The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#02 - Cross Walk Discussion STAFF REPORT DATE: 4/9/2024 REGULAR TO: City Council Workshop FROM: Marty Powers, Public Works Director AGENDA ITEM: Cross Walk Policy Discussion REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator BACKGROUND: After receiving resident request for improving Cross Walk Safety near Arbor Glen Senior Living in 2023, the Mayor and two City Council members have asked staff to add to the April Work shop agenda, a discussion to determine if a Crosswalk Policy is needed. On average, staff receives two or three crosswalk safety improvement requests each year from residents. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Determine if a Cross Walk Policy needed and if so, what would Council like to include in it. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Currently the City does not have a policy to determine when and where specific crosswalk safety devices are to be used or added. Past practice in Lake Elmo has been to defer to Washington County/MnDOT for crosswalk determinations, since crosswalk markings are generally limited to higher volume roadways, and unmarked crosswalks are standard in residential neighborhoods and for lower volume roadways. Studies tend to show that excessive signage and paint markings, in particular within residential neighborhoods, are not always effective and often ignored or neglected. The sheriff Department has indicated there have been no reports in the last five years of a pedestrian being stuck while crossing a city street in Lake Elmo. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time OPTIONS: If Council wishes to see a crosswalk policy implemented, please provide staff with direction on where to use what safety devices, so staff can bring a policy back to a council meeting for approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. MUTCD 2. MN LRRB 3. FHWA 4. MNDOT CW policy 5. Albert Lee CW policy 6. Woodbury CW policy 7. Eagan CW policy 8. Blain CW policy 9. Additional Technical Ped safety crossing links U nco ntro lledPed estrian C ro ssw alk Quick Reference Guide Authors: Kate Miner and Tim Arvidson, Stonebrooke Engineering Produced for the Minnesota Local Road Research Board May 2020 2020RIC01G lrrb.org Intro d u ctio n A consistent approach and m ethods for treating uncontrolled crosswalks in M innesota w ill im prove p edestrian safety throughout the state. This quick reference guide helps local agencies select appropriate crosswalk treatm ents based on roadway typ e, vehicle volum es and p osted sp eed lim its. The fo llo w ing tw elve co u nterm easu res are id entified , alo ng w ith their b enefits and d esign, co st, and lo catio n co nsid eratio ns: • Advance Stop H ere for Pedestrians sign and stop line • C rosswalk lighting • C rosswalk pavem ent m arking • C rosswalk warning signs • C urb extension • In-street p edestrian crossing sign • Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach • Pedestrian hybrid b eacon • Pedestrian refuge island • Raised crosswalks • Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4- to 3- lane conversion Exam p les are p ro vid ed fo r vario u s ro ad w ay segm ents b ased o n the fo llo w ing criteria: • N um b er of lanes in each direction - Two lanes - Three lanes w ith raised m edian - Three lanes w ithout raised m edian - Four or m ore lanes w ith raised m edian - Four or m ore lanes w ithout raised m edian • Average annual daily traffi c (AAD T ) - Less than 9,000 - 9,000 to 15,000 - G reater than 15,000 • Sp eed - Less than or equal to 30 m ph - 35 m ph - G reater than or equal to 40 m ph Each exam ple lists the counterm easures that should always b e considered, those that should also b e considered and those that should b e used only in conjunction w ith other counterm easures. N ote: Treatm ents in the “always consider” and “also consider” categories are not m andated or required. Agencies should also review safety issues, surrounding land developm ent, p edestrian travel patterns, counterm easure effectiveness and costs w hen considering appropriate counterm easures for the crossing. This guide was develop ed based on guidance from the Federal H ighway Adm inistration (FH WA) and the Pedestrian C rosswalk Policy D evelopm ent G uidelines (Rep ort 2020RIC 01), a Local Road Research Board study that aim s to im prove p edestrian safety at uncontrolled crosswalks. The rep ort is available along w ith this quick reference guide at lrrrb.o rg Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians Sign and Stop Line Source: www.pedbikesafe.com / Toole Design Group B enefits: 25% reduction in pedestrian crashes • Reduces risk of multiple threat crash • Reduces vehicle encroachment into crosswalk Best Locations: • 3 or more lanes • Speeds greater than 35 mph • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Design Considerations: • See also MnMUTCD Section 2B.11 and 3B.16 • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps Planning Level Cost (2019): •$1,500 per location Source: FHWA Source: www.pedbikesafe.com / Peter Lagerwey Benefit: • Improves sightlines of pedestrians and motorists Parking Restrictions on Crosswalk Approach Best Location: • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Planning Level Cost (2019): • Less than $1,000 per location Source: FHWA Design Considerations: • Parking resolution may be needed from local agency • State law prohibits parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk • Agencies are encouraged to develop a policy on curb color use if coloring is desired Crosswalk Lighting Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Brandon Whyte Benefit: 59%reduction in pedestrian injury crashes Best Location: • Nighttime visibility of pedestrians is a concern Design Considerations: • Place lights before the crossing to avoid creating a silhouette • Use uniform lighting levels within crosswalk area Planning Level Cost (2019): • $10,000 to 42,000 per crosswalk Source: FHWA Crosswalk Pavement Marking Benefit: • Indicates preferred pedestrian crossing location Best Locations: • Convenient for pedestrian access • Low-volume roadways • Low-speed roadways Design Considerations: • High-visibility crosswalks preferred over parallel line crosswalks • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps • Pavement marking materials Planning Level Cost (2019): • $600 to $5,700, Average $2,500 Source: FHWA Crosswalk Warning Signs Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Dan Burden Benefit: • Provides helpful information to motorists and pedestrians who are unfamiliar with the area Best Location: • Pedestrian crossing not expected by motorists Design Considerations: • Design must comply with MnMUTCD • Signs must provide adequate retroreflectivity • Crosswalk warning signs must fit with the location of other signsPlanning Level Cost (2019): • Less than $1,000 per crossing Source: FHWA Curb Extension Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Andy Hamilton Benefits: • Reduces pedestrian crossing distance • Increases visibility of pedestrians to motorists • Slows vehicle speeds at turns, increasing safety for all modes • Can be used with unmarked crosswalk Best Locations: • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians •Vehicle speeds causing problems • On-street parking or shoulders exist Design Considerations: • Must not block bicycle lanes • Must facilitate drainage • Must not extend into travel lanes • Must meet turning movement needs of larger vehicles • Accessibility: ADA-compliant rampsPlanning Level Cost (2019): • Range $2,000 - $20,000, Average $13,000 Source: FHWA In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Peter Speer Benefits: • Reminds road users of right of way laws • May reduce vehicle speeds, especially if used in a gating fashion Best Locations: • 3 lanes or fewer • Speeds less than 30 mph • Drivers not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk • Vehicle speeds causing problems Design Considerations: • Must maintain and promptly replace damaged signs • Become less effective over time as drivers become used to signs • See also MnMUTCD Section 2B.12 • Must comply with AASHTO breakaway requirements if placed within roadway • Accessibility: Signs must not be placed in middle of crosswalk Planning Level Cost (2019): • Less than $1,000 per location Source: FHWA Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Mike Cynecki Benefits: 55%reduction in pedestrian crashes • Improves motorist yielding for pedestrians by 90% Best Locations: • AADT greater than 9,000 • 3 or more lanes • Speeds greater than 40 mph • Traffic signal warrants not being met • Midblock crossings (most common); also successful at intersections • Drivers not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians • Traffic volumes not providing adequate safe gaps for pedestrians to enter the crosswalk Design Considerations: • Proximity of closest signalized intersection • Cost compared to a signal • Power source or solar power required • Impact on traffic during operation • Accessibility: ADA compliant ramps, push buttons and audible component Planning Level Cost (2019): •Range $21,000 - $128,000, Average $57,700 Source: FHWA Pedestrian Refuge Island Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / TooleDesign Benefits: 32% reduction in pedestrian crashes • Reduces pedestrian delay • Reduces/eliminates multiple threat risk • Reduces crossing distance • May influence driver behavior by visually narrowing roadway • Can be used with unmarked crosswalk Best Locations: • Multiple-lane roadways • High-volume roadways • High-speed roadways • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians • Vehicle speeds causing problems Design Considerations: • Island width: minimum of 4 feet • Preferred island width: 8 feet • Must facilitate drainage • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps Planning Level Cost (2019): • $2,140 - $41,170, Average $13,520 Source: FHWA Raised Crosswalk Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Penn. Dept. of Transportation Benefit: 45% reduction in pedestrian crashes Best Locations: • Local and collector streets • 2- or 3- lane roadways • Speeds of 30 mph or less • AADT less than 9,000 • Regional trail crossing • Drivers not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk • Vehicle speeds causing problems • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Design Considerations: • Avoid truck routes, bus transit routes, emergency routes and arterial streets • Ensure appropriate width (typically10 feet to allow front and rear wheels of a passenger vehicle to be on the table at the same time) • Consider snowplowing needs • Must facilitate drainage • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps Planning Level Cost (2019): • $7,110 - $30,880 (Average $8,170) Source: FHWA Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / TooleDesign Benefit: 47% reduction in pedestrian crashes • Motorist yielding rates as high as 98% Best Locations: • Multilane roadways •Two-lane, one-way streets • Posted speeds less than 40 mph • Drivers not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Design Considerations: • Power source or solar power required • FHWA interim approval for use; Minnesota has submitted a request for statewide approval • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps, push buttons and audible components Planning Level Cost (2019): • $4,500 to $52,000, Average $22,250 Source: FHWA 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Benefits: 47%* reduction in all crash types *FHWA sites a range of 19 to 47% • Provides opportunity for shoulder and/or bike lane • Reduces crossing distance • Reduces risk of multiple threat crash Best Locations: • Roads that have 4 or more lanes without a raised median • AADT less than 20,000 (most successful; but can also be successful where AADT is greater than 20,000) • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Design Considerations: • Current and future vehicle operations • Roadside stops (mail, trash, transit, etc.) • Corridorwide considerations Planning Level Cost (2019): •$25,000 - $40,000/mile Source: FHWA 2 Lanes AADT: < 9,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Raised crosswalk • Pedestrian refuge island • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 2 Lanes AADT: 9,000-15,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 2 Lanes AADT: > 15,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 3 Lanes With Raised Median AADT: < 9,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Raised crosswalk • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 3 Lanes With Raised Median AADT: 9,000-15,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Curb extension Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 3 Lanes With Raised Median AADT: >15,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Curb extension • Curb extension Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 3 Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: < 9,000 (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Raised crosswalk • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 3 Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: 9,000-15,000 (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 3 Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: >15,000 (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 4+ Lanes With Raised Median AADT: <9,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 4+ Lanes With Raised Median AADT: 9,000-15,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 4+ Lanes With Raised Median AADT: >15,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 4+ Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: <9,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 4+ Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: 9,000-15,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs 4+ Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: >15,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs Published by the M innesota Local Road Research Board M inneso ta D ep artm ent o f Transp o rtatio n, O ffi ce of Research & Innovation, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, M S 330 St. Paul, M innesota 55155 lrrb.o rg Putting Research Into Practice: Selecting Pedestrian Crosswalk Treatments Using countermeasures at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings enhances pedestrian mobility and safety. New policy guidance for Minnesota local agencies provides a uniform approach to identifying locations for crosswalks and installing them. The practical methods offered in the guide can be easily implemented throughout the state. IMPLEMENTATIONSUMMARY 2020RIC01TS Published June 2020 Questions? Contact research.dot@state.mn.us. Technical Liaison: Marc Culver, City of Roseville Marc.Culver@ci.roseville.mn.us Principal Investigator: Kate Miner, Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. LRRB PROJECT COST: $58,901 In-street pedestrian signs can force drivers to slow and yield right of way. What Was the Need? Road agencies throughout Minnesota have been encourag- ing multimodal transportation such as walking, bicycling and transit. These alternative means of transportation offer many benefits, including improved public health, reduced traffic congestion, cleaner air and water, and improved access to workplaces, schools and public facilities. According to recent statistics from the state Department of Public Safety, pedestrian safety is improving. In 2018, there were 1,017 motor vehicle crashes in Minnesota that injured or killed at least one pedestrian, a decrease of 4% from the previous year. Despite this reduction, the number of traffic crashes involving pedestrians remains a public safety concern. Drivers in Minnesota must yield to pedestrians at intersec- tions, even in unmarked crosswalks. But Minnesota lacks a fully consistent policy or shared policy for pedestrian crossings. Road agencies typically select locations and de- signs of crosswalks and other pedestrian facilities without uniform guidance from national or state sources. A uniform approach to crosswalk design throughout the state would improve driver familiarity with pedestrian crossings and may well improve pedestrian safety. Local agencies could then choose the location and design of uncontrolled crosswalks (those without a stop sign or pedestrian-activated lights to signal vehicle operators). What Was Our Goal? The goal of this Local Road Research Board (LRRB) project was to develop guidance that would assist local road agencies in choosing the location and design of pedestri- an crossings based on relevant factors, enhancing statewide consistency in crosswalk design. What Did We Implement? Investigators developed guidance for selecting and designing crosswalk facilities based on roadway type, vehicle volumes and posted speed limits. The user-friendly quick ref- erence tool offers a standardized approach to crosswalk design with practical methods that can be easily implemented by local agencies throughout the state. How Did We Do It? Investigators worked with urban, suburban and rural transportation agency representa- tives who had been directly involved in decisions to locate and select suitable crosswalk configurations. The project team members determined that agency size, resources and other factors have shaped policy on where to locate crosswalks, and they agreed that crosswalk decisions need to remain a matter of local agency discretion rather than a centralized directive. Team members then reviewed best practices and policy from several agencies and authorities, including El Cerrito, California; Boulder, Colorado; Albert Lea, Blaine and Mankato, Minnesota; and Hennepin County, Minnesota. They also reviewed guidelines OFFICE OF RESEARCH & INNOVATION continued from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other recent research. The 2018 FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations is a direct source of information for the new quick reference guide. In addition to reviewing these resources, investigators surveyed Minnesota cities and counties about policy and practice, administrative perspectives and field installations. The survey was conducted both to gather information from these agencies and to inform them about the crosswalk project and the new guidelines it would produce. Responses from 56 cities and 45 counties created an informed market for the quick reference guide. In the right place, crosswalks with curb extensions increase pedestrian visibility to motorists while shortening the crossing distance. What Was the Impact? The Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk: Quick Reference Guide presents 12 crosswalk treatments, including crosswalk warning signs, raised crosswalks, in-street signs, curb ex- tensions and rapid-flashing beacons. Fact sheets for each of the 12 treatments describe safety and design benefits, best locations, design considerations and planning-level costs. Additional charts help decision-makers choose the best treatment for a specific applica- tion based on: • Road size. The number of lanes in each direction of the road that pedestrians cross: two lanes, three lanes with a raised median, three lanes without a raised median, four or more lanes with a raised median, and four or more lanes without a raised median. • Traffic level. Three levels of annual average daily traffic (AADT): less than 9,000 vehi- cles AADT; 9,000 to 15,000 vehicles AADT; and greater than 15,000 AADT. • Speed limit. Three posted speed limits: less than or equal to 30 mph, 35 mph, and 40 mph or greater. Statewide use of the guide is expected to improve crosswalk uniformity for travelers and help reduce pedestrian fatalities. What’s Next? Investigators presented the quick reference guide at the March 2020 Minnesota Transportation Conference and plan to present it at an upcoming American Public Works Association conference. LRRB will also distribute the guide to city and county agencies throughout Minnesota. “This guide will help practitioners maintain consistency and credibility as they talk to elected officials and the public about crosswalk treatments that should and should not be used in certain situations.” —Marc Culver, Public Works Director, City of Roseville “This quick reference guide will help local agencies choose crosswalk treatments based on the community’s needs, costs and other relevant details.” —Kate Miner, Traffic Engineering Group Manager, Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. This Implementation Summary pertains to Report 2020RIC01, “Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy Development Guidelines,” published May 2020. The full report can be accessed at mndot.gov/research/reports/2020/2020RIC01.pdf. The “Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk: Quick Reference Guide” can be accessed at mndot.gov/research/reports/2020/2020RIC01G.pdf. Produced by CTC & Associates for: Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Research & Innovation MS 330, First Floor 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 651-366-3780 www.mndot.gov/research Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Final Report and Recommended Guidelines FHWA PUBLICATION NUMBER: HRT-04-100 SEPTEMBER 2005 Research, Development, and Technology Tu rner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 FOREWORD The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program’s overall goal is to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. From better crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian technologies to expanding public educational and safety programs, FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program strives to pave the way for a more walkable future. The following document presents the results of a study that examined the safety of pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks and provides recommended guidelines for pedestrian crossings. The crosswalk study was part of a large FHWA study, “Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities,” that has produced a number of other documents regarding the safety of pedestrian crossings and the effectiveness of innovative engineering treatments on pedestrian safety. It is hoped that readers also will read the reports documenting the results of the related pedestrian safety studies. The results of this research will be useful to transportation engineers, planners, and safety professionals who are involved in improving pedestrian safety and mobility. Michael F. Trentacoste Director, Office of Safety Research and Development NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. FHWA–HRT–04–100 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 5. Report Date August 2005 4. Title and Subtitle Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s): Charles V. Zegeer, J. Richard Stewart, Herman H. Huang, Peter A. Lagerwey, John Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell 8. Performing Organization Report No. 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center 730 Airport Rd., CB # 3430 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430 11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61–92–C–00138 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report: October 1996–March 2001 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Office of Safety Research and Development Federal Highway Administration 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes This report is part of a larger study for FHWA entitled “Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities.” FHWA Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives (COTRs): Carol Tan and Ann Do, HRDS. 16. Abstract Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and they should, therefore, be able to use this system safely. Pedestrian needs in crossing streets should be identified, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. The purpose of this study was to determine whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under various traffic and roadway conditions. Another objective was to provide recommendations on how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians. This study involved an analysis of 5 years of pedestrian crashes at 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 matched unmarked comparison sites. All sites in this study had no traffic signal or stop sign on the approaches. Detailed data were collected on traffic volume, pedestrian exposure, number of lanes, median type, speed limit, and other site variables. Poisson and negative binomial regressive models were used. The study results revealed that on two-lane roads, the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location was associated with no difference in pedestrian crash rate, compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Further, on multilane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone (without other substantial improvements) was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate (after controlling for other site factors) compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Raised medians provided significantly lower pedestrian crash rates on multilane roads, compared to roads with no raised median. Older pedestrians had crash rates that were high relative to their crossing exposure. More substantial improvements were recommended to provide for safer pedestrian crossings on certain roads, such as adding traffic signals with pedestrian signals when warranted, providing raised medians, speed-reducing measures, and others. 17. Key Words Marked crosswalk, safety, pedestrian crashes 18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. 19 Security Classification (of this report) Unclassified 20. Security Classification (of this page) Unclassified 21. No. of Pages 112 22. Price Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC or (F-32)/1.8 ILLUMINATION fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF ILLUMINATION lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2 *SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. e (Revised March 2003) ii iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION .........................................................................1 HOW TO USE THIS STUDY ..................................................................................................................1 WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A CROSSWALK?..............................................................2 Why Are Marked Crosswalks Controversial?......................................................................................3 Where Are Crosswalks Typically Installed?.........................................................................................3 STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE ...................................................................................................4 PAST RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................................4 Crash Studies ........................................................................................................................................4 Behavioral Studies Related to Marked Crosswalks ..............................................................................8 Behavioral Studies Related to Crosswalk Signs and Other Treatments ...............................................9 CHAPTER 2. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .........................................13 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................15 Analysis Approach ..............................................................................................................................15 Statistical Techniques .........................................................................................................................16 Estimation of Daily Pedestrian Volume .............................................................................................17 Calculation of Pedestrian Crash Rates ................................................................................................17 Determination of Crash-Related Variables .........................................................................................17 Comparisons of Pedestrian Age Distribution Effects .........................................................................24 COMPARISONS OF CROSSWALK CONDITIONS ...........................................................................25 Pedestrian Crash Severity on Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks .....................................................25 FINAL PEDESTRIAN CRASH PREDICTION MODEL .....................................................................25 Pedestrian Crash Plots ........................................................................................................................27 CHAPTER 3. STUDY RESULTS .............................................................................................................35 SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES ................................................................................................................35 MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALK COMPARISONS .......................................................36 CRASH TYPES ......................................................................................................................................39 CRASH SEVERITY ...............................................................................................................................43 LIGHTING AND TIME OF DAY .........................................................................................................44 AGE EFFECTS .......................................................................................................................................46 DRIVER AND PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOR AT CROSSWALKS .......................................................49 CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................49 GUIDELINES FOR CROSSWALK INSTALLATION.........................................................................51 GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................52 POSSIBLE MEASURES TO HELP PEDESTRIANS ...........................................................................55 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................60 Distance of Marked Crosswalks from Signalized Intersections .........................................................60 Alternative Treatments .......................................................................................................................61 APPENDIX A. DETAILS OF DATA COLLECTION METHODS .........................................................63 STEP 1—INVENTORY CROSSWALKS AND CONTROL SITES ....................................................63 STEP 2—RECORD DATA ON INVENTORY SHEETS .....................................................................63 Location Description...........................................................................................................................63 Number of Lanes ................................................................................................................................63 Median Type.......................................................................................................................................63 iv One-Way or Two-Way .......................................................................................................................64 Type of Crosswalk ..............................................................................................................................66 Condition of Crosswalk Markings ......................................................................................................66 Area Type ...........................................................................................................................................66 Estimated Pedestrian ADT..................................................................................................................66 Speed Limit .........................................................................................................................................68 Traffic ADT ........................................................................................................................................68 STEP 3—IDENTIFY SUITABLE CONTROL SITES ..........................................................................68 STEP 4—COUNT PEDESTRIANS .......................................................................................................68 STEP 5—OBTAIN CRASH DATA .......................................................................................................68 APPENDIX B. STATISTICAL TESTING OF THE FINAL CRASH PREDICTION MODEL..............71 GOODNESS-OF-FIT..............................................................................................................................71 TEST FOR FUNCTIONAL FORM........................................................................................................71 RESIDUALS...........................................................................................................................................72 MULTICOLLINEARITY .......................................................................................................................72 APPENDIX C. PLOTS OF EXPECTED PEDESTRIAN CRASHES BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL ................................................................................73 APPENDIX D. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN CRASHES (IN 5 YEARS) BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL ...........................................................83 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................103 v LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Pedestrians have a right to cross the road safely and without unreasonable delay.......................1 Figure 2. A zebra crossing used in Sweden.................................................................................................6 Figure 3. Sign accompanying zebra crossings in Sweden...........................................................................6 Figure 4. Pedestrian crash rates for the three crossing types by age group..................................................7 Figure 5. High visibility crossing with pedestrian crossing signs in Kirkland, WA..................................11 Figure 6. Experimental pedestrian regulatory sign in Tucson, AZ............................................................11 Figure 7. Overhead crosswalk sign in Clearwater, FL...............................................................................11 Figure 8. Overhead crosswalk sign in Seattle, WA. ..................................................................................11 Figure 9. Example of overhead crosswalk sign used in Canada................................................................11 Figure 10. Regulatory pedestrian crossing sign in New York State..........................................................11 Figure 11. Cities and States used for study sample....................................................................................13 Figure 12. Crosswalk marking patterns.....................................................................................................15 Figure 13. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus pedestrian ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model..................................................................................................................................................29 Figure 14. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model (pedestrian ADT = 300)......................................................................................................................30 Figure 15. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for five-lane roads (no median) based on the final model..........................................................................................................................................31 Figure 16. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus pedestrian ADT for five-lane roads (with median) based on the final model...............................................................................................................................32 Figure 17. