My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#02 - Cross Walk Discussion
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020's
>
2024
>
04-09-24 W
>
#02 - Cross Walk Discussion
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2025 1:20:56 PM
Creation date
8/16/2024 2:15:42 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
240
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> 17 <br />In short, using either analysis approach—grouping comparison sites or using an analysis that matches <br />marked and unmarked sites—produced nearly identical results. The discussion below includes results of <br />both analysis approaches. <br /> <br />Estimation of Daily Pedestrian Volume <br /> <br />At each of the 2,000 crossing sites, at least 1 hour-long count of pedestrian street crossings was <br />conducted. Based on the time of day of the count, an expansion factor was used to compute an <br />approximate pedestrian ADT. At a given observation site, i, a count ni is made of pedestrians crossing the <br />street during some interval of time Ti. Now, from a standard pedestrian volume by time of day <br />distribution, the proportion pi of daily pedestrian traffic expected during Ti can be determined. If ni ≠ 0, <br />an estimate of the daily total pedestrian volume is made by, Ni = ni/pi. <br /> <br />This estimate has the property that if Ni was known, then the estimated pedestrian volume during the <br />interval Ti would be Nipi = ni, the observed number. <br /> <br />A detailed discussion of how pedestrian ADTs were determined based on short-term pedestrian crossing <br />counts is given in appendix A. <br /> <br />Calculation of Pedestrian Crash Rates <br /> <br />Assuming that motor vehicle volumes, speeds, and other site features remain constant, it is reasonable to <br />expect that the number of pedestrian crashes will increase as the number of pedestrians crossing the street <br />(pedestrian exposure) increases. When comparing sites to see which has the greatest risk of a pedestrian <br />crash, it is necessary to control for the number of pedestrians. The pedestrian crash rate is a more <br />appropriate measure of safety than the total number of pedestrian crashes for comparing the relative <br />safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks, particularly since pedestrian crossing volumes differ at <br />marked and unmarked crosswalks. In this study, crash rates were calculated in terms of crashes per <br />million pedestrian crossings. For example, if an average of 1,000 pedestrians cross an intersection every <br />day, then there will be 365,000 (or 0.365 million) pedestrian crossings in a year. The number of <br />pedestrian crashes in a year is then divided by 0.365 million times the number of years to get the <br />pedestrian crash rate. <br /> <br />Determination of Crash-Related Variables <br /> <br />The following analysis was conducted to determine which traffic and roadway variables have a significant <br />effect on pedestrian crashes. Table 1 shows some summary values of pedestrian volumes and crashes for <br />marked and unmarked crosswalks categorized by number of lanes. <br /> <br />For each marked crosswalk, a closely matched unmarked comparison site was chosen—usually a nearby <br />site on the same street. Quite often, the comparison site was the opposite approach to the same <br />intersection (on the same road). As a result of this matching, the distributions of site characteristics, <br />including traffic volumes, should be essentially the same for marked and unmarked sites. Pedestrian <br />volumes were recorded at a marked crosswalk and its matched unmarked location at essentially the same <br />time of day and for an equal period of time. Thus, pedestrian volumes were free to vary between marked <br />and unmarked sites but were collected in such a way as to represent equal proportions of expected daily <br />pedestrian traffic at the respective locations.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.