to review police crash reports and determine the appropriate <br />pedestrian crash types (e.g., multiple threat, midblock dartout, intersection dash), as discussed later in this <br /> 15