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for five-lane roads (with median) based on the final model (pedestrian ADT = 250)...................................................................................................33 Figure 18. Pedestrian crash rate versus type of crossing...........................................................................37 Figure 19. Pedestrian crash rates by traffic volume for multilane crossings with no raised medians— marked versus unmarked crosswalks..................................................................................................38 Figure 20. Percentage of pedestrians crossing at marked and unmarked crosswalks by age group and road type......................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 21. Illustration of multiple-threat pedestrian crash.........................................................................41 Figure 22. Pedestrian crash types at marked and unmarked crosswalks.....................................................42 Figure 23. Severity distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks...............44 Figure 24. Distribution of pedestrian collisions by time of day for marked and unmarked crosswalks....45 Figure 25. Pedestrian collisions by light condition for marked and unmarked crosswalks.......................46 Figure 26. Age distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks.....................47 Figures 27–30. Percentage of crashes and exposure by pedestrian age group and roadway type at uncontrolled marked and unmarked crosswalks.................................................................................48 vi Figure 31. Raised medians and crossing islands can improve pedestrian safety on multilane roads. .......55 Figure 32. Pedestrian signals help accommodate pedestrian crossings on some high-volume or multilane roads....................................................................................................................................................56 Figure 33. Traffic signals are needed to improve pedestrian crossings on some high-volume or multilane roads....................................................................................................................................................56 Figure 34. Curb extensions at midblock locations reduce crossing distance for pedestrians. ...................56 Figure 35. Curb extensions at intersections reduce crossing distance for pedestrians...............................56 Figure 36. Raised crosswalks can control vehicle speeds on local streets at pedestrian crossings............57 Figure 37. Adequate lighting can improve pedestrian safety at night........................................................57 Figure 38. Grade-separated crossings sometimes are used when other measures are not feasible to provide safe pedestrian crossings.....................................................................................................................58 Figure 39. Pedestrian warning signs sometimes are used to supplement crosswalks................................58 Figure 40. Fences or railings in the median direct pedestrians to the right and may reduce pedestrian crashes on the second half of the street...............................................................................................59 Figure 41. Angled crosswalks with barriers can direct pedestrians to face upstream and increase the pedestrian’s awareness of traffic.........................................................................................................59 Figure 42. Pedestrian crosswalk inventory form........................................................................................64 Figure 43. Number of lanes for marked crosswalks...................................................................................65 Figure 44. Marked and unmarked crosswalks had similar traffic ADT distributions................................69 Figure 45. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000...............................73 Figure 46. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100........................................73 Figure 47. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000...............................74 Figure 48. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 2,000.................................74 Figure 49 Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 50..........................................75 Figure 50. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 800........................................75 Figure 51. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000...............................76 Figure 52. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100.......................................76 Figure 53. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000...............................77 Figure 54. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 150.......................................77 vii Figure 55. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 200.......................................78 Figure 56. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 50.........................................78 Figure 57. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500.................................79 Figure 58. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100............................................79 Figure 59. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000....................................80 Figure 60. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 150............................................80 Figure 61. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 200............................................81 Figure 62. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 22,500....................................81 Figure 63. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 32,000....................................82 Figure 64. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500......................................82 viii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks......................................18 Table 2. Parameter estimates for basic marked and unmarked crosswalk models....................................19 Table 3. Results for a marked crosswalk pedestrian crash model..............................................................21 Table 4. Parameter estimates for marked subset models...........................................................................21 Table 5. Results for an unmarked crosswalk model...................................................................................22 Table 6. Parameter estimates for unmarked subset models.......................................................................22 Table 7. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks......................................23 Table 8. Crashes, exposure proportions, expected crashes, and binomial probabilities for categories of marked crosswalks..............................................................................................................................24 Table 9. Parameter estimates for final model combining marked and unmarked crosswalks...................26 Table 10. Estimated number of pedestrian crashes in 5 years based on negative binomial model.............34 Table 11. Recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and other needed pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.*..................................................................................................................54 Table 12. Adjustment factors by time of day and area type used to obtain estimated pedestrian ADT. ....67 Table 13. The number of marked crosswalks that were used in this study, by city or county...................70 Table 14. Criteria for assessing goodness-of-fit negative binomial regression model..............................71 Table 15. Criteria for assessing goodness-of-fit Poisson regression model...............................................72 CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and they should, therefore, be able to use this system safely and without unreasonable delay (figure 1). Pedestrians have a right to cross roads safely, and planners and engineers have a professional responsibility to plan, design, and install safe and convenient crossing facilities. Pedestrians should be included as design users for all streets. As a starting point, roads should be designed with the premise that there will be pedestrians, that they must be able to cross the street, and that they must be able to do it safely. The design question is, “How can this task best be accomplished?” Providing marked crosswalks traditionally has been one measure used in an attempt to facilitate crossings. Such crosswalks commonly are used at uncontrolled locations (i.e., sites not controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign) and sometimes at midblock locations. However, there have been conflicting studies and much controversy regarding the safety effects of marked crosswalks. This study evaluated marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations and offers guidelines for their use. Figure 1. Pedestrians have a right to cross the road safely and without unreasonable delay. HOW TO USE THIS STUDY Marked crosswalks are one tool used to direct pedestrians safely across a street. When considering marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, the question should not be simply, “Should I provide a marked crosswalk or not?” Instead, the question should be, “Is this an appropriate tool for directing pedestrians across the street?” Regardless of whether marked crosswalks are used, there remains the fundamental obligation to get pedestrians safely across the street. In most cases, marked crosswalks are best used in combination with other treatments (e.g., curb extensions, raised crossing islands, traffic signals, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic calming measures). Marked crosswalks should be one option in a progression of design treatments. If one treatment does not accomplish the task adequately, then move on to the next one. Failure of one 1 2 particular treatment is not a license to give up and do nothing. In all cases, the final design must accomplish the goal of getting pedestrians across the road safely. WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A CROSSWALK? The 2000 Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance (Uniform Vehicle Code) (Section 1-112) defines a crosswalk as: (1) (a) “That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway; and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway, the part of a roadway included within the extension of the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at right angles to the centerline. (b) Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.” Thus, a crosswalk at an intersection is defined as the extension of the sidewalk or the shoulder across the intersection, regardless of whether it is marked or not. The only way a crosswalk can exist at a midblock location is if it is marked. Most jurisdictions have crosswalk laws that make it legal for pedestrians to cross the street at any intersection, whether marked or not, unless the pedestrian crossing is specifically prohibited. According to Section 3B.17 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), crosswalks serve the following purposes:(2) “Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. Crosswalk markings also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not controlled by traffic signals or STOP signs. At intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk.” The MUTCD also provides guidance on marked crosswalks, including: • Crosswalk width should not be less than 1.8 meters (m) (6 feet (ft)). • Crosswalk lines should extend across the full width of the pavement (to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks). • Crosswalks should be marked at all intersections that have “substantial conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movements.” • Crosswalk markings should be provided at points of pedestrian concentration, such as at loading islands, midblock pedestrian islands, and/or where pedestrians need assistance in determining the proper place to cross the street. The MUTCD further states that: “Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before they are installed at locations away from traffic signals or STOP signs.” 3 However, the MUTCD does not provide specific guidance relative to the site condition (e.g., traffic volume, pedestrian volume, number of lanes, presence or type of median) where marked crosswalks should or should not be used at uncontrolled locations. Such decisions have historically been left to the judgment of State and local traffic engineers. Furthermore, practices on where to mark or not mark crosswalks have differed widely among highway agencies, and this has been a controversial topic among researchers, traffic engineers, and pedestrian safety advocates for many years. More specific safety research and guidelines have been needed on where to mark or not mark crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. Designated marked or unmarked crosswalks are also required to be accessible to wheelchair users if an accessible sidewalk exists. The level of connectivity between pedestrian facilities is directly related to the placement and consistency of street crossings. Why Are Marked Crosswalks Controversial? There has been considerable controversy in the United States about whether marked crosswalks increase or decrease pedestrian safety at crossing locations that are not controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign. Many pedestrians consider marked crosswalks as a tool to enhance pedestrian safety and mobility. They view the markings as proof that they have a right to share the roadway, and in their opinion, the more the better. Many pedestrians do not understand the legal definition of a crosswalk and think that there is no crosswalk unless it is marked. They may also think that a driver can see the crosswalk markings as well as they can, and they assume that it will be safer to cross where drivers can see the white crosswalk lines. When citizens request the installation of marked crosswalks, some engineers and planners still refer to the 1972 study by Herms as justification for not installing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations.(3) That study found an increased incidence of pedestrian collisions in marked crosswalks, compared to unmarked crosswalks, at 400 uncontrolled intersections in San Diego, CA. Questions have been asked about the validity of that study, and the study results have sometimes been misquoted or misused. Some have misinterpreted the results of that study. The study did not conclude that all marked crosswalks are unsafe, and the study also did not include school crosswalks. A few other studies have also tried to address this issue since the Herms study was completed. Some were not conclusive because of their methodology or sample size problems, while others have fueled the disagreements and confusion on this matter. Furthermore, most of the previous crosswalk studies have analyzed the overall safety effects of marked crosswalks but did not investigate their effects for various numbers of lanes, traffic volumes, or other roadway features. Like other traffic control devices, crosswalks should not be expected to be equally effective or appropriate under all roadway conditions. Where Are Crosswalks Typically Installed? The practice of where to install crosswalks differs considerably from one jurisdiction to another across the United States, and engineers have been left with using their own judgment (sometimes influenced by political and/or public pressure) in reaching decisions. Some cities have developed their own guidelines on where marked crosswalks should or should not be installed. At a minimum, many cities tend to install marked crosswalks at signalized intersections, particularly in urban areas where there is pedestrian crossing activity. Many jurisdictions also commonly install marked crosswalks at school crossing locations (especially where adult crossing guards are used), and they are more likely to mark crosswalks at intersections controlled by a stop sign. At uncontrolled locations, some agencies rarely, if ever, choose to install marked crosswalks; other agencies install marked crosswalks at selected pedestrian crossing locations, particularly in downtown areas. Some towns and cities have also chosen to supplement selected marked crosswalks with advance overhead or post-mounted pedestrian warning signs, flashing 4 lights, “Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalk” signs mounted at the street centerline (or mounted along the side of the street or overhead), and/or supplemental pavement markings. STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE Many highway agencies routinely mark crosswalks at school crossings and signalized intersections. While questions have been raised concerning marking criteria at these sites, most of the controversy on whether to mark crosswalks has pertained to the many uncontrolled locations in U.S. towns and cities. The purpose of this study was to determine whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under various traffic and roadway conditions. Another objective was to provide recommendations on how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians. This includes providing assistance to engineers and planners when making decisions on: • Where marked crosswalks may be installed. • Where an existing marked crosswalk, by itself, is acceptable. • Where an existing marked crosswalk should be supplemented with additional improvements. • Where one or more other engineering treatments (e.g., raised median, traffic signal with pedestrian signal) should be considered instead of having only a marked crosswalk. • Where marked crosswalks are not appropriate. The results of this study should not be misused as justification to do nothing to help pedestrians cross streets safely. Instead, pedestrian crossing problems and needs should be identified routinely, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark or not mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. This final report is based on a major study for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on the safety effects of pedestrian facilities. The report titled, “Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines” also was prepared as a companion document.(4) PAST RESEARCH Studies of the effects of marked crosswalks have yielded contradictory results. Some studies reported an association of marked crosswalks with an increase in pedestrian crashes. Other studies did not show an elevated collision level associated with marked crosswalks, but instead showed favorable changes. As to the negative findings, assertions were made that marked crosswalks somehow induced incautious behavior on the part of pedestrians, triggered perhaps by what they thought the markings signified. The following paragraphs describe the findings of some of these studies. Crash Studies An early and oft-quoted study in California performed by Herms investigated pedestrian crash risk at marked and unmarked crosswalks.(3) This study evaluated pedestrian crashes at 400 intersections where at least 1 crosswalk was painted and another was not. There are thousands of other intersections in San Diego, CA, where neither crosswalk was painted or both were painted, but those were not included in the Herms study. That study rightly emphasizes the difficulty of “maintaining equivalent conditions” in comparing marked and unmarked crosswalks, and lists 12 factors to try to address such difficulties. Since the study was confined to intersections that had one marked and one unmarked crosswalk across the same main thoroughfare, it is not surprising that the vehicle traffic exposure was quite similar between the 5 marked and unmarked crosswalks. However, pedestrian volume was three times as high on the marked crosswalks as on the unmarked crosswalks. Herms stated: “Evidence indicates that the poor crash record of marked crosswalks is not due to the crosswalk being marked as much as it is a reflection on the pedestrian’s attitude and lack of caution when using the marked crosswalk.”(3) The Herms study, however, does not say what evidence the author had in mind regarding incautious pedestrian behavior. No behavioral data was presented. Other authors have advanced similar assertions with regard to pedestrian behavior in marked crosswalks. One of the issues involved in this crosswalk controversy relates to questions on the warrants used in San Diego, CA, to determine where to paint crosswalks. Specifically, the warrant directive for San Diego (January 15, 1962), established a point system calling for painting crosswalks when: (1) traffic gaps were fewer rather than more numerous; (2) pedestrian volume was high; (3) speed was moderate (not low, not high); and (4) other prevailing factors were present, such as previous crashes. Thus, it is possible that crosswalks may have been more likely to be painted in San Diego, CA, where the conditions were most ripe for pedestrian collisions (compared to sites which were unmarked). This could at least partly explain the increase in pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks in the Herms study. Furthermore, the city of San Diego did not eliminate the use of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations based on the results of this study. The study recommended against the indiscriminate use of markings at uncontrolled locations. It should be mentioned that the Herms study did not distinguish whether the results would have differed, for example, for two-lane versus multilane roads, or for low-volume versus high-volume roads. Gibby et al. later revisited the issue.(5) Their report contains a thorough review of the literature and also includes an analysis of pedestrian crashes at 380 highway intersections in California. These intersections were picked after a detailed, multistep selection process in which more than 10,000 intersections were initially considered, and all but 380 were excluded. Their results showed that pedestrian crash rates at these 380 unsignalized intersections were 2 or 3 times higher in marked than in unmarked crosswalks when expressed as crash rates per unit pedestrian-vehicle volume. This study had the advantage of including a relatively large sample of intersections in cities throughout California, which may have minimized any data bias resulting from crosswalk marking criteria. However, it should be mentioned that, as with the Herms study, the Gibby study also did not determine how the results (between marked and unmarked crosswalks) might have differed for two-lane versus multilane roads, and/or for roads with low average daily traffic (ADT) compared to high ADT. Other studies have been conducted to address this issue. Gurnett described a project to remove painted stripes from some crosswalks following a bad crash experience.(6) This was a before-after study of three locations that were selected for crosswalk removal because they had a recent bad crash record. After removing the crosswalks, crashes decreased. Such results do not show the effect of removing the paint, but are very likely the result of the well-known statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean. It is also not clear whether pedestrian crossing volumes may have dropped after the marked crosswalks were removed.(6) Another study of marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections was reported by the Los Angeles, CA, County Road Department in July 1967.(7) The county reported results of a before-after study of 89 intersections. Painted crosswalks were added at each site, but the basis for selecting those sites was not mentioned. Pedestrian crashes increased from 4 during the before period to 15 in the after period. The before-after design in this study is preferable to a treatment-control model in this instance, and better takes the selection effect into account. All sites that showed crash increases were intersections with an ADT rate above 10,900. Thus, at sites with a lower ADT rate, no change in pedestrian crashes was seen. Also, rear-end collisions increased from 31 to 58 after marked crosswalks were added. The report stated that rear-end collisions increased as traffic volume increased. Nevertheless, the study showed more pedestrian crashes after painting the crosswalks than before for the sites with ADT rates above 10,500. The study could have been enhanced by including an analysis of crashes within a comparison group of unpainted sites during the same time period. It is not clear whether pedestrian volumes may have increased at the crosswalks after they were marked.(7) In contrast to the studies described above, Tobey et al. reported reduced crashes associated with marked crosswalks.(8) They examined crashes at marked and unmarked crosswalks as a function of pedestrian volume (P) multiplied by vehicle volume (V). When the P times V product was used as a denominator, crashes at unmarked crosswalks were found to be considerably overrepresented; crashes at marked crosswalks were underrepresented considerably. Communication with the authors indicates that this study included controlled (signalized) as well as uncontrolled crossings. It seems likely, therefore, that more marked crosswalks than unmarked crosswalks were present at controlled crossings, which could at least partially explain the different results compared to other studies. The study methodology was quite useful for determining pedestrian crash risk for a variety of human and locational features. However, the study results were not intended to be used for quantifying the specific safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks for various traffic and roadway situations.(8) In 1996, Ekman conducted an analysis of pedestrian crashes at zebra crossings compared to crossings with traffic signals and also to crossings with no facilities.(9) Zebra crossings in Sweden (figure 2) consist of high-visibility crosswalk markings on the roadway, accompanied by zebra crossing signs (figure 3). The study included 6 years of collected pedestrian crash data from crossings in five cities in southern Sweden along with pedestrian counts, traffic volume, and other information for each of the three types of pedestrian crossings. Figure 2. A zebra crossing used in Sweden. Figure 3. Sign accompanying zebra crossings in Sweden. The rate of pedestrian crashes was found to be higher (approximately twice as high) at intersections which had zebra crossings, compared to locations that were signalized or had no facilities. Further, pedestrians age 60 and above were most at risk, followed by pedestrians below age 16 (see figure 4). The author also controlled for motor vehicle traffic and found similar results.(9) 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 Zebra Crossing Signalized Crossing No Facilities Cr a s h R a t e <16 years 16-60 years 60+ years Figure 4. Pedestrian crash rates for the three crossing types by age group. In a 1999 study involving the relationship between crashes or conflicts and exposure, Ekman and Hyden compared intersections with and without zebra crossings on major streets in the cities of Malmö and Lund, Sweden. Among other conclusions, the study found that “Zebra crossings seem to have higher crash rate than approaches without zebra,” and “The increased crash rate for approaches with zebra crossings is only valid on locations where the car flow is larger than 10 cars per hour.” Conflict rates were about twice as high with zebra crossings compared to crossings with no control. The authors reported that the dataset did not include enough sites with car exposure greater than 250 cars per hour. The study also found that the positive effects of pedestrian refuge islands “seem to be stronger than the negative effect of zebra crossing, at least in the lower region of car exposure.” This finding supports the safety benefit of having a raised pedestrian refuge island at pedestrian crossings.(10) Yagar reported the results of introducing marked crosswalks at 13 Toronto, Canada intersections.(11) The basis for selecting the particular intersections was not described. A before-after study was conducted, and it was found that crashes had been increasing during the before period and continued to increase after crosswalks were installed. It is not apparent from the graphs that there was any change in slope associated with the time of painting the crosswalks; it would appear that marking the crosswalks did not have much of an effect on crashes. However, the author points to an increase in tailgating crashes at the intersections after crosswalk painting. He also reports that the increased crashes during the after phase seemed to be entirely explained by an increase in crashes involving out-of-town drivers. Perhaps the increase in crashes by out-of-town motorists was because they were not expecting any change in pedestrian or motorist behavior of the local residents, who may have been more familiar with the new markings. However, no behavioral data was included in the study. In summary, there are no clear-cut results from the studies reviewed to permit concluding with confidence that either marked or unmarked crosswalks are safer. The selection bias (on where crosswalks are marked) could certainly affect the results of a given study. Units of pedestrian crash experience were also inconsistent from one study to another. Another important question relates to whether analyzing sites 7 8 separately by site type (e.g., two-lane versus multilane road, high volume versus low volume) would produce different results on the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks. Behavioral Studies Related to Marked Crosswalks In addition to crash-based studies, it is also important to review studies that evaluate the effects of crosswalk marking on pedestrian and motorist behavior. Such review can reveal changes in behavior, which can lead to crashes for different crosswalk conditions. The following paragraphs discuss some of these behavioral studies. Katz et al. conducted an experimental study of driver and pedestrian interaction when the pedestrian crossed a street.(12) The pedestrians in question were members of the study team, and they crossed a street under a variety of conditions (960 trials). It was found that drivers stop for pedestrians as a function of several variables. Drivers stop more frequently when the vehicle’s approach speed is low, when the pedestrian is in a marked crosswalk, when the distance between vehicle and pedestrian is greater rather than less, when pedestrians are in groups, and when the pedestrian does not make eye contact with the driver. Thus, the marked crosswalk is a specific factor in positive driver behavior in this study. A study by Knoblauch et al. was conducted to determine the effect of crosswalk markings on driver and pedestrian behavior at unsignalized intersections.(13) A before-after evaluation of crosswalk markings was conducted at 11 locations in 4 U.S. cities. The observed behaviors included pedestrian crossing location, vehicle speed, driver yielding, and pedestrian crossing behavior. It was found that drivers approach a pedestrian in a crosswalk somewhat more slowly, and that crosswalk usage increases, after markings are installed. No evidence was found indicating that pedestrians are less vigilant in a marked crosswalk. No changes were found in driver yielding or pedestrian assertiveness as a result of adding the marked crosswalk. Marking pedestrian crosswalks at relatively low-speed, low-volume, unsignalized intersections was not found to have any measurable negative effect on pedestrian or motorist behavior at the selected sites (which were all two- or three-lane roads with speed limits of 56 or 64 kilometers per hour (km/h) or 35 or 40 miles per hour (mi/h)). In a comparison study to the one discussed above, Knoblauch and Raymond conducted a before-after evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk markings in Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona.(14) Six sites that had been recently resurfaced were selected. All sites were at uncontrolled intersections with a speed limit of 56 km/h (35 mi/h). The before data were collected after the centerline and edgeline delineations were installed but before the crosswalk was installed. The after data were collected after the crosswalk markings were installed. Speed data were collected under three conditions: no pedestrian present, pedestrian looking, and pedestrian not looking. All pedestrian conditions involved a staged pedestrian. The results indicate a slight reduction in vehicle speed at most, but not all, of the sites. Overall, there was a significant reduction in speed under both the no pedestrian and the pedestrian not looking conditions. (Note: This study and the 2001 behavioral study by Knoblauch et al. mentioned above were both conducted as part of the larger FHWA study conducted in conjunction with the current study described here.) These studies found pedestrian behavior to be, if anything, slightly better in the presence of marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks. Certainly the results showed no indication of an increase in reckless or incautious pedestrian behavior associated with marked crosswalks. All of the sites used in the Knoblauch studies were two-lane and three-lane roads, and all had speed limits of 56 or 64 km/h (35 or 40 mi/h). No formal behavioral studies were found which have studied pedestrian and motorist behaviors and conflicts on roads with four or more lanes with and without marked crosswalks. Such multilane situations may pose different types of risks for pedestrians, particularly where high traffic volume exists and/or where vehicle speeds are high. 9 Finally, Van Houten studied factors that might cause motorists to yield for pedestrians in marked crosswalks.(15) He measured several behaviors at intersections in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, where interventions were introduced sequentially to increase the “vividness” of crosswalks. Researchers added signs, then a stop line, and then amber lights activated by pedestrians and displayed to motorists. The percentage of vehicles stopping when they should increased by up to 50 percent. Conflicts dropped from 50 percent to about 10 percent at one intersection, and from 50 percent to about 25 percent at another. The number of motorists who yielded increased from about 25 percent to 40 percent at one intersection, and from about 35 percent to about 45 percent at another.(15) Behavioral Studies Related to Crosswalk Signs and Other Treatments The preceding discussion of the literature has dealt primarily with the safety and behavioral effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections. Of course, a wide variety of supplemental measures have been used with or without marked crosswalks at pedestrian crossing locations in the United States. Examples of these treatments include: • Pedestrian warning signs on the approach and/or at the crossing. • Advance stop lines with supplemental signs (e.g., “Stop Here for Crosswalk”). • Rumble strips on the approaches to the crosswalk. • Pedestrian crossing pavement stencils on the approach to the crosswalk. • In-pavement flashing lights (activated by push-button or by automatic pedestrian detectors). • Flashing beacons. • Variations of overhead pedestrian crosswalk signs. Such signs may be warning or regulatory and may be illuminated and/or convey a message when activated (examples of such signs are shown in figures 5–10). • Crosswalk lighting. • Raised medians or refuge islands. • Flat-topped speed humps (sometimes called speed tables) where pedestrians may cross the street on the raised flat top. • Traffic-calming measures such as curb extensions and lane reductions. • Various combinations of these and other measures. • Traffic signals (with pedestrian signals) are sometimes added at pedestrian crossings when warranted. Numerous research studies have been conducted in the United States and abroad in recent years to evaluate such treatments and/or to summarize research results. Some of these include: • A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad.(16) • Pedestrian Safety in Sweden (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm).(17) 10 • Research, Development, and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Facilities in the United Kingdom (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm).(18) • Canadian Research on Pedestrian Safety (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international/htm).(19) • Pedestrian Safety in Australia (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm).(20) • Dutch Pedestrian Safety Research Review (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/inernational.htm).(21) In addition to these research summaries, several other documents, which describe a wide range of pedestrian and traffic calming measures, include: • Pedestrian Facilities User Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm).(22) • Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings (http://www.ite.org/bookstore/index.asp).(23) • Traffic Calming: State of the Practice (http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm#tcsop).(24) The study described in this report was primarily intended to compare the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. It did not focus on evaluating various signs, traffic calming, or other measures and devices. Instead, several companion studies were conducted as part of the larger FHWA effort, which presents evaluation results of innovative devices. These research reports may be found at www.walkinginfo.org/rd/devices.htm. Figure 5. High visibility crossing with pedestrian crossing signs in Kirkland, WA. Figure 6. Experimental pedestrian regulatory sign in Tucson, AZ. Figure 7. Overhead crosswalk sign in Clearwater, FL. Figure 8. Overhead crosswalk sign in Seattle, WA. Figure 9. Example of overhead crosswalk sign used in Canada. Figure 10. Regulatory pedestrian crossing sign in New York State. Figures 5–10. Examples of crosswalk signs.(25) 11 CHAPTER 2. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY For the purpose of assessing pedestrian safety, an ideal study design would involve removing all crosswalks in several test cities, then randomly assigning sites for crosswalk markings and to serve as unmarked control sites. However, due to liability considerations, it would be impossible to get the level of cooperation needed from the cities to conduct such a study. Also, such random assignment of crosswalk marking locations would result in many crosswalks not being marked at the most appropriate locations. Given such real-world constraints, a treatment and matched comparison site methodology was used to quantify the pedestrian crash risk in marked and unmarked crosswalks. This study design allowed for selection of a large sample of sites in cities throughout the United States where marked crosswalks and similar unmarked comparison sites were available. At intersections, the unmarked crosswalk comparison site was typically the opposite leg of the same intersection as the selected marked crosswalk site. For each marked midblock crosswalk, a nearby midblock crossing location was chosen as the comparison site on the same street (usually a block or two away) where pedestrians were observed to cross. (Even though an unmarked midblock crossing is not technically or legally a crosswalk, it was a suitable comparison site for a midblock crosswalk). The selection of a matched comparison site for each crosswalk site (typically on the same route and very near the crosswalk site) helped to control for the effects of vehicle speeds, traffic mix, and a variety of other traffic and roadway features. A before-after study design was considered impractical because of regression-to-the-mean problems, limited sample sizes of new crosswalk installations, and other factors. A total of 1,000 marked crosswalk sites and 1,000 matched unmarked (comparison) crossing sites in 30 cities across the United States (see figure 11) were selected for analysis. In this study, no attempt was made to actually paint any of the 1,000 unmarked crosswalks to determine any crash effects in a before and after study. Instead, a separate (companion) study was conducted to monitor the effects of marking crosswalks on pedestrian and motorist behaviors. These study results are discussed in chapter 3 of this report. # # ## # # ## # # ### ## ## #### ## ### ## Tempe Topeka Durham Tucson Austin Seattle Madison Oakland Raleigh Orlando Portland Glendale Milwaukee Cambridge Cleveland Baltimore St. Louis Pittsburgh Cincinnati Scottsdale Fort Worth NewOrleans Gainesville Winter Park SanFrancisco Salt Lake City Phoenix KansasCity Figure 11. Cities and States used for study sample. 13 14 Test sites were chosen without any prior knowledge of their crash history. School crossings were not included in this study because the presence of crossing guards and/or special school signs and markings could increase the difficulty of quantifying the safety effects of crosswalk markings. Test sites were selected from the following cities: • East: Cambridge, MA; Baltimore, MD (city and county); Pittsburgh, PA; Cleveland, OH; Cincinnati, OH. • Central: Kansas City, MO; Topeka, KS; Milwaukee, WI; Madison, WI; St. Louis, MO (city and county). • South: Gainesville, FL; Orlando, FL; Winter Park, FL; New Orleans, LA; Raleigh, NC; Durham, NC. • West: San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA. • Southwest: Austin, TX; Ft. Worth, TX; Phoenix, AZ; Scottsdale, AZ; Glendale, AZ; Tucson, AZ; Tempe, AZ. Detailed information was collected at each of the 2,000 sites, including pedestrian crash history (average of 5 years per site), daily pedestrian volume estimates, ADT volume, number of lanes, speed limit, area type, type of median, type and condition of crosswalk marking patterns, location type (midblock or intersection), and other site characteristics. It was recognized that pedestrian crossing volumes would likely be different in marked and unmarked crosswalks. This study design involved collecting pedestrian volume counts at each of the 2,000 sites, and controlled for differences in pedestrian crossing exposure. The study computed pedestrian crashes per million crossings to normalize the crash data for pedestrian crossing volumes, as described below in more detail. All of the 1,000 marked crosswalks had one of the marking patterns shown in figure 12 (i.e., none had a brick pattern for the crosswalk). Of the 2,000 crosswalks, 1,622 (81.2 percent) were at intersections; the others were at midblock. Very few of the marked crosswalks had any type of supplemental pedestrian warning signs. While not much information currently exists on the safety effects of various types of warning signs (under various conditions), a behavioral evaluation of several innovative signs performed in 2000 by Huang et al. may be found at www.walkinginfo.org/rd.(25) Furthermore, none of the test sites had traffic-calming measures or special pedestrian devices (e.g., in-pavement flashing lights). Estimates of daily pedestrian volumes at each crosswalk site and unmarked comparison site were determined based on pedestrian volume counts at each site, which were expanded to estimated daily pedestrian volume counts based on hourly adjustment factors. Specifically, at each of the 2,000 crossing locations, trained data collectors conducted onsite counts of pedestrian crossings and classified pedestrians by age group based on observations. Figure 12. Crosswalk marking patterns. Pedestrian counts were collected simultaneously for 1 hour at each of the crosswalk and comparison sites. Full-day (8- to 12-hour) counts were conducted at a sample of the sites and were used to develop adjustment factors by area type (urban, suburban, fringe) and by time of day. The adjustment factors were then used to determine estimated daily pedestrian volumes in a manner similar to that used by many cities and States to expand short-term traffic counts to average annual daily traffic (AADT). Performing the volume counts simultaneously at each crosswalk site and its matched comparison site helped to control for time-related influences on pedestrian exposure. Further details of the data collection methodology are given in appendix A. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Analysis Approach This study was structured to address a variety of questions related to crosswalks and pedestrian crashes. The primary analysis question was, “What are the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks?” Several other analysis questions needed to be answered as well, including: • What traffic and roadway features have a significant effect on pedestrian cashes? Specifically, how are pedestrian crashes affected by traffic volume, pedestrian volume, number of lanes, speed limit, presence and types of median, area type, type of crosswalk marking, condition of marked crosswalks, and other factors? • Do pedestrian crashes differ significantly in different cities and/or regions of the country? • How does pedestrian crash risk differ by pedestrian age group? The amount of pedestrian crash data varied somewhat from city to city and averaged approximately 5 years per site (typically from about January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1998). Police crash reports were obtained from each of the cities except for Seattle, WA, (where detailed computerized printouts were obtained for each crash). Crashes were carefully reviewed to assign crash types to ensure accurate matching of the correct location and to determine whether the crash occurred at the crossing location (i.e., at or within 6.1 m (20 ft) of the marked or unmarked crossing of interest). Standard pedestrian crash typology was used to review police crash reports and determine the appropriate pedestrian crash types (e.g., multiple threat, midblock dartout, intersection dash), as discussed later in this 15 16 report. All treatment (crosswalk) and comparison sites were chosen without prior knowledge of crash history. All sites used in this study were intersection or midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the main road approach (i.e., uncontrolled approaches). This study focused on pedestrian safety and, therefore, data were not collected for vehicle-vehicle or single-vehicle collisions, even though it is recognized that marking crosswalks may increase vehicle stopping, which may also affect other collision types. The selected analysis techniques were deemed to be appropriate for the type of data in the sample. Due to relatively low numbers of pedestrian crashes at a given site (many sites had zero pedestrian crashes in a 5- year period), Poisson modeling and negative binomial regression were used to analyze the data. Using these analysis techniques allowed determination of statistically valid safety relationships. In fact, there were a total of 229 pedestrian crashes at the 2,000 crossing sites over an average of 5 years per site. This translates to an overall average of one pedestrian crash per crosswalk site every 43.7 years. While this rate of pedestrian crashes seems small on a per-site basis, it must be understood that many cities have hundreds or thousands of intersections and midblock locations where pedestrians regularly cross the street. Considering that pedestrian collisions with motor vehicles often result in serious injury or death to pedestrians, it is important to better understand what measures can be taken by engineers to improve pedestrian safety under various traffic and roadway conditions. All analyses of crash rates at marked and unmarked crosswalks took into account traffic volume, pedestrian exposure, and other roadway features (e.g., number of lanes). To supplement the pedestrian crash analysis, a corresponding study was conducted on pedestrian and driver behavior before and after marked crosswalks were installed at selected sites in California, Minnesota, New York, and Virginia, as discussed earlier.(13,14) Statistical Techniques The Poisson and negative binomial regression modeling were conducted in two ways in terms of how the comparison sites were handled. These were: • Including all of the comparison (unmarked) crosswalk sites in one group and all of the treated (marked) crosswalks in another group. In other words, no direct matching of sites was used in the modeling. • Analyzing 1,000 site pairs; each pair had a marked crosswalk and an unmarked, matched comparison site. Analyses were conducted using both assumptions to insure that the results were not influenced merely by the manner in which the matching was conducted. The analyses revealed very similar results using either of the assumptions listed above in terms of: • The variables found to be significantly related to pedestrian crashes. • The individual and interaction effects. • The magnitude of the effects of each traffic and roadway variable on pedestrian crashes, including the effect of marked versus unmarked crosswalks. 17 In short, using either analysis approach—grouping comparison sites or using an analysis that matches marked and unmarked sites—produced nearly identical results. The discussion below includes results of both analysis approaches. Estimation of Daily Pedestrian Volume At each of the 2,000 crossing sites, at least 1 hour-long count of pedestrian street crossings was conducted. Based on the time of day of the count, an expansion factor was used to compute an approximate pedestrian ADT. At a given observation site, i, a count ni is made of pedestrians crossing the street during some interval of time Ti. Now, from a standard pedestrian volume by time of day distribution, the proportion pi of daily pedestrian traffic expected during Ti can be determined. If ni ≠ 0, an estimate of the daily total pedestrian volume is made by, Ni = ni/pi. This estimate has the property that if Ni was known, then the estimated pedestrian volume during the interval Ti would be Nipi = ni, the observed number. A detailed discussion of how pedestrian ADTs were determined based on short-term pedestrian crossing counts is given in appendix A. Calculation of Pedestrian Crash Rates Assuming that motor vehicle volumes, speeds, and other site features remain constant, it is reasonable to expect that the number of pedestrian crashes will increase as the number of pedestrians crossing the street (pedestrian exposure) increases. When comparing sites to see which has the greatest risk of a pedestrian crash, it is necessary to control for the number of pedestrians. The pedestrian crash rate is a more appropriate measure of safety than the total number of pedestrian crashes for comparing the relative safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks, particularly since pedestrian crossing volumes differ at marked and unmarked crosswalks. In this study, crash rates were calculated in terms of crashes per million pedestrian crossings. For example, if an average of 1,000 pedestrians cross an intersection every day, then there will be 365,000 (or 0.365 million) pedestrian crossings in a year. The number of pedestrian crashes in a year is then divided by 0.365 million times the number of years to get the pedestrian crash rate. Determination of Crash-Related Variables The following analysis was conducted to determine which traffic and roadway variables have a significant effect on pedestrian crashes. Table 1 shows some summary values of pedestrian volumes and crashes for marked and unmarked crosswalks categorized by number of lanes. For each marked crosswalk, a closely matched unmarked comparison site was chosen—usually a nearby site on the same street. Quite often, the comparison site was the opposite approach to the same intersection (on the same road). As a result of this matching, the distributions of site characteristics, including traffic volumes, should be essentially the same for marked and unmarked sites. Pedestrian volumes were recorded at a marked crosswalk and its matched unmarked location at essentially the same time of day and for an equal period of time. Thus, pedestrian volumes were free to vary between marked and unmarked sites but were collected in such a way as to represent equal proportions of expected daily pedestrian traffic at the respective locations. Table 1. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks. No. of Lanes Type Sites Ped. Vol.* Avg. Ped. ADT/site Number of Ped. Crashes Avg. Yrs.** 2 Marked Unmarked 456 458 176,345 104,922 387 229 37 23 4.81 4.81 3 or 4 Marked Unmarked 401 395 104,237 37,941 260 96 94 12 4.59 4.60 5 or more Marked Unmarked 143 147 31,266 11,955 219 81 57 6 4.65 4.60 All Marked Unmarked 1,000 1,000 311,848 154,818 312 155 188 41 4.70 4.70 *Ped. Vol. = Sum of the pedestrian ADT at sites within a given grouping (by number of lanes). **Avg. Yrs. = Average number of years of crash data per site. The pedestrian ADT per site was 312 at marked crosswalks and 155 at unmarked crosswalks, as shown in table 1. Thus, 66.8 percent of this pedestrian volume occurred at marked crosswalk sites. A total of 229 pedestrian crashes were recorded at these 2,000 sites over a period of roughly 5 years. If marked and unmarked crosswalks were equally safe (or unsafe), then given that 229 crashes occurred, it would be expected that 66.8 percent of them (153 crashes) would have occurred at marked crosswalk sites. This expected number is considerably smaller than the actual number of 188 observed at marked crosswalks. Under the hypothesis of equal safety, and conditional on 229 total crashes, the probability of observing 188 or more crashes at the marked sites can be obtained from the binomial distribution with parameters, p = .668 and n = .229, as (1) Thus, the hypothesis of equal safety across the entire set of sites would be rejected. On the other hand, there may be subsets defined by various site characteristics where such a hypothesis would not be rejected. For example, consider the first two rows of table 1, which refer to sites on streets having two lanes. At these sites, 62.7 percent of the pedestrian volume occurred on marked crosswalks. Of the 60 crashes that occurred at these sites, 37.6 crashes would be expected at the marked crosswalk sites compared with the observed count of 37. Clearly, the hypothesis of equal safety could not be rejected for this subset of sites. In other words, for the two-lane road sites in the database, there was no significant difference in pedestrian crashes between marked and unmarked crosswalks. From the rows of table 1 corresponding to three- or four-lane roads and roads with five or more lanes, the observed crash frequencies for the marked crosswalk sites are 94 and 57, respectively. Both totals considerably exceed the expected values of 77.6 and 45.7 based on proportions of pedestrian exposure at these sites. The probabilities of observing values this extreme by chance are: (2) and (3) 18 In the expressions given above, the parameters p1 and p2 represent proportions of pedestrian volumes at marked sites adjusted for slight differences in exposure times over which crash data were obtained. These results suggest that, in general, marked crosswalks are less safe than unmarked crosswalks on streets having more than two lanes, but that the two types do not differ significantly on streets with two lanes. Note that the analysis described above did not require adjustment for motor vehicle volume, since matched pairs of marked and unmarked sites typically were selected at or near the same intersection where vehicle volumes were similar. To investigate the relationship between other factors and combinations of factors on crosswalk pedestrian crashes, generalized linear regression models were fit to the data to predict crashes as functions of these variables. Consider a model based on pedestrian volumes (ADP); traffic volumes (ADT); and two indicator variables, one which indicates one or two travel lanes (L2), and the other which indicates three or four travel lanes (L4). The resulting model has the form (4) where E (Accsi) is expected pedestrian crashes at site i, yrsi is the number of years over which crash data was available for site i, and β0, β1, ... , β4 are parameters to be estimated. Models of this form were fit to data from marked and unmarked crosswalks separately. The models were fit by maximum likelihood methods using Procedure for General Models (PROC GENMOD) software, as developed by the SAS Institute. Crashes were assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution. Parameter estimates for these basic models are shown in table 2. Table 2. Parameter estimates for basic marked and unmarked crosswalk models. Marked Crosswalks Unmarked Crosswalks Parameter Estimate S.E.* p-Value Estimate S.E.* p-Value Constant ($0) -14.55 1.95 < .0001 -10.25 2.72 .0002 ADP ($1) .381 .065 < .0001 .602 .134 < .0001 ADT ($2) 1.006 .184 < .0001 .304 .258 .2388 L2 ($3) -.599 .328 .0678 -.066 .592 .9115 L4 ($4) .075 .247 .7608 -.208 .553 .7076 *S.E. = Standard Error For marked crosswalks, the results in table 2 show that expected crashes increased to a significant degree with both increasing pedestrian volume and increasing traffic volumes, with a much steeper increase for traffic volume. The lane variables compare two-lane roads with roads having five or more lanes, and three- or four-lane roads with roads having five or more lanes. The two-lane variable is marginally significant, while the three- or four-lane variable is not. The overall lanes effect (not shown) is significant (p-value of .0262). In subsequent models, a two-level lanes effect comparing two lanes with three or more is used. This variable is usually significant at a level of about .02. The results for unmarked crosswalks show the only statistically significant effect to be for pedestrian volume. Thus, expected crashes on unmarked crosswalks increased consistently with increasing pedestrian volumes (at a somewhat higher rate than that at marked crosswalks), but did not change consistently with increasing traffic volumes or with number of lanes. These results suggest that multilane streets with low traffic volumes might represent another subset of the data where marked and unmarked crosswalks might not differ significantly with respect to safety. This issue is addressed in more detail later in the report. 19 20 In addition to the variables included in the models presented above, data were available for several other factors potentially associated with crosswalk safety. These included: • Speed limit. • Location of crosswalk (intersection or midblock). • Presence and type of median. • Type of crosswalk marking (marked only). Neither speed limit nor crosswalk location (intersection or midblock) had a significant effect in the models for marked or unmarked crosswalk crashes. Initially, three types of medians were compared with no median. These were: • Raised medians. • Painted medians. • Two-way left turn lanes. Several specific types of crosswalks were represented in the data, but the primary comparison came down to a comparison between the standard markings (two parallel lines) versus designs with more markings (e.g., continental or ladder patterns shown in figure 12). In attempting to estimate these more detailed models, it was also a concern to consider effects due to specific locations (i.e., cities, States, regions) from which the data were obtained since crashes, types of medians and crosswalks, and other variables were not uniformly distributed across these locations. To this end, two sets of regions were identified (North-South and East-Midwest-West), and class variables indicating these regions were included in the models. A second approach was to estimate a model using data from all locations, then to re-estimate the model while omitting the data from each of the eight cities where the most data had been obtained, one step at a time, to see how the estimates changed. These eight cities and the total number of observation sites at each are listed below. • Seattle, WA (204). • San Francisco, CA (182). • New Orleans, LA (160). • Milwaukee, WI (136). • Cleveland, OH (110). • Cambridge, MA (92). • Oakland, CA (90). • Gainesville, FL (90). A few iterations of this process resulted in a model for marked crosswalk crashes summarized in table 3. The model for table 3 contains no variable pertaining to crosswalk type, a single variable indicating a raised median as opposed to no median or another median type, and another variable indicating the western region of the country as opposed to the East or Midwest. In some preliminary models, there was an indication that the crosswalk types with more markings were associated with slightly lower crash rates than the standard type. These results were not consistent across models and became quite nonsignificant when regional variables were included. Similarly, preliminary models indicated that raised medians were marginally better (associated with lower crash rates) than crosswalks having no median or painted medians, while two-way left turn lanes were significantly worse than the other types. With the addition of the East-Midwest-West regional variables, the two-way left turn lane effect became nonsignificant, and the raised median effect became more significant. All of the 21 two-way left turn lanes in the study sample were in the western region. The two-way left turn lanes did not account for the estimated West effect, however, since this estimate remained virtually unchanged when the data from the two-way left turn lane sites were deleted from the model. Table 3. Results for a marked crosswalk pedestrian crash model. Parameter Estimate S.E.* 95% Confidence Limits p-Value Intercept −15.09 1.65 (−18.33, −11.86) < .0001 Log (ADP) .33 .06 (.20, .45) < .0001 Log (ADT) .99 .17 (.65, 1.19) < .0001 Two lanes −.68 .26 (−1.19, -.18) .0074 Raised median −.58 .27 (−1.12, −.04) .0338 West region .77 .19 (.40, 1.14) < .0001 Dispersion 1.48 .41 (.85, 2.55) – *S.E. = Standard Error The North-South regional variable was not statistically significant. East-to-West effects were modeled as two variables, one comparing West to East, and the other comparing Midwest to East. The West-to-East comparison was significant, while the Midwest-to-East comparison was not. These variables were then collapsed to a single variable contrasting West with Midwest and East combined, which is the form used in the model of table 3. The apparent effect due to the western region was investigated further to see if this effect could be attributed to differing distributions of speed limits and/or numbers of lanes. This did not prove to be the case. Table 4 shows estimates of the same model parameters on the data subsets obtained by leaving out the data from each of the major cities. In general, the estimates are quite consistent across the subsets. All estimates listed were statistically significant at a .05 level with the exception of the two marked with an asterisk. These were the raised median effects on the datasets that omitted data from New Orleans, LA, and from Milwaukee, WI. The p-values for these estimates were .10 and .08, respectively. Results from the more detailed crash modeling on unmarked crosswalks are presented in tables 5 and 6. In contrast to the results of table 2, table 5 shows that when a variable indicating the presence of a median was included in the model, the effect of traffic volume (ADT) became statistically significant. As with marked crosswalks, various median types were also considered; in this case, a variable indicating a median of any type versus no median was the most relevant characterization. For unmarked crosswalks, the East, Midwest, and West comparisons showed the eastern region to have significantly lower crash rates than either the West or Midwest. Thus, a two-level variable contrasting east with the other two regions was used. The North-South comparison was again not significant. Table 4. Parameter estimates for marked subset models. Estimates on Subsets Parameters Seattle San Francisco Oakland New Orleans Milwaukee Cleveland Gainesville Cambridge Intercept −15.16 −15.22 −15.07 −14.91 −15.52 −14.97 −14.99 −15.54 Log (ADP) .32 .34 .36 .31 .34 .30 .34 .34 Log (ADT) 1.01 1.00 .97 .95 1.04 1.00 .98 1.05 Two lanes −.68 −.77 −.69 −.96 −.64 −.69 −.65 −.53 Raised median −.59 −.71 −.59 −.49* −.50* −.60 −.58 −.60 Western region .86 .75 .58 .87 .71 .77 .70 .70 *Not statistically significant at .05 level. Table 5. Results for an unmarked crosswalk model. Parameter Estimate S.E.* 95% Confidence Limits p-Value Intercept −12.11 2.59 (−17.18, −7.04) < .0001 Log (ADP) .64 .13 (.37, .90) < .0001 Log (ADT) .55 .26 (.04, 1.05) .0319 Median −1.27 .45 (−2.14, −.39) .0047 Eastern region −1.31 .48 (−2.25, −.38) .0060 Dispersion 1.18 1.30 (.14, 10.23) – *S.E. = Standard Error Table 6 shows the estimates of these model parameters were again consistent across the eight data subsets. The estimates marked with an asterisk (which were not significant at a .05 level) were the ADT effect on the subset with Seattle, WA, data omitted, and the ADT effect and eastern region effects on the subset with New Orleans, LA, data omitted. The p-values for these estimates were .06 in each case. Table 6. Parameter estimates for unmarked subset models. Estimates on Subsets Parameters Seattle San Francisco Oakland New Orleans Milwaukee Cleveland Gainesville Cambridge Intercept −11.19 −12.43 −11.89 −11.80 −11.92 −12.72 −11.94 −12.48 Log (ADP) .56 .69 .64 .52 .64 .69 .66 .65 Log (ADT) .48* .54 .52 .54*.52 .58 .52 .58 Median −1.24 −1.17 −1.17 −1.07 −1.25 −1.16 −1.24 −1.30 Eastern region −1.28 −1.23 −1.25 −.93*−1.56 −1.29 −1.03 1.03 * Not statistically significant at .05 level. While the models presented above examine the effects of medians, crosswalk designs, and other factors on pedestrian crashes, the primary factors associated with these crashes were shown to be pedestrian volumes and traffic volumes. Analyses based on the data shown in table 1 indicated no significant difference in the safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks on streets having two or fewer lanes, while marked crosswalks were less safe overall on multilane roads. The models suggest a further examination of multilane roads as a function of varying traffic volumes and the presence of raised medians. Table 7 shows pedestrian volumes, crashes, and average exposure years for a number of categories defined by number of lanes, traffic volumes, and median type. Using the same approach as for table 1, a marked crosswalk exposure proportion, pmi, was computed for category i, as 22 (5) where (6) where the sum extends over all sites (S) in category i, Xmi is the total exposure for marked crosswalks in category i, and Xumi is similarly defined as the total exposure for unmarked crosswalks in category i. 23 Table 7. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks. Lanes Median Traffic Volume Type Sites Pedestrian Volume Crashes Avg. Yrs.* Two None < 8,000 Marked Unmarked 248 252 110,697 67,793 15 10 4.85 4.86 Two None > 8,000 Marked Unmarked 199 200 62,530 35,957 19 13 4.74 4.75 Multi No raised median < 3,000 Marked Unmarked 10 13 1,446 998 0 0 3.80 4.08 Multi No raised median 3,000–6,000 Marked Unmarked 33 29 6,382 3,298 3 1 4.58 4.48 Multi No raised median 6,000–9,000 Marked Unmarked 37 39 20,608 5,397 0 2 4.43 4.49 Multi No raised median 9,000–12,000 Marked Unmarked 47 52 23,024 6,721 12 4 4.87 4.90 Multi No raised median 12,000–15,000 Marked Unmarked 76 73 20,719 7,825 23 2 4.82 4.79 Multi No raised median > 15,000 Marked Unmarked 210 207 39,835 12,700 91 6 4.57 4.57 Multi With raised median < 9,000 Marked Unmarked 30 23 5,024 1,182 2 0 4.87 4.83 Multi With raised median 9000–15,000 Marked Unmarked 22 25 4,924 1,671 3 0 4.18 4.28 Multi With raised median > 15,000 Marked Unmarked 88 87 16,659 11,276 20 3 4.60 4.56 *Avg. Yrs. = Average number of years of crash data per site. Then conditional on total crashes, Ni in category i, expected marked crosswalk crashes under the hypothesis of equal safety were estimated as Âmi = Ni pmi. The probability under this hypothesis of observing as many or more crashes in marked crosswalks as actually occurred was obtained from the binomial distribution with parameters pi and Ni. Table 8 lists these quantities for the various crosswalk categories. The results in table 8 suggest that on two-lane roads, multilane roads without raised medians and traffic volumes below 12,000 ADT, and multilane roads having raised medians and traffic volumes below 15,000 ADT, the hypothesis of equal safety for marked and unmarked crosswalks cannot be rejected. In other words, there was no significant effect of marked versus unmarked crosswalks on pedestrian crashes under the following conditions: • Two-lane roads. • Multilane roads without raised medians and with ADTs below 12,000. • Multilane roads with raised medians and with ADTs below 15,000. For multilane roads with ADTs above these values, there was a significant increase in pedestrian crashes on roads with marked crosswalks, compared to roads with unmarked crosswalks (after controlling for traffic ADT and pedestrian ADT). 24 Table 8. Crashes, exposure proportions, expected crashes, and binomial probabilities for categories of marked crosswalks. Number of Lanes Median Type Traffic Volume (ADT) Am pm E(Am) P (a > Am) Two – < 8,000 15 .6173 15.43 .6541 Two – > 8,000 19 .6382 20.42 .7631 Multi Not raised < 3,000 0 .6443 0 – Multi Not raised 3,000–6,000 3 .6612 2.64 .8529 Multi Not raised 6,000–9,000 0 .7985 1.60 1.00 Multi Not raised 9,000–12,000 12 .7741 12.39 .7149 Multi Not raised 12,000–15,000 23 .7383 18.46 .0242 Multi Not raised > 15,000 91 .7535 73.08 .000002 Multi Raised < 9,000 2 .8035 1.61 .6456 Multi Raised 9,000–15,000 3 .7500 2.25 .4219 Multi Raised > 15,000 20 .5919 13.61 .0041 pm= Proportion of pedestrian exposure at marked crosswalks. Am = Actual number of pedestrian crashes at the marked crosswalks. E(Am) = Estimated (predicted) number of pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks. P(a > Am) = Binomial probabilities. Comparisons of Pedestrian Age Distribution Effects Each pedestrian in both the crash and exposure samples was classified into one of seven age categories: 12 and under, 13–18, 19–25, 26–35, 36–50, 51–64, and 65 and over. Across the entire set of sites, the two age distributions differed substantially, with a considerably higher proportion of young adults (19– 35) in the exposure sample (compared to other age groups), and a much higher proportion of the oldest age group in the crash sample. The difference was statistically significant, χ26df = 216.86, p = .001. The data were then partitioned into four subsets determined by marked or unmarked crosswalks on streets having two lanes or having three or more lanes. The same general pattern of the exposure and crash age distributions tended to hold on the subsets. In particular, the crash distribution tended to always be higher for the oldest pedestrian group. The relatively small sample sizes of crashes in some of the subsets necessitated combining some of the age categories to obtain a valid statistical comparison of the distributions. Marked crosswalks on two-lane roads. There were 33 crashes in this subset. With seven age categories, several cells had expected counts of fewer than five, so the two youngest and the two oldest age groups were combined. It might be noted, however, that 7 of the 33 crashes (21.2 percent) involved pedestrians in the 65-and-over age group, compared to 3.4 percent in the exposure sample. The five- category collapsed distributions differed significantly (χ24df = 11.00, p = .027). Of the crash-involved pedestrians, 30.3 percent were in the 51-and-over age category, compared to 13.2 percent in the exposure sample. Unmarked crosswalks on two-lane roads. Only 21 pedestrian crashes occurred in this subset. Again, five-category age distributions were used for the statistical test. While the percentage of crash-involved pedestrians in the oldest age category (51 and older) was higher than that of the exposure sample (19.1 percent versus 10.8 percent), the distributions overall did not differ significantly (χ24 = 4.40, p = 0.354). 25 Marked crosswalks on multilane roads. Nearly 70 percent of the pedestrian crosswalk crashes occurred in this subset. Comparison of the seven-category age distributions was quite similar to that of the overall samples, with the proportion of young adults being lower in the crash sample and the proportion in the 65+ age group being much higher in the crash sample (18.1 percent versus 2.2 percent. The distributions differed significantly (χ26df = 166.88, p = .001). Unmarked crosswalks on multilane roads. Only 16 pedestrian crashes occurred at unmarked crosswalks on multilane roads, 6 of which involved pedestrians 51 years old or older. A simple comparison of this age category versus younger pedestrians between the two samples yielded a significant result (χ21df = 18.48, p = .001). There were 37.5 percent of crashes involving pedestrians 51 and older in the crash sample compared with 8.1 percent of this age group in the exposure sample. The multilane marked crosswalk subset was further subdivided on the basis of traffic volume (ADT). In the subset with ADT < 15,000, there were 39 pedestrian crashes; 10 (25.6 percent) of these involved pedestrians more than 50 years old. Only 13.9 percent of the exposure sample was over 50. A one- degree-of-freedom chi-square test indicated a significant difference (χ21df = 4.51, p = .034). Lowering the ADT cutoff to 12,000 reduced the size of the crash sample to 15. The percentages of pedestrians over 50 in the two samples were essentially unchanged (26.7 percent versus 13.9 percent), but with the smaller sample size the difference was no longer significant (χ21df = 2.04, p = .1540). In summary, older pedestrians were more at risk than younger pedestrians on virtually all types of crosswalks. This difference seemed most pronounced for marked crosswalks on multilane roads with high traffic volumes (ADT above 12,000), where crash occurrence was highest. COMPARISONS OF CROSSWALK CONDITIONS Data were collected on the condition of marked crosswalks. Conditions were coded as E (excellent), G (good), F (fair), and P (poor). This variable was entered as a class variable in the model for crashes on marked crosswalks to assess its effect on crashes. The estimated effect was not statistically significant (p = .1655). Furthermore, there is no assurance that the condition of the crosswalk markings was consistent over the data collection period. Pedestrian Crash Severity on Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks Overall, crashes tended to be more severe in marked crosswalks on multilane roads, but sample sizes were too small to draw any firm conclusions in that regard. In particular, there were six fatal crashes in marked crosswalks and none in unmarked crosswalks. The fatal crashes all occurred on multilane roads with traffic volumes greater than 12,000 ADT (5 with ADT > 15,000). Crash severity distributions did not differ significantly between marked and unmarked crosswalks on two-lane roads, based on a P2-statistic comparing A or B level injury crashes with lesser or no injuries (χ21df = .268, p = .604). Similarly, on multilane roads with ADT < 12,000, the P2-statistic and p-value (χ21df = .210, p = .647) showed no significant difference. FINAL PEDESTRIAN CRASH PREDICTION MODEL Previous models shown in this report used subgroups of the 2,000 crosswalks and modeled marked and unmarked separately. A final model (which incorporates the aforementioned results) also was fitted to all 2,000 crosswalks, and it includes direct correlation or matching of marked and unmarked crosswalks. To develop the final model form, generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used, since they provide a practical method to analyze correlated data with reasonable statistical efficiency. PROC GENMOD uses GEE and permits the analysis of correlated data. Another feature of the final model is that the distribution of pedestrian crashes at a crosswalk is assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution. The negative binomial is a distribution with an additional parameter (k) in the variance function. PROC GENMOD estimates k by maximum likelihood. (Refer to McCullagh and Nelder (chapter 11),(26) Hilbe,(27) or Lawless(28) for discussions of the negative binomial distribution.) The final model is a negative binomial regression model that was fitted with the observed number of pedestrian crashes as the dependent measure. A negative binomial model is an extension of traditional linear models that allows the mean of a population to depend on a linear predictor through a nonlinear link function and allows the response probability distribution to be a negative binomial distribution. PROC GENMOD is capable of performing negative binomial regression GENMOD using GEE methodology.(29) The final model uses the observed number of pedestrian crashes at a crosswalk as the dependent measure. The independent measures are estimated average daily pedestrian volume (pedestrian ADT), average daily traffic volume (traffic ADT), an indicator variable for marked crosswalks (CM); two indicator variables for number of lanes (one that indicates two travel lanes, L2; the other indicates three or four travel lanes, L4); and two indicators for median type (no raised median, Mnone, and raised median, Mraised). There are two interactions in the model. The first interaction in an interaction between pedestrian ADT and the indicator for marked crosswalk, ADP*CM. The second interaction in the model is between traffic ADT and the indicator for marked crosswalk, ADT*CM. The linear predictor has the form: (7) where ηi is the linear predictor for site i = 1 ,2, ..., 2,000. The number of years of accident data available for a site is used as an offset. β0, β1, ... , β9 are parameters to be estimated. The estimates of the parameters were obtained using PROC GENMOD. Parameter estimates for the final model are shown in table 9. Table 9. Parameter estimates for final model combining marked and unmarked crosswalks. Marked Parameter Estimate S.E.* p-Value Constant ($0) −8.2455 0.4633 < 0.0001 ADP ($1) 0.0011 0.0004 0.0149 ADT ($2) 0.0000 0.0000 0.7842 CM ($3) 0.3257 0.3988 0.4141 L2 ($4) −0.4786 0.3180 0.1323 L4 ($5) 0.0053 0.2638 0.9840 Mnone ($6) 0.1541 0.2090 0.4610 Mraised ($7) −0.5439 0.3064 0.0759 ADP*CM ($8) −0.0008 0.0004 0.0780 ADT*CM ($9) 0.0001 0.0000 0.0016 Dispersion 2.1970 0.5898 – *S.E. = Standard Error 26 27 The final model provides a framework to test the hypothesis of whether marked crosswalks have the same expected number of pedestrian crashes in 5 years controlling for the effects of pedestrian ADT, vehicle traffic ADT, number of lanes, and presence of a raised median. Because the interaction between traffic ADT and the indicator for marked crosswalk, ADT*CM ($9), was statistically significant, it was concluded that the presence of a marked crosswalk increases the expected number of pedestrian crashes in 5 years; however, the effect size is dependent on the traffic ADT and number of lanes. There is also a statistically significant interaction between pedestrian volume and the indicator for marked crosswalk, which was interpreted as the effect size of the presence of a marked crosswalk as dependent on the pedestrian volume. The lane indicator variables compare two lanes with five or more, and three or four lanes with five lanes or more. A two-degrees-of-freedom test for any lane effect has an associated p- value of 0.1071. The two median variables compare no median with other median, and raised median with other median. A two-degrees-of-freedom test for any median effect has an associated p-value of 0.0531. The number of lanes, type of median, pedestrian volume, and ADT are all intracorrelated. This correlation is evidenced by the fact that ADT increases as the number of lanes increases. Also, sites with two lanes do not have a median. The number of lanes was also included in the model and probably is expressed indirectly through ADT and median type. In the final model form, the regional effect was only marginally significant, and including the regional variables (i.e., western versus eastern region) into the model had virtually no influence on the crash effects of the other variables. Thus, the regional variable was not included in the final model. Further discussion of the final model relative to the goodness-of-fit measures, residuals, and possible biases of multicollinearity is contained in appendix B. In short, the final model was found to be valid and appropriate for the available database. A considerable amount of data exploration was also conducted during the analysis phase of study before developing the final model. Pedestrian Crash Plots The final pedestrian crash prediction model can be illustrated by inputting various values of pedestrian ADT, traffic ADT, number of lanes (two lanes, four lanes, or more), and median type (raised median or no raised median). All values used in the following figures (and in appendix B) are well within the actual distributions of the data sample. Figures 13 through 17 and the figures in appendix C (figures 45 through 64) all contain plots of response curves based on the final negative binomial prediction model. Each of these graphs shows a solid line for both marked and unmarked locations. For each solid line, there is a dashed line above and below it representing the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence intervals. The relationship of pedestrian crashes in a 5-year period is shown in figure 13 for a range of pedestrian ADTs for traffic ADT of 5,000 using the final crash prediction model. Notice that there is no difference in predicted pedestrian crashes in marked versus unmarked crosswalks for these conditions. Plots of pedestrian crashes in a 5-year period from the model are shown for two-lane roads as a function of traffic ADT in figure 14 (where pedestrian ADT = 300). Note that there is little if any difference in pedestrian crashes between marked and unmarked crosswalks, even for traffic ADTs as high as 15,000. In fact, for marked crosswalks with traffic ADT of 15,000 and 300 pedestrians per day, expected pedestrian crashes are 0.10 per 5 years, or 1 pedestrian crash per 50 years per site. Figure 15 illustrates the predicted pedestrian crashes for a five-lane pedestrian crossing with no median and a pedestrian ADT of 250. As traffic ADT increases, pedestrian crashes stay relatively consistent on 28 unmarked crosswalks (approximately 0.10 or less per 5 years). However, on marked crosswalks, pedestrian crashes increase as traffic ADT increases. Plots of the final model are given for five-lane crosswalks with a raised median in figures 16 and 17. Average pedestrian ADT is plotted versus pedestrian crashes in figure 16 for traffic ADT of 10,000, and there is little difference in pedestrian crashes at marked versus unmarked crosswalks. Note in figure 17, however, that marked crosswalks have an increasingly greater number of pedestrian crashes than unmarked crosswalks, as ADT increases from 15,000 to 50,000. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Yea r s 29 Figure 13. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus pedestrian ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Yea r s Figure 14. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model (pedestrian ADT = 300). 30 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s 31 Figure 15. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for five-lane roads (no median) based on the final model. 32 Figure 16. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus pedestrian ADT for five-lane roads (with median) based on the final model. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s 33 Figure 17. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic ADT for five-lane roads (with median) based on the final model (pedestrian ADT = 250). 34 Additional plots of pedestrian crashes using the final crash prediction model are given in appendix C for various combinations of the input variables. Tables of estimated pedestrian crashes per 5-year period are given in appendix D using the final model and inputting various combinations of traffic ADT, pedestrian ADT, numbers of lanes, and median type. Table 10 provides estimated pedestrian crashes for marked and unmarked five-lane crossings with a raised median. For example, from table 10, consider a marked crosswalk on a five-lane road (with a raised median) with 150 pedestrian crossings per day and a traffic ADT of 28,000. There would be 0.20 expected pedestrian crashes per 5-year period, or 1 pedestrian crash every 25 years, unless a pedestrian crossing improvement (e.g, traffic signals with pedestrian signals if warranted) is installed. In all cases, values of input variables are chosen well within actual ranges of the study database. A detailed discussion of potential pedestrian safety improvements at uncontrolled locations is in chapter 4 of this report. Table 10. Estimated number of pedestrian crashes in 5 years based on negative binomial model. Five Lanes with Median Average Daily Pedestrian Volume Average Daily Traffic (Motor Vehicle) Unmarked Lower 95% Unmarked Predicted Unmarked Upper 95% Marked Lower 95% Marked Predicted Marked Upper 95% 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.27 .028 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.43 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 35 CHAPTER 3. STUDY RESULTS SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES Poisson and negative binomial regression models were fit to pedestrian crash data from marked and unmarked crosswalks. These analyses showed that several factors in addition to crosswalk markings were associated with pedestrian crashes. Traffic and roadway factors found to be related to a greater frequency of pedestrian crashes included higher pedestrian volumes, higher traffic ADT, and a greater number of lanes (i.e., multilane roads with three or more lanes had higher pedestrian crash rates than two-lane roads). For this study, a center two-way left-turn lane was considered to be a travel lane and not a median. Surprisingly, after controlling for other factors (e.g., pedestrian volume, traffic volume, number of lanes, median type), speed limit was not significantly related to pedestrian crash frequency. Certainly, one would expect that higher vehicle speed would be associated with an increased probability of a pedestrian crash (all else being equal). However, the lack of association between speed limit and pedestrian crashes found in this analysis may be due to the fact that there was not much variation in the range of vehicle speed or speed limit at the study sites (i.e., 93 percent of the study sites had speed limits of 40.2 to 56.3 km/h (25 to 35 mi/h). Another possible explanation, as hypothesized by Garder, is that pedestrians may be more careful when crossing streets with higher speed limits; that is, they may avoid short gaps on high- speed roads, which may minimize the effect of vehicle speed on pedestrian crash rates.(30) In terms of speed and crash severity, the analysis showed that speed limits of 56.3 km/h (35 mi/h) and greater were associated with a higher percentage of fatal and type A (serious or incapacitating) injuries (43 percent) compared to sites having lower speed limits (23 percent of the crashes resulting in fatal or type A injuries). The presence of a raised median or raised crossing island was associated with a significantly lower pedestrian crash rate at multilane sites with both marked and unmarked crosswalks. These results were in basic agreement with a major study by Bowman and Vecellio(31) and also a study by Garder(32) that found safety benefits for pedestrians due to raised medians and refuge islands, respectively. Furthermore, on multilane roads, medians that were painted (but not raised) and center two-way left-turn lanes did not offer significant safety benefits to pedestrians, compared to multilane roads with no median at all. There did appear to be some regional effect. Marked and unmarked crosswalks in western U.S. cities had a significantly higher pedestrian crash rate than eastern U.S. cities (after controlling for pedestrian exposure, number of lanes, median type, and other site conditions). The reason(s) for these regional differences in pedestrian crash rate is not known, although it could be related to regional differences in driver and pedestrian behavior, higher vehicle speeds in western cities, differences in pedestrian-related laws or enforcement levels, variations in roadway design features, and/or other factors. However, this effect was only marginally significant in the final crash prediction model, and excluding it from the model had little effect on the model results. All of the variables related to pedestrian crashes (i.e., pedestrian volume, traffic ADT, number of lanes, existence of median and median type, and region of the country) then were included in the models for determining the effects of marked and unmarked sites. Factors having no significant effect on pedestrian crash rate included: area (e.g., residential, central business district (CBD)), location (i.e., intersection versus midblock), speed limit, traffic operation (one-way or two-way), condition of crosswalk marking (excellent, good, fair, or poor), and crosswalk marking pattern (e.g., parallel lines, ladder type, zebra stripes). One may expect that crosswalk marking condition may not necessarily be related to pedestrian crash rate, since the condition of the markings may have varied over the 5-year analysis period, and the condition of the markings was observed only once. Furthermore, in some regions, the crosswalk markings may be less visible during or after rain or snow storms. It is also recognized, however, that 36 some agencies may maintain and restripe crosswalks more often than other agencies included in the study sample. MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALK COMPARISONS The results revealed that on two-lane roads, there were no significant differences in pedestrian crashes for marked and unmarked crosswalk sites. In other words, pedestrian safety on two-lane roads was not found to be different, whether the crosswalk was marked or unmarked. This conclusion is based on a sample size of 914 crossing sites on two-lane roads (out of 2,000 total sites). Specifically, binomial comparison of pedestrian crash rates were computed for marked and unmarked sites within subsets by ADT, median type, and number of lanes, as shown in figure 18. On multilane roads with ADT of 12,000 or less, there were also no differences in pedestrian crash rates between marked and unmarked sites. On multilane roads with no raised medians and ADTs greater than 12,000, sites with marked crosswalks had higher pedestrian crash rates than unmarked crossings. On multilane roads (roads with three to eight lanes) with raised medians and vehicle ADTs greater than 15,000, a significantly higher pedestrian crash rate was associated with marked crosswalk sites compared to unmarked sites. Best-fit curves for multilane undivided roads were produced for pedestrian crashes (per million pedestrian crossings) at marked and unmarked crosswalks as a function of vehicle volume (ADT), as shown in figure 19. The data points of figure 19 were obtained by aggregating sites into traffic volume categories. Since each marked crosswalk site and its matched comparison (unmarked) site usually had the same traffic volume, each traffic volume category usually contained the same number of marked and unmarked sites (there were a few exceptions). Pedestrian crash rates were computed based on total pedestrian crashes and total pedestrian crossings within each traffic volume category. In figure 19, these rates are plotted at the midpoints of the traffic volume categories. Smooth curves were then fit to the data points. Similar analyses were conducted for multilane divided roads. A final negative binomial model was also developed. The analysis for multilane undivided roads revealed that: • For traffic volumes (ADTs) of about 10,000 or less, pedestrian crash rates were about the same (i.e., less than 0.25 pedestrian crashes per million pedestrian crossings) between marked and unmarked crosswalks. • For ADTs greater than 10,000, the pedestrian crash rate for marked crosswalks became increasingly higher as the ADTs increased. The pedestrian crash rate at unmarked crossings increased only slightly as the ADTs increased. 0.12 0.17 0.63 1.37 0.17 0.74 0.12 0.25 0.15 0.28 0 0.17 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 u u u u u u Type of Crossing Pe d e s t r i a n C r a s h R a t e (P e d e s t r i a n C r a s h e s p e r M i l l i o n C r o s s i n g s ) M= Marked U= Unmarked M U No Median All ADT's 2 Lanes (914 Sites) M U No Raised Median < 12,000 ADT 3 to 8 Lanes (260 Sites) M U No Raised Median 12,000-15,000 ADT 3 to 8 Lanes (149 Sites) M U No Raised Median > 15,000 ADT 3 to 8 Lanes (417 Sites) M U Raised Median < 15,000 ADT 3 to 8 Lanes (87 Sites) M U Raised Median > 15,000 ADT 3 to 8 Lanes (173 Sites) Sig. = Significant Difference N.S. = No Significant Difference Crosswalk Type (p=0.62) N.S. (p=0.00) (p=0.02) (p=0.87)(p=0.59) N.S. Sig. Sig. Sig. N.S. (p=0.004) 37 Figure 18. Pedestrian crash rate versus type of crossing. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Vehicle Volume (ADT) Pe d e s t r i a n C r a s h e s p e r M i l l i o n P e d e s t r i a n C r o s s i n g s Marked Unmarked ADT < 10,000 No difference in pedestrian crashes between marked and unmarked crosswalks ADT > 10,000 Higher pedestrian crash rates at marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks Note: Each data point represents multiple sites within an ADT range. Multilane, Undivided Roads Only Best-Fit Curve: Marked Best-Fit Curve: Unmarked 38 Figure 19. Pedestrian crash rates by traffic volume for multilane crossings with no raised medians—marked versus unmarked crosswalks. 39 Note that each point on the graph in figure 19 represents dozens of sites, that is, all of the sites corresponding to the given ADT group. For example, the data point for marked crosswalks with ADTs greater than 15,000 corresponds to more than 400 sites. All analyses in this study took into account differences in pedestrian crossing volume, traffic volume, and other important site variables. These results may be somewhat expected. Wide, multilane streets are difficult for many pedestrians to cross, particularly if there is an insufficient number of adequate gaps in traffic due to heavy traffic volume and high vehicle speed. Furthermore, while marked crosswalks in themselves may not increase measurable unsafe pedestrian or motorist behavior (based on the Knoblauch et al. and Knoblauch and Raymond studies(13,14)) one possible explanation is that installing a marked crosswalk may increase the number of at-risk pedestrians (particularly children and older adults) who choose to cross at the uncontrolled location instead of at the nearest traffic signal. The pedestrian crossing counts at the 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 unmarked comparison crossings in this study may partially explain the difference. Overall, 66.1 percent of the observed pedestrians crossed at marked crosswalks, compared to 33.9 percent at unmarked crossings. More than 70 percent of pedestrians under age 12 and above age 64 crossed at marked crosswalks, while about 35 percent of pedestrians in the 19- to 35-year-old range crossed at unmarked crossings, as shown in figure 20. The age group of pedestrians was estimated based on site observation. An even greater percentage of older adults (81.3 percent) and young children (76.0 percent) chose to cross in marked crosswalks on multilane roads compared to two-lane roads. Thus, installing a marked crosswalk at an already undesirable crossing location (e.g., wide, high-volume street) may increase the chance of a pedestrian crash occurring at such a site if a few at-risk pedestrians are encouraged to cross where other adequate crossing facilities are not provided. This explanation might be evidenced by the many calls to traffic engineers from citizens who state, “Please install a marked crosswalk so that we can cross the dangerous street near our house.” Unfortunately, simply installing a marked crosswalk without other more substantial crossing facilities often does not result in the majority of motorists stopping and yielding to pedestrians, contrary to the expectations of many pedestrians. On three-lane roads (i.e., one lane in each direction with a center two-way left-turn lane), the crash risk was slightly higher for marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks, but this difference was not significant (based on a sample size of 148 sites). CRASH TYPES The greatest difference in pedestrian crash types that occurred at marked and unmarked crosswalks involved multiple-threat crashes. A multiple-threat crash involves a driver stopping in one lane of a multilane road to permit pedestrians to cross, and an oncoming vehicle (in the same direction) strikes the pedestrian who is crossing in front of the stopped vehicle. This crash type involves both the pedestrian and driver failing to see each other in time to avoid the collision (see figure 21). To avoid multiple-threat collisions, drivers should slow down and look around stopped vehicles in the adjacent travel lane, and pedestrians should stop at the outer edge of a stopped vehicle and look into the oncoming lane for approaching vehicles before stepping into the lane. 73.2 67.1 64 63.6 66.9 70.4 73.1 26.8 32.9 36 36.4 33.1 29.6 26.9 76 70.8 71.8 69.6 73.8 78.8 81.3 70.5 62.4 59.5 58.9 61.1 64.5 68.7 24 29.2 28.2 30.4 26.2 21.2 18.7 29.5 37.6 40.5 41.1 38.9 35.5 31.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 <12 13-18 19-25 26-35 36-50 51-64 65+ Pedestrian Age Pe r c e n t a g e o f A l l P e d e s t r i a n C r o s s i n g s Marked (All Sites) Unmarked (All Sites) Marked (4 or more lanes) Marked (2 lanes) Unmarked (4 or more lanes) Unmarked (2 lanes) Marked = 66.1% overall Unmarked = 33.9% overall Note: Overall, for the 2,000 study sites, 66.1% of the pedestrians crossed in marked crosswalks, while 33.9% crossed at unmarked crossings. 40 Figure 20. Percentage of pedestrians crossing at marked and unmarked crosswalks by age group and road type. Figure 21. Illustration of multiple-threat pedestrian crash. A total of 17.6 percent (33 out of 188) of the pedestrian crashes in marked crosswalks were classified as multiple threat. None of the 41 pedestrian crashes in unmarked crosswalks was a multiple-threat crash. This finding may be the result of one or more of the following factors: • Drivers may be more likely to stop and yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crossings, since at least one motorist must stop for a pedestrian to set up a multiple-threat pedestrian collision. Also, pedestrians may be more likely to step out in front of oncoming traffic in a marked crosswalk than at an unmarked location in some instances. • A second explanation is related to the fact that most of the total pedestrians who are crossing multilane roads are crossing in a marked crosswalk (66.1 percent), as shown earlier in figure 14. Furthermore, of the pedestrian age groups most at risk (the young and the old), an even greater proportion of these pedestrians are choosing to cross multilane roads in marked crosswalks (76 percent and 81.3 percent, respectively). • Another possible explanation could be that some pedestrians crossing in a marked crosswalk may be less likely to search properly for vehicles (compared to an unmarked crossing) when stepping out past a stopped vehicle and into an adjacent lane (i.e., pedestrians not realizing that they need to search for other oncoming vehicles after one motorist stops for them). Further research on pedestrian and motorist behavior could help to gain a better understanding of the causes and potential effects of countermeasures (e.g., advance stop lines) related to these crashes. There is also a need to examine the current laws and level of police enforcement (and a possible need for changes in the laws) on motorist responsibility to yield to pedestrians and how these laws differ between States. A distribution of pedestrian crash types, which includes all of the 229 pedestrian collisions at the 2,000 study sites, is shown in figure 22. Motorists failing to yield (on through movements) represented a large percentage of pedestrian crashes in marked crosswalks (41.5 percent) and unmarked crosswalks (31.7 percent). Likewise, vehicle turn and merge crashes, also generally the fault of the driver, accounted for 19.2 percent (marked crosswalks) and 12.2 percent (unmarked crosswalks) of such crashes (see figure 22). These results indicate a strong need 41 for improved driver enforcement and education programs that emphasize the importance of yielding or stopping for pedestrians. More pedestrian-friendly roadway designs may also be helpful in reducing such crashes by slowing vehicles, providing pedestrian refuge (e.g., raised medians), and/or better warning to motorists about pedestrian crossings. 17.6 19.2 5.8 10.1 5.8 41.5 0.0 12.2 12.2 9.8 34.2 31.7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Multiple Threat Vehicle Turn/Merge Dartout Dash Pedestrian — Fail to Yield* Motorist — Fail to Yield*Crash Type Pe r c e n t a g e o f A l l P e d e s t r i a n C r a s h e s Marked Unmarked *Note: The "Fail to Yield" designation was assigned based on the police officer's determination of who was at fault, and is not necessarily a proper or legally correct conclusion for a given crash. Figure 22. Pedestrian crash types at marked and unmarked crosswalks. A substantial proportion of pedestrian crashes involved dartout, dash, and other types of crashes in which the pedestrian stepped or ran in front of an oncoming vehicle at unmarked crosswalks (23 of 41, or 56.1 percent) and a lesser proportion occurred at marked crosswalks (41 of 188, or 21.8 percent). Police officers sometimes unjustifiably assign fault to the pedestrian, which suggests the need for more police training. Specifically, it may be questioned why so many pedestrian crashes were designated by the police officer as “pedestrian fails to yield,” since in most States, motorists are required legally to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians who are crossing in marked or unmarked crosswalks. Of course, some State ordinances do specify that pedestrians also bear some responsibility for avoiding a collision by not stepping out into the street directly into the path of an oncoming motorist who is too close to the crosswalk to stop in time to avoid a collision. It is likely that police officers often rely largely on the statement of the motorist (e.g., “the pedestrian ran out in front of me” or “came out of nowhere”) in determining fault in such crashes, particularly when the driver was not paying proper attention to the road, the pedestrian is unconscious, and there are no other witnesses at the scene. However, it is also true that a major contributing factor is the unsafe behavior of pedestrians. Dartouts, dashes, and failure of the pedestrians to yield were indicated by police officers as contributing causes in 27.9 percent (64 of 229) of the pedestrian crashes at the study sites. These results are indicative of a need for improved pedestrian educational programs, which is in agreement with recommendations in other important studies related to improving the safety of vulnerable road users.(33) Furthermore, speeding drivers often contribute to 42 dartout crashes, in addition to unsafe pedestrian behaviors. Creating more pedestrian-friendly crossings by including curb extensions, traffic-calming measures, and other features may also be useful in reducing many of these crashes. It should be mentioned that alcohol use by pedestrians and motorists may also contribute to pedestrian crash experience. However, reliable information on alcohol involvement was not available from local crash reports; therefore, such analysis was not possible for this study. CRASH SEVERITY An analysis was conducted to compare pedestrian crash severity on marked and unmarked crosswalks (figure 23). Crash severity did not differ significantly between marked and unmarked crosswalks on two- lane roads. On multilane roads, there was evidence of more fatal (type K) and type A injury pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks, although the sample sizes were too small for statistical reliability. This result probably is due to older pedestrians being more likely than other age groups to walk in marked rather than unmarked crosswalks. Furthermore, older pedestrians are much more likely to sustain fatal and serious injuries than younger pedestrians. As mentioned earlier, speed limits of 56.3 km/h (35 mi/h) and higher were associated with a greater percentage of fatal and/or type A injuries (43 percent), whereas sites with lower speed limits had 23 percent of pedestrian crashes resulting in fatal and/or type A injuries. 43 42.7% 21.9% 10.3% 35.9% 15.4% 0.0% 3.4% 28.1% 3.9% 38.5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% None/Possible Injury Type C (Minor) Injury Type B (Moderate) Injury Type A (Serious/Incapacitating) Injury Fatal Injury Injury Severity Pe r c e n t o f P e d e s t r i a n C o l l i s i o n s Marked Crosswalks Unmarked Crosswalks Figure 23. Severity distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks. LIGHTING AND TIME OF DAY Nighttime pedestrian crash percentages were about the same at marked and unmarked crosswalks (approximately 30 percent). In terms of time of day, the percentage of pedestrian crashes in marked crosswalks tended to be higher than for unmarked crosswalks during the morning (6 to 10 a.m.) and afternoon (3 to 7 p.m.) peak periods, but lower in the midday (10 a.m. to 3 p.m.) and evening (7 p.m. to midnight) periods (figure 24). This is probably because pedestrians are more likely to cross in marked crosswalks than in unmarked crossings during peak traffic periods (e.g., walking to and from work) than at other times. As shown in figure 25, little difference is noticeable between pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks with respect to light condition. However, it is apparent that adequate nighttime lighting should be provided at marked crosswalks to enhance the safety of pedestrians crossing at night. 44 12 a.m. to 5:59 a.m. 6 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. 10 a.m. to 2:59 p.m. 3 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 7 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. Time of Day 24.5% 4.9% 29.3% 24.4% 34.2% 13.3% 2.1% 36.7% 23.4% 7.3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Pe r c e n t o f P e d e s t r i a n C o l l i s i o n s Marked Crosswalks Unmarked Crosswalks Figure 24. Distribution of pedestrian collisions by time of day for marked and unmarked crosswalks. 45 4.9% 25.4% 30.0% 0.0% 66.5% 3.2% 67.5% 2.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Daylight Dawn/Dusk Dark - Lighted Dark - No Lights Light Condition Pe r c e n t o f P e d e s t r i a n C o l l i s i o n s Marked Crosswalks Unmarked Crosswalks Figure 25. Pedestrian collisions by light condition for marked and unmarked crosswalks. AGE EFFECTS A separate analysis of pedestrian crashes and crossing volumes by age of pedestrian was conducted (figure 26). For virtually every situation studied, pedestrians age 65 and older were overrepresented in pedestrian crashes compared to their relative crossing volumes. Figures 27–30 show the relative proportion of crashes and exposure for various age groups for marked crosswalks on two-lane and multilane roads. For a given age group, when the proportion of crashes exceeds the proportion of exposure, then crashes are overrepresented; that is, pedestrians in that population group are at greater risk of being in a pedestrian crash than would be expected from their volume alone. The pedestrian age groups younger than 65 showed no clear increase in crash risk compared to their crossing volumes. One possible reason that young pedestrians were not overly involved in crash occurrences is the fact that many crashes involving young pedestrians (particularly ages 5 to 9) occur on residential streets, whereas this study did not include school crossings; most sites were drawn from collector and arterial streets (where marked crosswalks exist) that are less likely to be frequented by unescorted young children. Also, some of the young children counted in this study were crossing with their parents or other adults, which may have reduced their risk of a crash. Some of the possible reasons that older pedestrians are at greater risk when crossing streets compared to other age groups are that older adults are more likely (as an overall group) than younger pedestrians to have: • Slower walking speeds (and thus greater exposure time). • Visual and/or hearing impairments. 46 • Difficulty in judging the distance and speed of oncoming traffic. • More difficulty keeping track of vehicles coming from different directions, including turning vehicles. • Inability to react (e.g., stop, dodge, or run) as quickly as younger pedestrians in order to avoid a collision under emergency conditions. 7.2% 16.7% 27.8% 13.9% 17.2% 8.3% 8.9% 7.2% 37.2% 0.0% 5.6% 33.3% 5.6% 11.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 + Age of Pedestrian Pe r c e n t o f P e d e s t r i a n C o l l i s i o n s Marked Crosswalks Unmarked Crosswalks Figure 26. Age distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks. 47 48 Pedestrian Exposure Pedestrian Crashes Figure 27. Two-Lane Roads, Marked Crosswalks. Figure 28. Two-Lane Roads, Unmarked Crosswalks. Pedestrian Exposure Pedestrian Crashes Figure 30. Multilane Roads, Unmarked Crosswalks.Figure 29. Multilane Roads, Marked Crosswalks. Pedestrian Exposure Pedestrian Crashes Pedestrian Exposure Pedestrian Crashes Figures 27–30. Percentage of crashes and exposure by pedestrian age group and roadway type at uncontrolled marked and unmarked crosswalks. DRIVER AND PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOR AT CROSSWALKS A companion study was conducted by Knoblauch et al. on pedestrian and motorist behavior and on vehicle speed before and after crosswalk installation at sites in Minnesota, New York, and Virginia (on two-lane and three-lane streets) to help gain a better understanding of the effects of marked crosswalks versus unmarked crosswalks.(13) The study results revealed that very few motorists stopped or yielded to pedestrians either before or after marked crosswalks were installed. After marked crosswalks were installed, there was a small increase in pedestrian scanning behavior before stepping out into the street. Also, there was approximately a 1.6-km/h (1-mi/h) reduction in vehicle speed after the marked crosswalks were installed.(13) These behavioral results tend to contradict the false sense of security claims attributed to marked crosswalks, since observed pedestrian behavior actually improved after marked crosswalks were installed at the study sites. However, measures such as pedestrian awareness and an expectation that motorists will stop for them cannot be collected by field observation alone. Installing marked crosswalks or other measures can affect pedestrian level of service if the measures increase the number of motorists who stop and yield to pedestrians. Furthermore, a greater likelihood of motorist stopping can also setup more multiple threat crashes on multilane roads. Future studies using focus groups of pedestrians and questionnaires completed by pedestrians in the field could shed light on such measures. 49 CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and their needs should be identified routinely —and appropriate solutions selected—to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. The study results revealed that under no condition was the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location associated with a significantly lower pedestrian crash rate compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Furthermore, on multilane roads with traffic volumes greater than 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate (after controlling for other site factors) compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Therefore, adding marked crosswalks alone (i.e., with no engineering, enforcement, or education enhancement) is not expected to reduce pedestrian crashes for any of the conditions included in the study. On many roadways, particularly multilane and high-speed crossing locations, more substantial improvements often are needed for safer pedestrian crossings, such as providing raised medians, installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals) when warranted, implementing speed-reducing measures, and/or other practices. In addition, development patterns that reduce the speed and number of multilane roads should be encouraged. Street crossing locations should be routinely reviewed to consider the three following available options: 1. No special provisions needed. 2. Provide a marked crosswalk alone. 3. Install other crossing improvements (with or without a marked crosswalk) to reduce vehicle speeds, shorten the crossing distance, or increase the likelihood of motorists stopping and yielding. GUIDELINES FOR CROSSWALK INSTALLATION Marked pedestrian crosswalks may be used to delineate preferred pedestrian paths across roadways under the following conditions: • At locations with stop signs or traffic signals to direct pedestrians to those crossing locations and to prevent vehicular traffic from blocking the pedestrian path when stopping for a stop sign or red light. • At nonsignalized street crossing locations in designated school zones. Use of adult crossing guards, school signs and markings, and/or traffic signals with pedestrian signals (when warranted) should be considered in conjunction with the marked crosswalk, as needed. • At nonsignalized locations where engineering judgment dictates that the number of motor vehicle lanes, pedestrian exposure, average daily traffic (ADT), posted speed limit, and geometry of the location would make the use of specially designated crosswalks desirable for traffic/pedestrian safety and mobility. Marked crosswalks alone (i.e., without traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement) are insufficient and should not be used under the following conditions: 51 • Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h). • On a roadway with four or more lanes without a raised median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 12,000 or greater. • On a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median or crossing island that has (or soon will have) an ADT of 15,000 or greater. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS Since sites in this study were confined to those having no traffic signal or stop sign on the main street approaches to the crosswalk, it follows that these results do not apply to crossings controlled by traffic signals, stop or yield signs, traffic-calming treatments, or other devices. These results also do not apply to school crossings, since such sites were purposely excluded from the site selection process. The results of this study have some clear implications on the placement of marked crosswalks and the design of safer pedestrian crossings at uncontrolled locations. Pedestrian crashes are relatively rare at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings (1 crash every 43.7 years per site in this study); however, the certainty of injury to the pedestrian and the high likelihood of a severe or fatal injury in a high-speed crash make it critical to provide a pedestrian-friendly transportation network. Marked crosswalks alone (i.e., without traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial improvement) are not recommended at uncontrolled crossing locations on multilane roads (i.e., four or more lanes) where traffic volume exceeds approximately 12,000 vehicles per day (with no raised medians) or approximately 15,000 ADT (with raised medians that serve as refuge areas). This recommendation is based on the analysis of pedestrian crash experience, as well as exposure data and site conditions described earlier. To add a margin of safety and/or to account for future increases in traffic volume, the authors recommend against installing marked crosswalks alone on two- lane roads with ADTs greater than 12,000 or on multilane roads with ADTs greater than 9,000 (with no raised median). This study also recommends against installing marked crosswalks alone on roadways with speed limits higher than 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) based on the expected increase in driver stopping distance at higher speeds. (Few sites were found for this study having marked crosswalks where speed limits exceeded 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h).) Instead, enhanced crossing treatments (e.g., traffic-calming treatments, traffic and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial improvement) are recommended. Specific recommendations are given in table 11 regarding installation of marked crosswalks and other crossing measures. It is important for motorists to understand their legal responsibility to yield to pedestrians at marked and unmarked crosswalks, which may vary from State to State. Also, pedestrians should use caution when crossing streets, regardless of who has the legal right- of-way, since it is the pedestrian who suffers the most physical injury in a collision with a motor vehicle. On two-lane roads and lower volume multilane roads (ADTs less than 12,000), marked crosswalks were not found to have any positive or negative effect on pedestrian crash rates at the study sites. Marked crosswalks may encourage pedestrians to cross the street at such sites. However, it is recommended that crosswalks alone (without other crossing enhancements) not be installed at locations that may pose unusual safety risks to pedestrians. Pedestrians should not be encouraged to cross the street at sites with limited sight distance, complex or confusing designs, or at sites with certain vehicle mixes (many heavy trucks) or other dangers unless adequate design features and/or traffic control devices are in place. At uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations, installing marked crosswalks should not be regarded as a magic cure for pedestrian safety problems. However, marked crosswalks also should not be considered as 52 a negative measure that will necessarily increase pedestrian crashes. Marked crosswalks are appropriate at some locations (e.g., at selected low-speed, two-lane streets at downtown crossing locations) to help channel pedestrians to preferred crossing locations, but other roadway improvements are also necessary (e.g., raised medians, traffic-calming treatments, traffic and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement) when used at other locations. The guidelines presented in table 11 are intended to provide guidance for installing marked crosswalks and other pedestrian crossing facilities. Note that speed limit was used in table 11 in addition to ADT, number of lanes, and presence of a median. In developing the table, roads with higher speed limits (higher than 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h)) were considered to be inappropriate for adding marked crosswalks alone. This is because virtually no uncontrolled, marked crosswalk sites where speed limits exceed 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) were found in the 30 U.S. cities used in this study. Thus, these types of high-speed, uncontrolled marked crosswalks could not be included in the analysis. Also, high-speed roadways present added problems for pedestrians and thus require more substantial treatments in many cases. That may be why Germany, Finland, and Norway do not allow uncontrolled crosswalks on roads with high speed limits.(30) For three-lane roads, adding marked crosswalks alone (without other substantial treatments) is generally not recommended for ADTs greater than 12,000, although exceptions may be allowed under certain conditions (e.g., lower speed limits). If nothing else is done beyond marking crosswalks at an uncontrolled location, pedestrians will not experience increased safety (under any situations included in the analysis). This finding is in some ways consistent with the companion study by Knoblauch et al. that found that marking a crosswalk would not necessarily increase the number of motorists that will stop or yield to pedestrians.(13) Research from Europe shows the need for pedestrian improvements beyond uncontrolled crosswalks.(17,21) 53 Table 11. Recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and other needed pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.* Vehicle ADT < 9,000 Vehicle ADT >9,000 to 12,000 Vehicle ADT >12,000–15,000 Vehicle ADT > 15,000 54 Speed Limit** Roadway Type (Number of Travel Lanes and Median Type) < 48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) 56.4 km/h (35 mi/h) 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) < 48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) 56.4 km/h (35 mi/h) 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) < 48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) 56.4 km/h (35 mi/h) 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) < 48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) 56.4 km/h (35 mi/h) 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) Two lanes C C P C C P C C N C P N Three lanes C C P C P P P P N P N N Multilane (four or more lanes) with raised median*** C C P C P N P P N N N N Multilane (four or more lanes) without raised median C P N P P N N N N N N N * These guidelines include intersection and midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to school crossings. A two- way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install crosswalks. ** Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h), marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. *** The raised median or crossing island must be at least 1.2 m (4 ft) wide and 1.8 m (6 ft) long to serve adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with MUTCD and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more indepth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, and other factors may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum utilization of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. In some situations (e.g., low-speed, two-lane streets in downtown areas), installing a marked crosswalk may help consolidate multiple crossing points. Engineering judgment should be used to install crosswalks at preferred crossing locations (e.g., at a crossing location at a streetlight as opposed to an unlit crossing point nearby). While overuse of marked crossings at uncontrolled locations should be avoided, higher priority should be placed on providing crosswalk markings where pedestrian volume exceeds about 20 per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly pedestrians and/or children per peak hour). Marked crosswalks and other pedestrian facilities (or lack of facilities) should be routinely monitored to determine what improvements are needed. POSSIBLE MEASURES TO HELP PEDESTRIANS Although simply installing marked crosswalks by themselves cannot solve pedestrian crossing problems, the safety needs of pedestrians must not be ignored. More substantial engineering and roadway treatments need to be considered, as well as enforcement and education programs and possibly new legislation to provide safer and easier crossings for pedestrians at problem locations. Transportation and safety engineers have a responsibility to consider all types of road users in roadway planning, design, and maintenance. Pedestrians must be provided with safe facilities for travel. A variety of pedestrian facilities have been found to improve pedestrian safety and/or ability to cross the street under various conditions. (See references 16, 31, 32, 33, and 34.) Examples of pedestrian improvements include: • Providing raised medians (figure 31) or intersection crossing islands on multilane roads, which can significantly reduce the pedestrian crash rate and also facilitate street crossing. Also, raised medians may provide aesthetic improvement and may control access to prevent unsafe turns out of driveways. Refuge islands should be at least 1.2 m (4 ft) wide (and preferably 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft) wide) and of adequate length to allow pedestrians to stand and wait for gaps in traffic before crossing the second half of the street. When built, the landscaping should be designed and maintained to provide good visibility between pedestrians and approaching motorists. Figure 31. Raised medians and crossing islands can improve pedestrian safety on multilane roads. • Installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals), where warranted (see figures 32 and 33). 55 Figure 33. Traffic signals are needed to improve pedestrian crossings on some high- volume or multilane roads. Figure 32. Pedestrian signals help accommodate pedestrian crossings on some high-volume or multilane roads. • Reducing the effective street crossing distance for pedestrians by narrowing the roads or by providing curb extensions (figures 34 and 35) and/or raised pedestrian islands at intersections. Figure 34. Curb extensions at midblock Figure 35. Curb extensions at intersections reduce crossing distance for pedestrians. locations reduce crossing distance for pedestrians. Another option is to reduce four-lane undivided road sections to two through-lanes with dual left-turn lanes or left-turn bays. Reducing the width of the lanes may result in slower speeds in some situations, which can benefit pedestrians who are attempting to cross the street. This creates enough space to provide median islands. The removal of a travel lane may also allow enough space for sidewalks and/or bike lanes. • Installing traffic-calming measures may be appropriate on certain streets to slow vehicle speeds and/or reduce cut-through traffic, as described in a 1999 report titled Traffic Calming: State of the Practice.(24) Traffic-calming measures include raised crossings (raised crosswalks, raised intersections) (see figure 36), street narrowing measures (chicanes, slow points, “skinny street” designs), and intersection 56 designs (traffic minicircles, diagonal diverters). Note that some of these traffic-calming measures may not be appropriate on major collector or arterial streets. Figure 36. Raised crosswalks can control vehicle speeds on local streets at pedestrian crossings. • Providing adequate nighttime lighting for pedestrians (figure 37). Adequate nighttime lighting should be provided at marked crosswalks and areas near churches, schools, and community centers with nighttime pedestrian activity. Figure 37. Adequate lighting can improve pedestrian safety at night. • Designing safer intersections for pedestrians (e.g., crossing islands, tighter turn radii). • Providing narrower widths and/or access management (e.g., consolidation of driveways). • Constructing grade-separated crossings or pedestrian-only streets (see figure 38). Grade-separated crossings are very expensive and should only be considered in extreme situations, such as where pedestrian crossings are essential (e.g., school children need to cross a six-lane arterial street), street- crossing at-grade is not feasible for pedestrians, and no other measures are considered to be 57 appropriate. Grade-separated crossings must also conform to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Figure 38. Grade-separated crossings sometimes are used when other measures are not feasible to provide safe pedestrian crossings. • Using various pedestrian warning signs, flashers, and other traffic control devices to supplement marked crosswalks (figure 39). However, the effects of supplemental signs and other devices at marked crosswalks are not well known under various roadway conditions. According to the MUTCD, pedestrian crossing signs should only be used at locations that are unusually hazardous, where crossing activity is unexpected, or at locations where pedestrian crossing activity is not readily apparent.(2) Figure 39. Pedestrian warning signs sometimes are used to supplement crosswalks. • Building narrower streets in new communities to achieve desired vehicle speeds. • Increasing the frequency of two-lane or three-lane arterials when designing new street networks so that fewer multilane arterials are required. It is recommended that parking be eliminated on the approach to uncontrolled crosswalks to improve vision between pedestrians and motorists. The 2000 Uniform Vehicle Code specifies that parking should be prohibited within an intersection on a crosswalk, and within 6.1 m (20 ft) of a crosswalk at an intersection (which could be increased to 9.1 to 15.25 m (30 to 50 ft) in advance of a crosswalk on a high- speed road.(1) 58 Some agencies provide fences or railings in the raised medians of multilane roads that direct pedestrians to the right; this results in a two-stage crossing and increases the likelihood of pedestrians looking for vehicles coming from their right in the second half of the street (figures 40 and 41). Figure 40. Fences or railings in the median direct pedestrians to the right and may reduce pedestrian crashes on the second half of the street. Figure 41. Angled crosswalks with barriers can direct pedestrians to face upstream and increase the pedestrian’s awareness of traffic. 59 60 Proper planning and land use practices should be applied to benefit pedestrians. For example, busy arterial streets should be used as a boundary for school attendance or school busing. Major pedestrian destinations should not be separated from each other or from their parking facilities by a wide, busy street. The MUTCD pedestrian signal warrant should be reviewed to determine whether the warrant should be modified to more easily allow for installing a traffic signal at locations where pedestrians cannot safely cross the street (and where no alternative safe crossings exist nearby). Consideration must always include pedestrians with disabilities and proper accommodations must be provided to meet ADA requirements. There should be continued research, development, and testing/explanation of innovative traffic control and roadway design alternatives that could provide improved access and safety for pedestrians attempting to cross streets. For example, in-pavement warning lights, variations in pedestrian warning and regulatory signs (including signs placed in the centerline to reinforce motorists yielding to pedestrians), roadway narrowing, traffic-calming measures, and automated speed-monitoring techniques deserve further research and development to determine their feasibility under various traffic and roadway conditions. More details about these and other pedestrian facilities are contained in the Pedestrian Facilities User’s Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility,(22) and in the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) publications Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities(35) and The Traffic Safety Toolbox (chapter 19, “Designing for Pedestrians”).(36) Table 11 provides initial guidance on whether an uncontrolled location might be a candidate for a marked crosswalk alone and/or whether additional geometric and/or traffic control improvements are needed. As a part of the review process for pedestrian crossings, an engineering study should be used to analyze other factors, including (but not limited to), gaps in traffic, approach speed, sight distances, illumination, the needs of special populations, and the distance to the nearest traffic signal. The spacing of marked crosswalks should also be considered so that they are not placed too close together. Overuse of marked crosswalks may breed driver disrespect for them, and a more conservative use of crosswalks generally is preferred. Thus, it is recommended that in situations where marked crosswalks alone are acceptable (see table 11) a higher priority be placed on their use at locations having a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians per peak hour). In all cases, good engineering judgment must be applied. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Distance of Marked Crosswalks from Signalized Intersections Marked crosswalks should not be installed in close proximity to signalized intersections (which may or may not have marked crosswalks); instead, pedestrians should be encouraged to cross at the signal in most situations. The minimum distance from a signal for installing a marked crosswalk should be determined by local traffic engineers based on pedestrian crossing demand, type of roadway, traffic volume, and other factors. The objective of adding a marked crosswalk is to channel pedestrians to safer crossing points. It should be understood, however, that pedestrian crossing behavior may be difficult to control merely by adding marked crosswalks. The new marked crosswalk should not unduly restrict platooned traffic, and also should be consistent with marked crosswalks at other unsignalized locations in the area. 61 Alternative Treatments In addition to installing marked crosswalks—or in some cases, instead of installing marked crosswalks— there are other treatments that should be considered to provide safer and easier crossings for pedestrians. Examples of these pedestrian improvements: • Provide raised medians (or raised crossing islands) on multilane roads. • Install traffic signals and pedestrian signals where warranted and where serious pedestrian crossing problems exist. • Reduce the exposure crossing distance for pedestrians by: - Providing curb extensions. - Providing pedestrian median refuge islands. - Reducing four-lane undivided road sections to two through lanes with a left-turn bay (or a two- way left-turn lane), sidewalks, and bicycle lanes. • Locate bus stops on the far side of uncontrolled marked crosswalks. • Install traffic-calming measures to slow vehicle speeds and/or reduce cut-through traffic. Such measures may include: - Raised crossings (raised crosswalks, raised intersections). - Street-narrowing measures (chicanes, slow points, “skinny street” designs). - Intersection designs (traffic minicircles, diagonal diverters). - Other treatments are available; see Traffic Calming: State of the Practice for further details.(24) Some of these traffic-calming measures are better suited to local or neighborhood streets than to arterial streets. • Provide adequate nighttime street lighting for pedestrians in areas with nighttime pedestrian activity where illumination is inadequate. • Design safer intersections and driveways for pedestrians (e.g., crossing islands, tighter turn radii), which take into consideration the needs of pedestrians. In developing the proposed U.S. guidelines for marked crosswalks and other pedestrian measures, consideration was given not only to the research results in this study, but also to crosswalk guidelines and related pedestrian safety research in Sweden, England, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, and Hungary. (See references 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 33, and 37.) More details on pedestrian facilities are given in the 2001 Pedestrian Facilities User’s Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility,(22) Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities,(35) The Traffic Safety Toolbox,(36) and Making Streets That Work—Neighborhood Planning Tool,(38) among others. 63 APPENDIX A. DETAILS OF DATA COLLECTION METHODS This study evaluated the safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, that is, at crossings with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach. Therefore, the data collection activities were undertaken to: (1) select suitable marked and unmarked crosswalks, and (2) obtain pedestrian crash and exposure data. Data collection was conducted in five steps, which are discussed below. STEP 1—INVENTORY CROSSWALKS AND CONTROL SITES Through conversations with city traffic engineers and pedestrian/bike coordinators, 28 cities and 2 counties were selected for crosswalk inventory. Either the Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC) staff or local data collectors performed the inventory by driving along selected streets in each city. These streets were in the downtown area, other commercial areas, and built-up residential areas, where marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations were known or expected to be present. The inventory data collection form is shown in figure 41. STEP 2—RECORD DATA ON INVENTORY SHEETS For most cities, the inventory of crosswalk and comparison sites was recorded on videotape. An HSRC staff member watched the videotapes and completed a crosswalk inventory form (see figure 42). Several local data collectors filled out the inventory form directly and mailed the completed forms to HSRC. This process was used both to select unmarked crosswalks (i.e., matched comparison sites—see step 3) and to extract relevant information about the marked crosswalks. Location Description For record-keeping purposes, each marked crosswalk and matching comparison site was assigned a site number. Street or route refers to the main road that the pedestrian crosses, and intersecting street is the side street that crosses or forms a “T” with the main road. The leg (east, west, north, south) where the crosswalk or comparison site exists was recorded. If there were crosswalks on both legs (east and west or north and south) of the same intersection, they were assigned two site numbers and listed separately. Midblock location was noted when appropriate, along with the intersecting streets to either side. A total of 827 intersection and 173 midblock marked crosswalks were used in the analysis, with an equal number of matched comparison sites. Number of Lanes The total number of lanes, including any turn lanes, that a pedestrian must cross was recorded. Figure 43 shows the distribution of the 1,000 marked crosswalks that were used in the analysis according to the number of lanes. Nearly half (45.8 percent) of the sites were on two-lane roads, with about one third of the sites on four-lane roads. Median Type The median type was recorded as either none, raised, or painted. Two-way left-turn lanes were considered to be traffic lanes. There was no median for about two-thirds of the 1,000 marked (and unmarked) crosswalks that were used in the analysis. Raised medians were present for 14 percent of the marked (and unmarked) crosswalks, and painted medians, about 15 percent. One-Way or Two-Way About 86 percent of the crosswalks were on two-way streets, with 14 percent on one-way streets. Figure 42. Pedestrian crosswalk inventory form. 64 8 lanes 0.2% 7 lanes 0.9% 6 lanes 6.2%5 lanes 7.2% 4 lanes 32.4% 3 lanes 7.4% 2 lanes 45.8% 65 Figure 43. Number of lanes for marked crosswalks. Type of Crosswalk Crosswalks usually had standard markings (two parallel white lines). Various types of crosswalk markings are illustrated in figure 7 (shown in chapter 2). The presence of any signs or beacons was also noted. Types of signs and beacons included: Advanced Crosswalk Sign: Mounted in advance of the crosswalk, to warn drivers that they are approaching a crosswalk. Crosswalk Sign: Placed at the crosswalk. Overhead Sign: An overhead pedestrian warning sign (in advance or at the crosswalk). Flash: A flashing beacon placed next to the crosswalk. Overhead Flash: A flashing beacon placed over the crosswalk. Only 19 of the 2,000 sites (less than 1 percent) had any of these supplemental devices. Sites were selected to minimize the number of signs or beacons. Condition of Crosswalk Markings The condition of the marked crosswalk was recorded as excellent (E), good (G), fair (F), or poor (P). There was no way to determine the condition of the markings over the entire study period. Area Type Each crosswalk was in a central business district (CBD), fringe, or residential area. CBD: CBDs are downtown areas and are characterized by moderate to heavy pedestrian volumes, lower vehicle speeds, and dense commercial activity. Fringe: Fringe areas include suburban and commercial retail activity areas, and typically have moderate pedestrian volumes. These areas may also include high-rise apartments. Residential: Residential development would generally correspond to lower pedestrian volumes. Of the 2,000 marked and unmarked crosswalks that were used in the analysis, 199 (10 percent) were in a CBD, 1,093 (54.7 percent) were in fringe areas, and 708 (35.4 percent) were in residential areas. Estimated Pedestrian ADT For each crosswalk and control site, the pedestrian ADT was based on expanding short-term pedestrian counts based on adjustment factors, as described below. Pedestrians and motorists are out and about at all hours of the day and night. As a result, pedestrian crashes may happen at any hour. Therefore, to calculate crash rates, 24-hour daily pedestrian volumes are needed. It was not feasible to count pedestrians for every hour at each of the 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 unmarked comparison sites. Instead, pedestrians were counted by 15-minute intervals for a total of 1 hour at each site. These counts were conducted on weekdays during daylight hours. The earliest count intervals started at 7 a.m., and the latest count intervals ended at 6 p.m. Daily pedestrian volumes at each marked crosswalk and unmarked comparison site were then estimated from these 1-hour counts. If pedestrian activity were evenly distributed in each hour of the day, then each hour would comprise about 4.2 percent (100 percent ) 24 hours) of the daily total. The 1-hour count 66 could simply be divided by an hourly adjustment factor of 4.2 percent (0.042) to get the all-day volume. In reality, though, hourly volumes vary throughout the day with greater pedestrian activity during certain peak periods. Suppose that 10 out of 100 (10 percent) of the day’s pedestrians are counted between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. If that hour’s count were divided by 0.042, the true daily volume would be overestimated (10 / 4.2 percent = 238). Likewise, if 2 out of 100 (2 percent) are counted between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m., dividing that count by 4.2 percent would underestimate the true daily volume (2 / 0.042 = 48). Therefore, adjustment factors for each hour of the day are needed to obtain a more accurate estimate of the true daily volume. The adjustment factors were derived from two data sets. First, all-day (8- to 12-hour) pedestrian counts were undertaken at 11 marked crosswalks and 11 unmarked comparison sites. Second, adjustments were calculated based on the method used by Zegeer et al. for 24-hour pedestrian counts in Seattle, WA.(39) They found that the 12-hour period from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. represented 86 percent of the 24-hour daily pedestrian volume. Separate adjustment factors were used for each area type (CBD, fringe, and residential), because the area types have different patterns of hourly pedestrian volume. It was determined that crosswalks and comparison sites had similar pedestrian volume distributions by the time of day, so the same adjustment factor was used for a crosswalk and its matched comparison site. The adjustment factors by time of day and area type appear in table 12. The 1-hour pedestrian counts at each crosswalk and comparison site were divided by the appropriate factor to obtain the 24-hour daily pedestrian volume. For example, suppose 100 pedestrians were counted between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. at a CBD location. Then the daily pedestrian volume was estimated to be 100 / 4.9 percent = 2,041 pedestrians. At a fringe location, the daily volume would be 100 / 8.3 percent = 1,205 pedestrians. If the count interval was spread out over two periods, such as 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., then the adjustment factor for 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. was applied to the first part of the count, and the factor for 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. was applied to the second part of the count. Table 12. Adjustment factors by time of day and area type used to obtain estimated pedestrian ADT. Area Type Time of Day CBD (%) Fringe (%) Residential (%) 7 a.m. – 8 a.m. 2.4 6.9 4.8 8 a.m. – 9 a.m. 2.4 6.0 3.9 9 a.m. – 10 a.m. 4.9 8.3 5.7 10 a.m. – 11 a.m. 8.2 7.1 8.7 11 a.m. – 12 N 10.4 7.7 8.2 12 N – 1 p.m. 11.4 9.0 8.4 1 p.m. – 2 p.m. 11.6 6.3 6.9 2 p.m. – 3 p.m. 8.5 8.5 5.9 3 p.m. – 4 p.m. 16.2 8.1 7.4 4 p.m. – 5 p.m. 4.4 7.9 9.3 5 p.m. – 6 p.m. 3.5 8.1 11.4 Remaining 13 hours 16.0 16.0 19.5 At a few of the 2,000 sites, no pedestrians were observed during the crossing period. The pedestrian crash rate is computed as the number of pedestrian crashes divided by the pedestrian crossing volume. The pedestrian crossing volume is the product of the pedestrian ADT times the number of years times 365 days per year. Thus, assuming a zero hourly pedestrian volume is not only questionable, but also results in a pedestrian exposure of 0. Since it is not possible to use 0 as a value of exposure in computing pedestrian crash rates (i.e., since dividing by zero yields a rate of infinity), a count of 0.25 was substituted 67 for 0 as the hourly pedestrian count for computing pedestrian ADT for use in computing pedestrian crash rates. Unmarked crosswalks (the control sites) tended to have lower pedestrian volumes than marked crosswalks. This may be the result of pedestrians being drawn to marked crosswalks and/or due to crosswalks being marked at locations with more pedestrian activity. Speed Limit Speed limits were obtained from local traffic engineers, local data collectors in the field, and watching videotapes of the crosswalk inventory. The most common speed limits were 48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) (37.4 percent), 40.25 km/h (25 mi/h) (33.0 percent), and 56.35km/h (35 mi/h) (22.8 percent). Traffic ADT Traffic volumes were obtained from local traffic engineers. Figure 44 shows that marked crosswalks had similar traffic volumes to the unmarked crosswalks (the comparison sites). This was to be expected, because the comparison sites were chosen to be close to, and similar to, their matching marked crosswalks. STEP 3—IDENTIFY SUITABLE CONTROL SITES Each crosswalk was matched with a control site that was close to the crosswalk and had similar characteristics (such as number of lanes, area type, estimated traffic and pedestrian volumes, and one-way or two-way traffic flow), but which did not have crosswalk markings, stop sign, or traffic signal. This was done either by watching the video or in the field. For example, if a marked crosswalk was present on the east leg of an intersection but not on the west leg, then the west leg was often a good control site. If the east and west legs of an intersection had marked crosswalks, then the east and west legs of a nearby intersection along the same main road were often good control sites. The data items described in step 2 were recorded for the control sites. Some marked crosswalks were excluded because suitable control sites could not be found, or they were school crossings. A total of 1,000 marked crosswalks, each matched with a control site (for a total of 1,000 control sites), was used in the analysis. The number of crosswalks by city is given in table 13. STEP 4—COUNT PEDESTRIANS Local data collectors were hired to count the number of pedestrians at the crosswalks and their corresponding control sites. Each location was counted in 15-minute intervals for one hour. At 11 crosswalks and 11 control sites, pedestrians were counted for 8 to 12 hours. These longer, all-day counts were used as the basis from which daily pedestrian volumes at each crosswalk and control site were estimated from the one-hour counts. All counts were done on weekdays. STEP 5—OBTAIN CRASH DATA Local city contacts provided crash data and hard-copy police reports for vehicle-pedestrian crashes that occurred at or near the crosswalks and comparison sites, for an average of about 5 years per site. Some cities had more than 5 years of crash data available, while other cities had 6 years of data that was available for use. 68 9. 9 10 . 2 10 . 1 10 . 0 9. 5 10 . 0 10 . 1 10 . 1 10 . 2 9. 910 . 1 9. 8 9. 9 10 . 2 10 . 2 10 . 0 9. 6 10 . 3 9. 8 10 . 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 <3175 3175-5499 5500-7150 7151-9384 9385-11235 11280-13766 13787-16499 16500-20499 20500-25000 >25000 Traffic ADT Pe r c e n t o f C r o s s w a l k s Marked 69 Unmarked Figure 44. Marked and unmarked crosswalks had similar traffic ADT distributions. 70 Table 13. The number of marked crosswalks that were used in this study, by city or county. Number of Crosswalks Number of Crosswalks City or County Marked Unmarked City or County Marked Unmarked Austin, TX 24 24 Orlando, FL 20 20 Baltimore, MD 30 30 Phoenix, AZ 36 36 Baltimore County, MD 11 11 Pittsburgh, PA 18 18 Cambridge, MA 46 46 Portland, OR 32 32 Cincinnati, OH 42 42 Raleigh, NC 14 14 Cleveland, OH 55 55 Salt Lake City, UT 18 18 Durham, NC 11 11 San Francisco, CA 91 91 Fort Worth, TX 28 28 Scottsdale, AZ 8 8 Gainesville, FL 45 45 Seattle, WA 102 102 Glendale, AZ 12 12 St. Louis, MO 15 15 Kansas City, MO 29 29 St. Louis County, MO 24 24 Madison, WI 29 29 Tempe, AZ 1 1 Milwaukee, WI 68 68 Topeka, KS 25 25 New Orleans, LA 80 80 Tucson, AZ 22 22 Oakland, CA 45 45 Winter Park, FL 19 19 Totals (all cities) 1,000 1,000 Crash rates were normalized based on number of years of data. A total of 229 crashes (188 at marked crosswalks and 41 at control sites) occurred at the 2,000 sites and were used in the analysis. Local traffic engineers and police departments provided crash data and hard-copy police crash reports for the marked and unmarked crosswalks. For each marked crosswalk and matching unmarked crosswalk, data and reports were obtained for the same 3- to 5- year period. The exact years varied from one city to another, depending on the data and reports that each city had available. The crash reports were read to determine the crash type and to obtain information on other crash variables, such as pedestrian age, injury severity, and time of day. The crash type and other information were entered into a database for analysis. Some crashes were eliminated because they did not occur at the crosswalks (or within 3 m (10 ft) of the crosswalk) of interest. For example, if a traffic engineer included Crash #1 among the crashes at Crosswalk #1, but it was later determined that Crash #1 actually occurred somewhere else, then Crash #1 would have been eliminated. The analysis resulted in the confirmation of 229 total pedestrian crashes. Of these, 188 occurred at marked crosswalks and 41 occurred at unmarked crosswalks. 71 APPENDIX B. STATISTICAL TESTING OF THE FINAL CRASH PREDICTION MODEL To test the final crash prediction model in the terms of validity for the available database, several types of tests were conducted. These tests included: • Goodness-of-fit. • Test for functional form. • Residuals. GOODNESS-OF-FIT Below is as excerpt from the PROC GENMOD output (table 14). In assessing the goodness-of-fit of the negative binomial regression model for crosswalks, we can see that the scaled deviance and the Pearson chi- square are small indicating that the model fits the data well. Table 14. Criteria for assessing goodness-of-fit negative binomial regression model. Criteria DF Value Value/DF Deviance Scaled Deviance Pearson chi-square Scaled Pearson P2 Log Likelihood 1990 1990 1990 1990 609.5499 609.5499 2769.9029 2769.9029 −548.7469 0.3063 0.3063 1.3919 1.3919 TEST FOR FUNCTIONAL FORM We can test for overdispersion with a likelihood ratio test based on Poisson and negative binomial distributions. This test tests equality of the mean and the variance imposed by the Poisson distribution against the alternative that the variance exceeds the mean. For the negative binomial distribution, the variance = mean + k mean2 (k> = 0, the negative binomial distribution reduces to Poisson when k = 0). The null hypothesis is: H0: k = 0 and the alternative hypothesis is: Ha: k>0. To test the functional form, we used the likelihood ratio test, that is, compute LR statistic, -2 (LL (Poisson) – LL (negative binomial)). The asymptotic distribution of the LR statistic has probability mass of one half at zero and one half – chi-square distribution with 1 df.(40) To test the null hypothesis at the significance level α, use the critical value of chi-square distribution corresponding to significance level 2α, that is reject H0 if LR statistic > χ2 (1-2α, 1 df). Table 15 is an excerpt from the PROC GENMOD output for a Poisson regression model with the same independent variables are is the final negative binomial model. 72 Table 15. Criteria for assessing goodness-of-fit Poisson regression model. Criteria DF Value Value/DF Deviance Scaled Deviance Pearson Chi-Square Scaled Pearson X2 Log Likelihood 1990 1990 1990 1990 881.5022 881.5022 3432.5818 3432.5818 −568.4558 0.4430 0.4430 1.7249 1.7249 −2 (LL (Poisson) - LL (negative binomial)) = −2* (−568.4558 − (−548.7469)) = 2* (568.4558 − 548.7469) = 39.4178 Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected for α = 0.01, and we conclude that the Poisson distribution is inadequate for this model.(40) RESIDUALS Because generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used, the interpretation of residuals is problematic and no residual analysis was undertaken. MULTICOLLINEARITY Certainly multicollinearity is an issue, because the marked crosswalk and the unmarked crosswalk were matched on geographic terms, thus the number of lanes, median type, and traffic ADT are distributed very similarly in the marked and the unmarked crosswalks. Multicollinearity was explored using the regression diagnostics suggested by Belsley, Kuh, and Welsch. They suggest two different measures: variance inflation factor (VIF) and the proportion of variation. VIF gauges the influence potential near dependencies may have on the estimation of the standard error of the estimate of the regression parameters. The proportion of variation is a diagnostic which permits the detection of morel complex dependencies. For the final model with predictor variables, the values were: an indicator for marked versus unmarked, pedestrian ADT, and traffic ADT; two indicators for number of lanes; two indicators for type of median; an interaction between the indicator for marked versus unmarked and pedestrian ADT; and an interaction between indicator for marked versus unmarked and traffic ADT. The largest VIF was 4.0; this is not high (VIF < 10), however, it is more than the suggested criterion of VIF > 1.55. Thus, the VIF for indicator for marked versus unmarked VIF = 3.5, traffic ADT, VIF = 2.5, and the interaction of these two predictor variables VIF = 4.0. There is some variance inflation in this model. Since none of the VIF are greater than 10, we can conclude that the model has not been degraded by collinearity. We should interpret the results with some care, because three predictors have VIFs greater than 1.55. (41) The proportion of variation suggested by Belsley, Kuh, and Welsch with a condition index of 9.4 suggests a weak dependency between the three predictors: indicator for marked versus unmarked, traffic ADT, and the interaction of these two predictor variables. It is not surprising that an interaction is correlated with the main factors. In conclusion, the model does have a weak dependency among the predictor variables. This does not inflate the variance too much; thus, reasonable tests may be conducted. The mild nature of the collinearity does not present a threat to the interpretability of the model.(41) 73 APPENDIX C. PLOTS OF EXPECTED PEDESTRIAN CRASHES BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL Nu m b e r o f C r a s he s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 45. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 46. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100. 74 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 47. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 48. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 2,000. 75 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 49 Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 50. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 50. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 800. 76 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 51. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 52. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100. 77 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 53. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 54. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 150. 78 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 55. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 200. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 56. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily pedestrian volume = 50. 79 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 57. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 58. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100. 80 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 59. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 60. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 150. 81 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 61. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily pedestrian volume = 200. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 62. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 22,500. 82 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 63. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 32,000. Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s i n 5 Y e a r s Figure 64. Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500. 83 APPENDIX D. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN CRASHES (IN 5 YEARS) BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 1 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 50 2000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.06 50 3000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.07 50 4000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.07 50 5000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.08 50 6000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.08 50 7000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.09 50 8000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.09 50 9000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 50 10000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.11 50 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.11 50 12000 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.12 50 13000 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.13 50 14000 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.14 50 15000 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.15 100 2000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.07 100 3000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 100 4000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 100 5000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.08 100 6000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.08 100 7000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.09 100 8000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.09 100 9000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 100 10000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.11 100 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.11 100 12000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.12 100 13000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.13 100 14000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 100 15000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.15 150 2000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 150 3000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 150 4000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.07 150 5000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 84 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 2 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 150 6000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.08 150 7000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.09 150 8000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 150 9000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 150 10000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.11 150 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.12 150 12000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.12 150 13000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.13 150 14000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 150 15000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.15 200 2000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 200 3000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 200 4000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.08 200 5000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 200 6000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 200 7000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 200 8000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 200 9000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 200 10000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.11 200 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.12 200 12000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.12 200 13000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.13 200 14000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 200 15000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.15 250 2000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 250 3000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 250 4000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.08 250 5000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 250 6000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 250 7000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.09 250 8000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 250 9000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 85 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 3 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 250 10000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 250 11000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.12 250 12000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.13 250 13000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.13 250 14000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 250 15000 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.15 300 2000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 300 3000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 300 4000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.08 300 5000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.08 300 6000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 300 7000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.09 300 8000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 300 9000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 300 10000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 300 11000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.12 300 12000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.13 300 13000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.14 300 14000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.15 300 15000 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.16 350 2000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 350 3000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.07 350 4000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.08 350 5000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 350 6000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 350 7000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.09 350 8000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 350 9000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.11 350 10000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 350 11000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.12 350 12000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.13 350 13000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.14 86 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 4 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 350 14000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.15 350 15000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.16 400 2000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.07 400 3000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.07 400 4000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 400 5000 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 400 6000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.09 400 7000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.09 400 8000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 400 9000 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.11 400 10000 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 400 11000 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.12 400 12000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.13 400 13000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.14 400 14000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15 400 15000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.16 450 2000 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.07 450 3000 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.08 450 4000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 450 5000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 450 6000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.09 450 7000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 450 8000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 450 9000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.11 450 10000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.12 450 11000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.12 450 12000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.13 450 13000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.14 450 14000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.15 450 15000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.16 500 2000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.07 500 3000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.08 87 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 5 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 500 4000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.08 500 5000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.09 500 6000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.09 500 7000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 500 8000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 500 9000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.11 500 10000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.12 500 11000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.12 500 12000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.13 500 13000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.14 500 14000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.15 500 15000 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.16 550 2000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.07 550 3000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.08 550 4000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.08 550 5000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.09 550 6000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.09 550 7000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.10 550 8000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.10 550 9000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.11 550 10000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.12 550 11000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.13 550 12000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.13 550 13000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.14 550 14000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.15 550 15000 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.17 600 2000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.07 600 3000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.08 600 4000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.08 600 5000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.09 600 6000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.09 600 7000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.10 88 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 6 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 600 8000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.11 600 9000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.11 600 10000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.12 600 11000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.13 600 12000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.14 600 13000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.15 600 14000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.16 600 15000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.17 650 2000 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.07 650 3000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.08 650 4000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.08 650 5000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.09 650 6000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.09 650 7000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.10 650 8000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.11 650 9000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.11 650 10000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.12 650 11000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.13 650 12000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.14 650 13000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.15 650 14000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.16 650 15000 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.17 700 2000 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.08 700 3000 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.08 700 4000 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.08 700 5000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.09 700 6000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.10 700 7000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.10 700 8000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.11 700 9000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.12 700 10000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.12 700 11000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.13 89 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 7 Based on Negative Binominal Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Two Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 700 12000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.14 700 13000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.15 700 14000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.16 700 15000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.17 750 2000 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.08 750 3000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.08 750 4000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.09 750 5000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.09 750 6000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.10 750 7000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.10 750 8000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.11 750 9000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.12 750 10000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.12 750 11000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.13 750 12000 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.14 750 13000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.15 750 14000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.16 750 15000 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.17 800 2000 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.08 800 3000 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.08 800 4000 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.09 800 5000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.09 800 6000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.10 800 7000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.10 800 8000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.11 800 9000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.12 800 10000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.13 800 11000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.13 800 12000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.14 800 13000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.15 800 14000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.16 800 15000 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.18 90 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 1 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 50 5000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.09 50 6000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.09 50 7000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.10 50 8000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10 50 9000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.11 50 10000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.11 50 11000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.12 50 12000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.13 50 13000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.13 50 14000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.14 50 15000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.15 50 16000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.16 50 17000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.17 50 18000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.17 50 19000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.18 50 20000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.19 50 21000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.21 50 22000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.22 50 23000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.23 50 24000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.15 0.24 50 25000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.16 0.26 50 26000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.17 0.27 50 27000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.18 0.29 50 28000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.31 50 29000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.32 50 30000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.22 0.34 50 31000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.23 0.36 50 32000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.16 0.25 0.39 50 33000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.17 0.27 0.41 50 34000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.28 0.44 50 35000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.30 0.47 50 36000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.21 0.32 0.50 91 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 2 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 50 37000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.23 0.35 0.53 50 38000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.24 0.37 0.56 50 39000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.26 0.39 0.60 50 40000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.28 0.42 0.64 50 41000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.29 0.45 0.69 50 42000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.31 0.48 0.74 50 43000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.33 0.51 0.79 50 44000 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.35 0.55 0.84 50 45000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.38 0.58 0.90 50 46000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.40 0.62 0.97 50 47000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.42 0.66 1.04 50 48000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.45 0.71 1.12 50 49000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.48 0.76 1.20 50 50000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.50 0.81 1.29 100 5000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.09 100 6000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.09 100 7000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.10 100 8000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10 100 9000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.11 100 10000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 100 11000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 100 12000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 100 13000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.14 100 14000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.14 100 15000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.15 100 16000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.16 100 17000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.17 100 18000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.18 100 19000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.19 100 20000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.20 100 21000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.21 100 22000 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.22 92 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 3 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 100 23000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.23 100 24000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.25 100 25000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.26 100 26000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.28 100 27000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.18 0.29 100 28000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.20 0.31 100 29000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.33 100 30000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.22 0.35 100 31000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.24 0.37 100 32000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.16 0.25 0.39 100 33000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.18 0.27 0.42 100 34000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.29 0.44 100 35000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.31 0.47 100 36000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.22 0.33 0.50 100 37000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.23 0.35 0.54 100 38000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.37 0.57 100 39000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.26 0.40 0.61 100 40000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.28 0.43 0.65 100 41000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.46 0.70 100 42000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.32 0.49 0.74 100 43000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.34 0.52 0.80 100 44000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.36 0.55 0.85 100 45000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.38 0.59 0.92 100 46000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.40 0.63 0.98 100 47000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.43 0.67 1.05 100 48000 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.46 0.72 1.13 100 49000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.48 0.77 1.22 100 50000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.51 0.82 1.31 150 5000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.09 150 6000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.10 150 7000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10 150 8000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.11 93 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 4 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 150 9000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.11 150 10000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 150 11000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.12 150 12000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 150 13000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.14 150 14000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.15 150 15000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.15 150 16000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.16 150 17000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.17 150 18000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.18 150 19000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.19 150 20000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.20 150 21000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.21 150 22000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.22 150 23000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.24 150 24000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.25 150 25000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.26 150 26000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.28 150 27000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.30 150 28000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.20 0.31 150 29000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.33 150 30000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.23 0.35 150 31000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.24 0.37 150 32000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.17 0.26 0.40 150 33000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.27 0.42 150 34000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.19 0.29 0.45 150 35000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.31 0.48 150 36000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.22 0.33 0.51 150 37000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.23 0.36 0.54 150 38000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.38 0.58 150 39000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.40 0.62 150 40000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.28 0.43 0.66 94 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 5 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 150 41000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.30 0.46 0.71 150 42000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.32 0.49 0.75 150 43000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.34 0.53 0.81 150 44000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.36 0.56 0.87 150 45000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.39 0.60 0.93 150 46000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.41 0.64 1.00 150 47000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.43 0.68 1.07 150 48000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.46 0.73 1.15 150 49000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.49 0.78 1.23 150 50000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.52 0.83 1.33 200 5000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.09 200 6000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.10 200 7000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10 200 8000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.11 200 9000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.11 200 10000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 200 11000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 200 12000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 200 13000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.14 200 14000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.15 200 15000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.16 200 16000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.16 200 17000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.17 200 18000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.18 200 19000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.19 200 20000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.20 200 21000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.21 200 22000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.23 200 23000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.24 200 24000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.25 200 25000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.27 200 26000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.18 0.28 95 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 6 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 200 27000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.30 200 28000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.20 0.32 200 29000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.21 0.34 200 30000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.23 0.36 200 31000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.16 0.24 0.38 200 32000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.26 0.40 200 33000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.28 0.43 200 34000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.19 0.30 0.46 200 35000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.21 0.32 0.48 200 36000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.22 0.34 0.52 200 37000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.24 0.36 0.55 200 38000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.25 0.38 0.59 200 39000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.27 0.41 0.63 200 40000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.29 0.44 0.67 200 41000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.31 0.47 0.71 200 42000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.33 0.50 0.76 200 43000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.35 0.53 0.82 200 44000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.37 0.57 0.88 200 45000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.39 0.61 0.94 200 46000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.42 0.65 1.01 200 47000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.44 0.69 1.08 200 48000 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.47 0.74 1.16 200 49000 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.50 0.79 1.25 200 50000 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.52 0.84 1.34 250 5000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.09 250 6000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.10 250 7000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.10 250 8000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.11 250 9000 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.11 250 10000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12 250 11000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 250 12000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.13 96 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 7 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 250 13000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.14 250 14000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.15 250 15000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.16 250 16000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.17 250 17000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.17 250 18000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.18 250 19000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.19 250 20000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.21 250 21000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.22 250 22000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.23 250 23000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.24 250 24000 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.26 250 25000 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.27 250 26000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.29 250 27000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.12 0.19 0.30 250 28000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.32 250 29000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.14 0.22 0.34 250 30000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.23 0.36 250 31000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.16 0.25 0.38 250 32000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.26 0.41 250 33000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.28 0.43 250 34000 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.30 0.46 250 35000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.21 0.32 0.49 250 36000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.22 0.34 0.52 250 37000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.24 0.37 0.56 250 38000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.26 0.39 0.59 250 39000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.27 0.42 0.63 250 40000 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.29 0.44 0.68 250 41000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.31 0.47 0.72 250 42000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.33 0.51 0.78 250 43000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.35 0.54 0.83 250 44000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.37 0.58 0.89 97 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 8 Based on Negative Binomial Model 18:02 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 250 45000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.40 0.61 0.95 250 46000 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.42 0.66 1.02 250 47000 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.45 0.70 1.10 250 48000 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.47 0.75 1.18 250 49000 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.50 0.80 1.27 250 50000 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.53 0.85 1.36 98 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 1 Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 50 5000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.16 50 6000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.17 50 7000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.18 50 8000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.19 50 9000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.20 50 10000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.22 50 11000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.23 50 12000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.24 50 13000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.26 50 14000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.27 50 15000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.17 0.29 50 16000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.31 50 17000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.19 0.32 50 18000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.20 0.34 50 19000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.22 0.36 50 20000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.23 0.39 50 21000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.41 50 22000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.26 0.44 50 23000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.17 0.28 0.47 50 24000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.30 0.50 50 25000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.19 0.32 0.53 50 26000 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.20 0.34 0.56 50 27000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.22 0.36 0.60 50 28000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.23 0.39 0.64 50 29000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.25 0.41 0.68 50 30000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.44 0.73 50 31000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.28 0.47 0.78 50 32000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.30 0.50 0.83 50 33000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.32 0.54 0.89 50 34000 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.34 0.57 0.96 50 35000 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.36 0.61 1.02 100 5000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.17 99 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 2 Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 100 6000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.18 100 7000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.19 100 8000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.20 100 9000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.21 100 10000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.22 100 11000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.23 100 12000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.25 100 13000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.26 100 14000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.28 100 15000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.29 100 16000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.18 0.31 100 17000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.33 100 18000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.20 0.35 100 19000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.22 0.37 100 20000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.39 100 21000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.15 0.25 0.42 100 22000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.27 0.44 100 23000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.17 0.28 0.47 100 24000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.30 0.50 100 25000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.19 0.32 0.53 100 26000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.34 0.57 100 27000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.22 0.37 0.61 100 28000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.24 0.39 0.65 100 29000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.25 0.42 0.69 100 30000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.45 0.74 100 31000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.29 0.48 0.79 100 32000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.31 0.51 0.84 100 33000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.33 0.54 0.90 100 34000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.35 0.58 0.97 100 35000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.37 0.62 1.04 150 5000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.17 150 6000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.18 100 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 3 Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 150 7000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.19 150 8000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.20 150 9000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.21 150 10000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.22 150 11000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.24 150 12000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.25 150 13000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.26 150 14000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.28 150 15000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.30 150 16000 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.31 150 17000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.33 150 18000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.21 0.35 150 19000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.22 0.37 150 20000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.24 0.40 150 21000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.25 0.42 150 22000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.16 0.27 0.45 150 23000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.29 0.48 150 24000 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.18 0.31 0.51 150 25000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.20 0.33 0.54 150 26000 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.35 0.58 150 27000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.22 0.37 0.61 150 28000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.24 0.40 0.66 150 29000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.26 0.42 0.70 150 30000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.27 0.45 0.75 150 31000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.29 0.48 0.80 150 32000 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.31 0.51 0.86 150 33000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.33 0.55 0.92 150 34000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.35 0.59 0.98 150 35000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.37 0.63 1.05 200 5000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.17 200 6000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.10 0.18 200 7000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.19 101 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 4 Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 200 8000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.20 200 9000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.21 200 10000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.23 200 11000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.24 200 12000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.25 200 13000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.27 200 14000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.28 200 15000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.30 200 16000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.18 0.32 200 17000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.20 0.34 200 18000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.21 0.36 200 19000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.13 0.22 0.38 200 20000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.24 0.40 200 21000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.26 0.43 200 22000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.27 0.45 200 23000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.29 0.48 200 24000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.31 0.51 200 25000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.33 0.55 200 26000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.21 0.35 0.58 200 27000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.23 0.38 0.62 200 28000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.24 0.40 0.66 200 29000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.26 0.43 0.71 200 30000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.28 0.46 0.76 200 31000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.29 0.49 0.81 200 32000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.31 0.52 0.87 200 33000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.93 200 34000 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.36 0.59 0.99 200 35000 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.38 0.63 1.06 250 5000 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.17 250 6000 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.10 0.18 250 7000 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.19 250 8000 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.20 Estimated Number of Pedestrian Crashes in Five Years 5 Based on Negative Binominal Model 17:25 Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Five Lanes with No Median Average Average Daily Daily Traffic Pedestrian (Motor Unmarked Unmarked Unmarked Marked Marked Marked Volume Vehicle) Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% Lower 95% Predicted Upper 95% 250 9000 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.22 250 10000 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.23 250 11000 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.24 250 12000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.26 250 13000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.27 250 14000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.29 250 15000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.30 250 16000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.19 0.32 250 17000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.20 0.34 250 18000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.21 0.36 250 19000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.13 0.23 0.38 250 20000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.24 0.41 250 21000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.26 0.43 250 22000 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.28 0.46 250 23000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.29 0.49 250 24000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.31 0.52 250 25000 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.34 0.56 250 26000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.22 0.36 0.59 250 27000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.23 0.38 0.63 250 28000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.25 0.41 0.67 250 29000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.26 0.43 0.72 250 30000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.28 0.46 0.77 250 31000 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.30 0.50 0.82 250 32000 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.32 0.53 0.88 250 33000 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.34 0.56 0.94 250 34000 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.36 0.60 1.01 250 35000 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.38 0.64 1.08 102 REFERENCES 1. Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance, Millennium Edition, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Evanston, IL, 2000. 2. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices—Millennium Edition, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2000. 3. Herms, B., “Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Crashes in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks,” Record No. 406, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1972. 4. Zegeer, C., Stewart, J., and Huang, H., Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines, Report No. FHWA– RD–01–075, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, March 2002. 5. Gibby, A.R., Stites, J.L., Thurgood, G.S., and Ferrara, T.C., “Evaluation of Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks at Intersections in California,” Chico State University, Report No. FHWA/CA/TO–94/1, June 1994. 6. Gurnett, G., Marked Crosswalk Removal Before and After Study, Los Angeles County Road Department, Los Angeles, CA, November 1974. 7. Los Angeles County Road Department, Marked Crosswalks at Non-Signalized Intersections, Traffic and Lighting Division, Los Angeles, CA, July 1967. 8. Toby, H.N., Shunamen, E.M., and Knoblauch, R.L., Pedestrian Trip Making Characteristics and Exposure Measures, DTFH61–81–C–00020, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1983. 9. Ekman, L., On the Treatment of Flow in Traffic Safety Analysis, Bulletin 136, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 1996. 10. Ekman, L. and Hyden, C., Pedestrian Safety in Sweden, Report No. FHWA–RD–99–091, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 11. Yagar, S., “Safety Impacts of Installing Pedestrian Crosswalks,” Proceedings of the Effectiveness of Highway Safety Improvements Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, March 1985. 12. Katz, A., Zaidel, D., and Elgrishi, A., “An Experimental Study of Driver and Pedestrian Interaction During the Crossing Conflict,” Human Factors, Vol. 17, No. 5, 1975, pp. 514–527. 13. Knoblauch, R.L., Nitzburg, M., and Seifert, R.F., Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies: Richmond, Virginia; Buffalo, New York; Stillwater, Minnesota, Report No. FHWA–RD–00–103, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 2001. 14. Knoblauch, R.L. and Raymond, P.D., The Effect of Crosswalk Markings on Vehicle Speeds in Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona, Report No. FHWA–RD–00–101, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 2000. 15. Van Houten, R., “The Influence of Signs Prompting Motorists to Yield Before Marked Crosswalks on Motor Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts at Crosswalks with Flashing Amber,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1992, pp. 217–225. 16. Campbell, B.J., Zegeer, C.V., Cynecki, M.J., and Huang H., A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad, Report No. FHWA–RD–03–042, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, January 2004. 17. Ekman, L., Pedestrian Safety in Sweden, Report No. FHWA–RD–99–091, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 18. Davies, D., Research, Development, and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Facilities in the United Kingdom, Report No. FHWA–RD–99–089, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 19. Van Houten, R., Canadian Research on Pedestrian Safety, Report No. FHWA–RD–99–090, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 20. Cairney, P., Pedestrian Safety in Australia, Report No. FHWA–RD–99–093, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 103 21. Hummel, T., Dutch Pedestrian Safety Research Review, Report No. FHWA–RD–99–092, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999. 22. Zegeer, C.V., Seiderman, C., Lagerwey, P., and Cynecki, M., Pedestrian Facilities User’s Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility, Report No. FHWA–RD–01–102, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1999. 23. Lalani, N., Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Pedestrian and Bicycle Task Force, Washington, DC, 2001. 24. Ewing, R., Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, ITE/FHWA Report No. FHWA–RD–99–135, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 1999, available online at http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm, accessed July 30, 2004. 25. Huang, H.F., C.V. Zegeer, R. Nassi, and B. Fairfax, The Effects of Innovative Pedestrian Signs at Unsignalized Locations: A Tale of Three Treatments, Report No. FHWA–RD–00–098, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 2000, available online at http://www.walkinginfo.org/task_orders/to_11/3signs00.pdf, accessed July 30, 2004. 26. McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J.A., Generalized Linear Models, Second Edition, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1989. 27. Hilbe, J., “Log Negative Binomial Regression Using the GENMOD Procedure,” Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual SAS User’s Group International Conference, Vol. 14, 1994, pp. 1199–1204. 28. Lawless, J.E., “Negative Binomial and Mixed Poisson Regression,” The Canadian Journal of Statistics, Vol. 15, 1987, pp. 209–225. 29. SAS Institute Inc., SAS OnlineDoc®, Version 8, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1999. 30. Garder, P., Personal correspondence, October 7, 1999 and March 2000. 31. Bowman, B. and Vecellio, R., “Effects of Urban and Suburban Median Types on Both Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety,” Record No. 1445, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1994. 32. Garder, P., “Pedestrian Safety at Traffic Signals: A Study Carried Out With the Help of a Traffic Conflicts Technique,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 21, October 1989, pp. 435–444. 33. Safety of Vulnerable Road Users, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), August 1998. 34. Van Houten, R., “The Effects of Advance Stop Lines and Sign Prompts on Pedestrian Safety in Crosswalks on a Multilane Highway,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol.21, 1988. 35. Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities: A Recommended Practice, Institute for Transportation Engineers, March 1998. 36. Zegeer, C. and Seiderman, C., Chapter 19, “Designing for Pedestrians,” The Traffic Safety Toolbox, Institute for Transportation Engineers, 1999. 37. Pedestrian Safety: Analyses and Safety Measures, Danish Road Directorate, Division of Traffic Safety and Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 1998. 38. Making Streets That Work—Neighborhood Planning Tool, City of Seattle, WA, May 1996. 39. Zegeer, C.V., Opiela, K.S., and Cynecki, M.J., Pedestrian Signalization Alternatives, Report No. FHWA–RD–83–102, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 1985. 40. Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K., Regression Analysis of Count Data, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998. 41. Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., and Welsch, R.E., Regression Diagnostics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1980. 104 Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy Development Guidelines Kate Miner, Principal Investigator Stonebrooke Engineering May 2020 Research Project Final Report 2020RIC01 Office of Research & Innovation • mndot.gov/research To request this document in an alternative format, such as braille or large print, call 651-366-4718 or 1- 800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota) or email your request to ADArequest.dot@state.mn.us. Please request at least one week in advance. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN 2020RIC01 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy Development Guidelines May 2020 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Kate Miner, PE, PTOE, Tim Arvidson, PE 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Stonebrooke Engineering 12279 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, Minnesota 5537 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. (c) 1033236 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Local Road Research Board Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Research & Innovation 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes http://mndot.gov/research/reports/2020/2020RIC01.pdf http://mndot.gov/research/reports/2020/2020RIC01G.pdf 16. Abstract (Limit: 250 words) This study was driven by the need to improve consistency in the methods and approach that local agencies use to address crosswalks. This study focuses on the question of how a crosswalk should be enhanced with additional countermeasures, if any, once the decision is made to mark it. During the research portion of this project, it was found that the primary information agencies use that provides guidance for decisions on how to mark crosswalks comes from the Federal Highway Administration. A quick reference guide was developed from FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018, that will help agencies determine when to use different countermeasures based on roadway type, vehicle volumes, and posted speed limits. In addition, fact sheets for twelve countermeasures identified in the document were developed to explain what the benefit of each one is, when it is best applied, and how to provide high-level planning cost for each one. 17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement Pedestrians, Crosswalks, Unsignalized intersections No restrictions. Document available from: National Technical Information Services, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 54 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK POLICY DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FINAL REPORT Prepared by: Kate Miner Tim Arvidson Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. May 2020 Published by: Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Research & Innovation 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation or Stonebrooke Engineering. This report does not contain a standard or specified technique. The authors, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Stonebrooke Engineering do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research team would like to acknowledge the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Minnesota Local Research Board, both of which funded the project and made it possible. The team would also like to thank the Technical Advisory Panel for guidance on the project, including Technical Liaison Marc Culver and panel members Matt Clark, Joe Gustafson, Tiffany Kautz, Fay Simer, Ben Manibog, Dan McCormick, Dan Patterson, and Hannah Pritchard. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE SEARCH ........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 2019 Minnesota State Statute 169.011 Definitions and 169.21 Pedestrian and ....................... 3 2.1.2 Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. (2) .................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Crosswalk Policy – City of El Cerrito, CA (3) ............................................................................. 5 2.1.4 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety (4) .................................................. 5 2.1.5 City of Albert Lea, MN Crosswalk Policy (5) ............................................................................. 5 2.1.6 City of Mankato, MN Crosswalk Marking Policy (6) ................................................................. 5 2.1.7 City of Blaine, MN Crosswalk Policy (7) ................................................................................... 6 2.1.8 Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan (8) ..................................................................................... 6 2.1.9 Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) (9) ................................. 6 2.1.10 City of Boulder, CO Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines (10) .................... 6 2.1.11 Best Practices for Traffic Control at Regional Trail Crossings (11) .......................................... 7 CHAPTER 3: LOCAL AGENCY SURVEY ....................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Administration Policy and Practice Survey Results ......................................................................... 8 3.2 Field Policy and Practices ............................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 4: Quick-reference guide ....................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Countermeasures by roadway feature ......................................................................................... 12 4.2 Countermeasure fact sheets ........................................................................................................ 13 CHAPTER 5: conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 14 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A Uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk quick reference guide LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1 Type of Crosswalk Policy Respondents Currently Have .......................................................... 8 Figure 3-2 Style of Crosswalks Used by Agencies .................................................................................... 9 Figure 3-3 Methods Used by Agencies When Discontinuing a Crosswalk .............................................. 10 Figure 3-4 Treatments Respondents Have Used on Their Roadways .................................................... 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was driven by the need to improve consistency in the methods and approach that local agencies use to address crosswalks. This study focuses on the question of how a crosswalk should be enhanced with additional countermeasures, if any, once the decision is made to mark it. During the research portion of this project, it was found that the primary information agencies use that provides guidance for decisions on how to mark crosswalks comes from the Federal Highway Administration. A quick reference guide was developed from FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018, that will help agencies determine when to use different countermeasures based on roadway type, vehicle volumes, and posted speed limits. In addition, fact sheets for twelve countermeasures identified in the document were developed to explain what the benefit of each one is, when it is best applied, and how to provide high-level planning cost for each one. 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The development of the Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy Development Guidelines was identified and supported by local agencies in Minnesota because of the need to improve consistency of the methods and approach that local agencies use to address crosswalks. It is believed that improving the consistency of the approach from one community to the next will improve pedestrian safety. The approach to providing guidelines consisted of three key parts:  Reviewing the literature documenting the results of previously published research  Surveying local agencies in Minnesota on their practices and policies for crosswalks  Development of Quick Reference Fact Sheets on different crosswalk treatments While working through this project, the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) determined that the question on when to mark a crosswalk was an agency decision and that providing standard policy language would not be useful. Instead this document provides several existing agency policies in the Appendix that other agencies can use if they choose. An assortment of policies is provided in the Appendix and includes policies from both large and small cities and both rural and urban counties across Minnesota. During our research, we found that the primary information agencies use that provides guidance for decisions on how to mark crosswalks comes from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Because this information is very useful, the TAP determined that this study should take the guidance from FHWA and apply it in a more meaningful way for local agencies in Minnesota. This document outlines the literature research completed and the local agency survey results. The documents provided in the Appendix primarily focus on the question of how a crosswalk should be enhanced with additional countermeasures, if any, once the decision is made to mark it. There are several tools available, but it can be somewhat unclear as to when each tool should be used. To provide consistency, the TAP determined that the guidance provided in FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018, provided the guidance that Minnesota should follow. The scope of this project was then changed to provide a user-friendly way for agencies to use this information without having to read the full report. A quick reference guide was developed from the FHWA report that helps agencies determine when to use different countermeasures based on roadway type, vehicle volumes, and posted speed limits. In addition, fact sheets for twelve different countermeasures identified in the document were developed to explain what the benefit of each one is, 2 determine when it is best applied, and a provide a high-level planning cost for each one. The twelve countermeasures identified are:  High-visibility crosswalk markings  Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach  Adequate nighttime lighting levels  Crossing warning signs  Raised crosswalks  Advanced Stop Here for Pedestrian sign and stop line  In-street pedestrian crossing sign  Curb extension  Pedestrian refuge island  Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)  Road diet  Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Before going any further, it is important that anyone reading this document understands what Minnesota law says about uncontrolled crosswalks and pedestrians. Minnesota 2019 State Statute 169.21 addresses pedestrians and crosswalks. See Section 2.1.1 for details. 3 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE SEARCH Nationally there were 7,140 pedestrian and bicycle fatalities in 2018, which was a 3.6-percent increase from the 6,881 pedestrian and bicycle fatalities in 2017. In 2018, nationally, 19.5 percent of all traffic fatalities were pedestrians or bicyclists. Minnesota pedestrian fatalities in the same year comprised 11.8 percent of all fatalities in the state, slightly better than the national percentage (1). Because of the increase in pedestrian crashes over the years and the demand for pedestrian facilities have increased, crosswalks and treatments have been studied and policies/practices have been implemented by multiple agencies with a focus on determining when an uncontrolled crosswalk should be treated and how. 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and several agencies across the United States have conducted studies and adopted practices and policies to address uncontrolled crosswalks. Most of these policies are based on Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and/or pedestrian volumes at an intersection. 2.1.1 2019 Minnesota State Statute 169.011 Definitions and 169.21 Pedestrian and 2.1.1.1 169.011 Definitions Subd. 20.Crosswalk. "Crosswalk" means (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Subd. 53.Pedestrian. "Pedestrian" means any person afoot or in a wheelchair. Subd. 68.Roadway. "Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder. During periods when the commissioner allows the use of dynamic shoulder lanes as defined in subdivision 25, roadway includes that shoulder. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" as used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all such roadways collectively. 2.1.1.2 169.21 Pedestrian  Subdivision 1 - Obey traffic-control signals. Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic-control signals at intersections as heretofore declared in this chapter, but at all other places pedestrians shall be accorded the privileges and shall be subject to the restrictions stated in this section and section 169.22. 4  Subdivision 2 – Rights in absence of a signal. (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision. (b) When any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle. (c) It is unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle through a column of school children crossing a street or highway or past a member of a school safety patrol or adult crossing guard, while the member of the school safety patrol or adult crossing guard is directing the movement of children across a street or highway and while the school safety patrol member or adult crossing guard is holding an official signal in the stop position. A peace officer may arrest the driver of a motor vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has operated the vehicle in violation of this paragraph within the past four hours. (d) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who violates this subdivision a second or subsequent time within one year of a previous conviction under this subdivision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.  Subdivision 3 – Crossing between intersections. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. 2.1.2 Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. (2) This document published in April 2019 outlines pedestrian and crosswalk laws in all 50 states. The document states that in Minnesota, the law currently requires a vehicle to stop when a pedestrian is in a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk—controlled or uncontrolled. Drivers in Minnesota must currently stop for crossing pedestrians at marked crosswalks and at all intersections without crosswalks or stop lights. Although pedestrians must not enter a crosswalk if a vehicle is 5 approaching and it is impossible for the driver to stop, there is no defined distance that a pedestrian must abide by before entering the crosswalk. In addition, when a vehicle is stopped in Minnesota at an intersection for pedestrians to cross the roadway, it is illegal for another driver approaching from the rear to pass the stopped vehicle. 2.1.3 Crosswalk Policy – City of El Cerrito, CA (3) In April 2016 the City of El Cerrito published a Crosswalk Policy as part of the city’s Transportation Plan. The policy describes the function of crosswalks and their legal context in the California Vehicle Code. The purpose the policy is to enable the City to respond to crosswalk requests in a manner that improves pedestrian accessibility and maintains public safety. The policy considers markings to be used to communicate the shortest path and best sight distance for pedestrians to cross, also to assure them of their legal right to cross at a midblock crossing. The policy provides a flow chart that uses pedestrian volumes, sight distance and location as criteria to help determine when a crosswalk should be marked. It then uses a combination of vehicle speeds and pedestrian delay level of service to determine which treatments will be considered. 2.1.4 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety (4) In September 2013, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) published this document to provide a resource to assist agencies in their effort to more safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists on their roads and highways. The document discusses proven, tried and experimental strategies available and provides a description and definition to each in addition to the safety characteristics. 2.1.5 City of Albert Lea, MN Crosswalk Po licy (5) This policy, published as part of the City’s policy and procedures manual, establishes the guidelines and considerations for the installation of marked crosswalks. The policy requires an engineering study to determine if the criteria is met for a marked crosswalk. The criteria include minimum vehicle volumes, minimum peak hour pedestrian volumes, inadequate gaps, and distance from other crossings. Once the decision is made to mark a crosswalk, the policy identifies a chart based on AADT, vehi cle speeds, and roadway configuration to determine the proper treatment needed. 2.1.6 City of Mankato, MN Crosswalk Marking Policy (6) Adopted by the City Council in May 2011, this policy outlines a process that can be taken for a citizen to request a marked crosswalk. If a location is to be marked, it requires 20 or more pedestrians within a 2- hour period, in addition to sufficient stopping sight distance. Crosswalks are not allowed on arterial roadways or on street with a speed limit greater than 30 mph unless the intersection is signalized. The policy also provides a list of locations where conditions may warrant a crosswalk (school routes, parks, trails, etc..). The policy states that in all cases, the City Council will make the final decision. 6 2.1.7 City of Blaine, MN Crosswalk Policy (7) In November 2014, the Blaine City Council adopted a policy very similar to the City of Mankato’s policy from 2011. If a location is to be marked it must have over 5 pedestrian per hour during a 10-hour period. Crosswalks are not allowed on arterial roadways or on street with a speed limit greater than 30 mph unless the intersection is signalized. The policy also provides a list of locations where conditions may warrant a crosswalk (school routes, parks, trails, etc..). The Blaine policy has a process for a citizen to make a request for a crosswalk and states that in all cases, the City Council will make the final decision to mark a crosswalk. 2.1.8 Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan (8) The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners adopted the Pedestrian Plan in September 2013. The plan was adopted for the purpose of guiding the implementation of improved opportunities for walking within Hennepin County, while remaining consistent with adopted policies and improving hea lth outcomes. The plan does not address crosswalk guidelines but discussed a need to develop guidelines for Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI), Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), and High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacons (HAWK) across County Roads. 2.1.9 Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (M N MUTCD) (9) Section 3B.18 of the 2018 MN MUTCD states that an engineering study is needed to determine if crosswalks should be marked. The criteria for the study is defined, while the actual study requirements or procedure is not. Some of the criteria listed are number of lanes, the presence of medians, distance to adjacent signals, pedestrian volumes and delays, AADT, posted speed limits, geometry, and lighting. The document states that a new crosswalk shouldn’t be installed alone without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence if speeds exceed 40mph and either: 1. 4 or more lanes with no refuge and 12,000 ADT or higher, or 2. 4 or more lanes with raised refuge and greater than 15,000 ADT. The MN MUTCD does not provide much in the way of guidance for what these other countermeasures should be. 2.1.10 City of Boulder, CO Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines (10) In November 2011 the City of Boulder published The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines which are intended to provide a consistent procedure for considering the installation of crossing treatments where needed on a case-by-case basis. 7 The guidelines prescribe pedestrian crossing criteria and procedures for evaluating the need for crossing treatments, including a “flowchart” approach and specific pedestrian crossing treatments that may be applicable for a particular set of pedestrian volumes, pedestrian types, vehicular volumes, vehicular speeds, and roadway geometry. 2.1.11 Best Practices for Traffic Control at Regional Trail Crossings (11) In 2009, several Minnesota metro road and trail managing agencies came together to provide clarification on Minnesota State statutes regarding crossing locations, and to provide a general set of principles and options to consider when evaluating traffic control configurations at trail crossings. A chart was given to provide consistency along regional trails for crossing treatments based on roadway type, vehicle ADT and vehicle speeds. 8 CHAPTER 3: LOCAL AGENCY SURVEY A survey of Minnesota cities and counties was completed through the use of Survey Monkey, an online survey development software. The survey was used to inform local agencies about the project and to solicit information regarding their agencies practices and policies for crosswalks. In addition, the survey examined local agencies practices and policies for removing existing marked crosswalks. The survey was distributed to members of two organizations: The Minnesota County Engineers Association (MCEA) and the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM). The survey questions are provided in Appendix A; a summary of each questions is provided in Appendix B. One-hundred and one (101) agencies completed the survey, all but two currently have marked crosswalks on its system. Of the 101 respondents there was a good mix of agency types with 45 being County agencies and 56 being City agencies. Key findings from all the local agencies responding to the survey are summarized below in two categories:  Administration Policy and Practice  Field Policy and Practice 3.1 ADMINISTRATION POLICY AND PRACTICE SURVEY RESULTS Below is the summary when asked if an agency had a policy that addresses how, when and where pedestrian crosswalks are marked: Figure 3-1 Type of Crosswalk Policy Respondents Currently Have 9 Overall, just under half of the respondents have either a formal or informal policy and 47% were interested in developing one. Of the agencies that have a policy, 4 of them have been updated in the past year while 13 of them are older than 5 years. Of the existing policies, 23 of them have buy -in from policy makers within the agency. When asked if an agency currently has a policy that addresses how, when and where crosswalk treatments are discontinued, only 9 agencies stated they did address that with a policy, while 48 agencies at some point had made a decision to discontinue the use of a crosswalk treatment. When asked what the biggest challenges an agency has with pedestrian crossings the top answer was overwhelmingly handling requests from the public. Cost and maintenance were the second and third most common challenge. When asked what would be most helpful in developing and implementing a pedestrian crosswalk policy the biggest answer was sample policies and guidelines for best practices. 3.2 FIELD POLICY AND PRACTICES The summary for what style crosswalk markings an agency uses is below: Figure 3-2 Style of Crosswalks Used by Agencies About half of the responding agencies are using traditional crosswalk design and the other half are using a high-visibility pattern (either ladder, continental or Seattle-style). Agencies were asked if they currently marked a crosswalk at a channelized right-turn location, 40% of the respondents said they did. 10 When an agency discontinues a crosswalk, they were asked how the marking is removed. The next graphic provides a summary of the results of agencies who have removed responded as well as agencies who haven’t but have a method they would likely use. Figure 3-3 Methods Used by Agencies When Discontinuing a Crosswalk Most of the agencies would make the change through attrition methods (fading or resurfacing project) rather than actively removing it with a physical method. When the local agencies were asked about crosswalk treatments they have used, results show that most of the treatments identified have been used across the state. 11 Figure 3-4 Treatments Respondents Have Used on Their Roadways The information gathered in this survey is expected to inform local agencies of practices other agencies in the state of Minnesota are using. These survey responses were used to help develop the remainder of this project:  Sample crosswalk policies for the decision to mark a crosswalk.  Guidelines to follow on what treatment should be used once it is determined to mark a crosswalk. 12 CHAPTER 4: QUICK-REFERENCE GUIDE Once the decision has been made to mark a crosswalk, most agencies who answered the survey are using the guidance provided by FHWA in “Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations” to determine how a crosswalk should be marked. A quick-reference guide was created in order to provide a quicker way for agencies to use this information without reading the full report. The quick-reference guide can be found in the Appendices and includes two parts:  Countermeasures determined by roadway features  Countermeasure Fact Sheets 4.1 COUNTERMEASURES BY ROADWAY FEATURE The first part of the quick-reference guide includes charts that helps determine which of the twelve countermeasures mentioned in Chapter 1 is appropriate for a roadway. The criteria that is used for this determination is:  Number of lanes in each direction o 2 lanes o 3 lanes with raised median o 3 lanes without raised median o 4+ lanes with raised median o 4+ lanes without raised median  Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) o Less than 9,000 o 9,000-15,000 o Greater than 15,000  Speed o Less than or equal to 30 mph o 35 mph o Greater than or equal to 40 mph Each page is broken down into charts for number of lanes and AADT, with all speeds included in each chart. These charts guide a user to which countermeasure should always be considered, also considered, and used only in conjunction with other countermeasures. If a treatment falls under the “always consider” category, this indicates that a marked crosswalk at a location with the associated roadway features should always be considered a candidate for use but is not mandated or required. If a treatment falls under the “also consider” category, this indicates that a marked crosswalk at a location with the associated roadway features should always be considered, but it is not mandated or required, based upon engineering judgment. If a treatment falls under the “use only in conjunction with other countermeasures” category, this indicates that a marked crosswalk with the associated roadway features should only use these countermeasures with other identified countermeasures. 13 Not all of the countermeasures listed in the charts should necessarily be installed at a crossing. Agencies should also review safety issues, surrounding land development context, pedestrian travel patterns, countermeasure effectiveness, and costs when considering what countermeasure(s) are best suited for the crossing. The second part of the quick reference guide will help make the determination on the most appropriate countermeasure to use. 4.2 COUNTERMEASURE FACT SHEETS The countermeasure fact sheets include a sheet for each of the twelve countermeasures identified in the study. The fact sheets describe considerations for implementation of each countermeasure including:  Benefits  Best locations for use  Design considerations  Planning level costs The fact sheets are meant to be used as a quick reference guide. Agencies should further review the MN MUTCD, AASHTO Pedestrian Guide, and/or agency policies and practices to identify and select countermeasures for implementation. 14 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS Pedestrian crosswalks are a topic of interest across the spectrum of city and county agencies in Minnesota because appropriate use of marked crosswalks is a key part of implementing the statewide initiative of Toward Zero Deaths. During the research portion of this project, it was determined that the scope would change slightly because the TAP members did not feel that policy language should be developed. They felt the policy decision to mark a crosswalk was an agency decision and this project should only provide existing sample policies for local agencies. Thus, this project’s focus would be on answering the question of how to mark a crosswalk once the decision was made to mark it. A review of eleven published guideline documents and sample policies indicates that the majority of communities with existing policies and practices, both documented and undocumented, have been using the guidance provided by the FHWA in its Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations. This document was then redeveloped into a user-friendly, quick-reference guide for local agencies in Minnesota in addition to the development of countermeasure sheets to describe the twelve different countermeasures. 15 REFERENCES [1] Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety. (2018). Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2018. Retrieved from https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ots/reports-statistics/Documents/2018-crash- facts.pdf [2] Matthiesen, W., & Lehrer, S.C. (2019). Pedestrian and Crosswalk Laws in all 50 states. Retrieved from https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/PEDESTRIAN-AND-CROSSWALKS-50-STATE- CHART-00214802x9EBBF.pdf [3] City of El Cerrito Public Works and Community Development Departments, Fehr & Peers. (2016). City of El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan. Retrieved from http://www.el- cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/6290/Active-Transportation-Plan?bidId= [4] Preston, H., N. Farrington, & C. Zegeer. (2013). Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety. Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/trafficsafety/reference/ped-bike- handbook-09.18.2013-v1.pdf [5] City of Albert Lea. (2020). City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual. Retrieved from https://www.cityofalbertlea.org/wp-content/uploads/CROSSWALK_POLICY.pdf [6] City of Mankato. (2011). City of Mankato Crosswalk Marking Policy. Retrieved from http://www.mankatomn.gov/home/showdocument?id=1012 [7] City of Blaine. (2014). City of Blaine, MN Crosswalk Policy. Retrieved from https://www.blainemn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/386/Crosswalk-Policy-PDF?bidId= [8] Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. (2013). Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan. Retrieved from https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/transportation/documents/pedestrian- plan.pdf?la=en&hash=772A38F3B5AA23B2D801CF73DEABFBC1CF56D8FF [9] Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2018). Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mutcd/mnmutcd2019/mnmutcd- entiredoc.pdf [10] City of Boulder. (2011). Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/pedestrian-crossing-treamtment-installation-guidelines- 1-201307011719.pdf?_ga=2.23105970.963410101.1582304742-171765918.1582304742 [11] Twin Cities Road and Trail Management Agencies. (2011). Best Practices for Traffic Control at Regional Trail Crossings. APPENDIX A UNCONTROLLED PEDESTR IAN CROSSWALK QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE U nco ntro lledPed estrian C ro ssw alk Quick Reference Guide Authors: Kate Miner and Tim Arvidson, Stonebrooke Engineering Produced for the Minnesota Local Road Research Board May 2020 2020RIC10G lrrb.org Intro d u ctio n A consistent approach and m ethods for treating uncontrolled crosswalks in M innesota w ill im prove p edestrian safety throughout the state. This quick reference guide helps local agencies select appropriate crosswalk treatm ents based on roadway typ e, vehicle volum es and p osted sp eed lim its. The fo llo w ing tw elve co u nterm easu res are id entified , alo ng w ith their b enefits and d esign, co st, and lo catio n co nsid eratio ns: • Advance Stop H ere for Pedestrians sign and stop line • C rosswalk lighting • C rosswalk pavem ent m arking • C rosswalk warning signs • C urb extension • In-street p edestrian crossing sign • Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach • Pedestrian hybrid b eacon • Pedestrian refuge island • Raised crosswalks • Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4- to 3- lane conversion Exam p les are p ro vid ed fo r vario u s ro ad w ay segm ents b ased o n the fo llo w ing criteria: • N um b er of lanes in each direction - Two lanes - Three lanes w ith raised m edian - Three lanes w ithout raised m edian - Four or m ore lanes w ith raised m edian - Four or m ore lanes w ithout raised m edian • Average annual daily traffi c (AAD T ) - Less than 9,000 - 9,000 to 15,000 - G reater than 15,000 • Sp eed - Less than or equal to 30 m ph - 35 m ph - G reater than or equal to 40 m ph Each exam ple lists the counterm easures that should always b e considered, those that should also b e considered and those that should b e used only in conjunction w ith other counterm easures. N ote: Treatm ents in the “always consider” and “also consider” categories are not m andated or required. Agencies should also review safety issues, surrounding land developm ent, p edestrian travel patterns, counterm easure effectiveness and costs w hen considering appropriate counterm easures for the crossing. This guide was develop ed based on guidance from the Federal H ighway Adm inistration (FH WA) and the Pedestrian C rosswalk Policy D evelopm ent G uidelines (Rep ort 2020RIC 01), a Local Road Research Board study that aim s to im prove p edestrian safety at uncontrolled crosswalks. The rep ort is available along w ith this quick reference guide at lrrrb.o rg A-1 Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians Sign and Stop Line Source: www.pedbikesafe.com / Toole Design Group B enefits: 25% reduction in pedestrian crashes • Reduces risk of multiple threat crash • Reduces vehicle encroachment into crosswalk Best Locations: • 3 or more lanes • Speeds greater than 35 mph • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Design Considerations: • See also MnMUTCD Section 2B.11 and 3B.16 • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps Planning Level Cost (2019): •$1,500 per location Source: FHWA A-2 Source: www.pedbikesafe.com / Peter Lagerwey Benefit: • Improves sightlines of pedestrians and motorists Parking Restrictions on Crosswalk Approach Best Location: • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Planning Level Cost (2019): • Less than $1,000 per location Source: FHWA Design Considerations: • Parking resolution may be needed from local agency • State law prohibits parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk • Agencies are encouraged to develop a policy on curb color use if coloring is desired A-3 Crosswalk Lighting Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Brandon Whyte Benefit: 59%reduction in pedestrian injury crashes Best Location: • Nighttime visibility of pedestrians is a concern Design Considerations: • Place lights before the crossing to avoid creating a silhouette • Use uniform lighting levels within crosswalk area Planning Level Cost (2019): • $10,000 to 42,000 per crosswalk Source: FHWA A-4 Crosswalk Pavement Marking Benefit: • Indicates preferred pedestrian crossing location Best Locations: • Convenient for pedestrian access • Low-volume roadways • Low-speed roadways Design Considerations: • High-visibility crosswalks preferred over parallel line crosswalks • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps • Pavement marking materials Planning Level Cost (2019): • $600 to $5,700, Average $2,500 Source: FHWA A-5 Crosswalk Warning Signs Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Dan Burden Benefit: • Provides helpful information to motorists and pedestrians who are unfamiliar with the area Best Location: • Pedestrian crossing not expected by motorists Design Considerations: • Design must comply with MnMUTCD • Signs must provide adequate retroreflectivity • Crosswalk warning signs must fit with the location of other signsPlanning Level Cost (2019): • Less than $1,000 per crossing Source: FHWA A-6 Curb Extension Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Andy Hamilton Benefits: • Reduces pedestrian crossing distance • Increases visibility of pedestrians to motorists • Slows vehicle speeds at turns, increasing safety for all modes • Can be used with unmarked crosswalk Best Locations: • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians • Vehicle speeds causing problems • On-street parking or shoulders exist Design Considerations: • Must not block bicycle lanes • Must facilitate drainage • Must not extend into travel lanes • Must meet turning movement needs of larger vehicles • Accessibility: ADA-compliant rampsPlanning Level Cost (2019): • Range $2,000 - $20,000, Average $13,000 Source: FHWA A-7 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Peter Speer Benefits: • Reminds road users of right of way laws • May reduce vehicle speeds, especially if used in a gating fashion Best Locations: • 3 lanes or fewer • Speeds less than 30 mph • Drivers not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk • Vehicle speeds causing problems Design Considerations: • Must maintain and promptly replace damaged signs • Become less effective over time as drivers become used to signs • See also MnMUTCD Section 2B.12 • Must comply with AASHTO breakaway requirements if placed within roadway • Accessibility: Signs must not be placed in middle of crosswalk Planning Level Cost (2019): • Less than $1,000 per location Source: FHWA A-8 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Mike Cynecki Benefits: 55%reduction in pedestrian crashes • Improves motorist yielding for pedestrians by 90% Best Locations: • AADT greater than 9,000 • 3 or more lanes • Speeds greater than 40 mph • Traffic signal warrants not being met • Midblock crossings (most common); also successful at intersections • Drivers not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians • Traffic volumes not providing adequate safe gaps for pedestrians to enter the crosswalk Design Considerations: • Proximity of closest signalized intersection • Cost compared to a signal • Power source or solar power required • Impact on traffic during operation • Accessibility: ADA compliant ramps, push buttons and audible component Planning Level Cost (2019): •Range $21,000 - $128,000, Average $57,700 Source: FHWA A-9 Pedestrian Refuge Island Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / TooleDesign Benefits: 32% reduction in pedestrian crashes • Reduces pedestrian delay • Reduces/eliminates multiple threat risk • Reduces crossing distance • May influence driver behavior by visually narrowing roadway • Can be used with unmarked crosswalk Best Locations: • Multiple-lane roadways • High-volume roadways • High-speed roadways • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians • Vehicle speeds causing problems Design Considerations: • Island width: minimum of 4 feet • Preferred island width: 8 feet • Must facilitate drainage • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps Planning Level Cost (2019): • $2,140 - $41,170, Average $13,520 Source: FHWA A-10 Raised Crosswalk Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / Penn. Dept. of Transportation Benefit: 45% reduction in pedestrian crashes Best Locations: • Local and collector streets • 2- or 3- lane roadways • Speeds of 30 mph or less • AADT less than 9,000 • Regional trail crossing • Drivers not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk • Vehicle speeds causing problems • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Design Considerations: • Avoid truck routes, bus transit routes, emergency routes and arterial streets • Ensure appropriate width (typically10 feet to allow front and rear wheels of a passenger vehicle to be on the table at the same time) • Consider snowplowing needs • Must facilitate drainage • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps Planning Level Cost (2019): • $7,110 - $30,880 (Average $8,170) Source: FHWA A-11 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Source: www.pedbikeimages.com / TooleDesign Benefit: 47% reduction in pedestrian crashes • Motorist yielding rates as high as 98% Best Locations: • Multilane roadways • Two-lane, one-way streets • Posted speeds less than 40 mph • Drivers not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Design Considerations: • Power source or solar power required • FHWA interim approval for use; Minnesota has submitted a request for statewide approval • Accessibility: ADA-compliant ramps, push buttons and audible components Planning Level Cost (2019): • $4,500 to $52,000, Average $22,250 Source: FHWA A-12 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Benefits: 47%* reduction in all crash types *FHWA sites a range of 19 to 47% • Provides opportunity for shoulder and/or bike lane • Reduces crossing distance • Reduces risk of multiple threat crash Best Locations: • Roads that have 4 or more lanes without a raised median • AADT less than 20,000 (most successful; but can also be successful where AADT is greater than 20,000) • Inadequate visibility of pedestrians Design Considerations: • Current and future vehicle operations • Roadside stops (mail, trash, transit, etc.) • Corridorwide considerations Planning Level Cost (2019): •$25,000 - $40,000/mile Source: FHWA A-13 2 Lanes AADT: < 9,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Raised crosswalk • Pedestrian refuge island • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-14 2 Lanes AADT: 9,000-15,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-15 2 Lanes AADT: > 15,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-16 3 Lanes With Raised Median AADT: < 9,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Raised crosswalk • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-17 3 Lanes With Raised Median AADT: 9,000-15,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Curb extension Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-18 3 Lanes With Raised Median AADT: >15,000 (1 lane in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Curb extension • Curb extension Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-19 3 Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: < 9,000 (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Raised crosswalk • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-20 3 Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: 9,000-15,000 (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-21 3 Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: >15,000 (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • In-street pedestrian crossing sign • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-22 4+ Lanes With Raised Median AADT: <9,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-23 4+ Lanes With Raised Median AADT: 9,000-15,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-24 4+ Lanes With Raised Median AADT: >15,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-25 4+ Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: <9,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-26 4+ Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: 9,000-15,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Pedestrian hybrid beacon • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-27 4+ Lanes Without Raised Median AADT: >15,000 (2 or more lanes in each direction) <30 mph 35 mph >40 mph Always Consider (Candidate Treatment) •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island •Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon •Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach •Crosswalk lighting • Advance Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and stop line • Pedestrian refuge island • Pedestrian hybrid beacon Also Consider (Candidate Treatment) • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion • Curb extension • 4-to-3 Lane Conversion Use Only in Conjunction With Other Countermeasures •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs •Crosswalk pavement marking •Crosswalk warning signs A-28 Published by the M innesota Local Road Research Board M inneso ta D ep artm ent o f Transp o rtatio n, O ffi ce of Research & Innovation, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, M S 330 St. Paul, M innesota 55155 lrrb.o rg A-29 City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 1 4.10 ALBERT LEA CROSSWALK POLICY PURPOSE: Pedestrian crosswalks are an integral part of our transportation infrastructure. To be effective and promote safety, marked crosswalks must be installed after careful consideration and review. The review shall be done with adherence to accepted guidelines and good engineering practice. This policy establishes the guidelines and considerations for the installation of marked crosswalks from the date of the adoption of this policy. POLICY STATEMENT: The City of Albert Lea may consider the installation of marked crosswalks where there is substantial conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movements as an enhancement for pedestrian crossings of roadways under the City’s jurisdiction. Crosswalk installation shall be in accordance with State Law and the guidelines contained herein. I. AUTHORITY: This policy is based on administrative implementation of policy and Minnesota State Statute 169. The policy is administered under the direction of the Director of Public Works and applies to roadways under the City’s jurisdiction. II. BACKGROUND: Minnesota State Statute defines that crosswalks exist at intersections, whether marked or unmarked, and provides for pedestrian and motorist responsibilities. MN Statute 169.011 DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 20. Crosswalk. “Crosswalk” means (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. MN Statute 169.21 PEDESTRIAN. Subdivision 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 2 impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision. III. EVALUATION PROCESS A. Engineering Study An engineering study should be performed to determine if criteria are met for a marked crosswalk and to determine the level of marking to be used. The level of detail required for an engineering study will vary with the location under consideration. The engineering study may include: 1. Speed and traffic volume data on streets being crossed 2. Pedestrian volume, age, and level of mobility 3. Location of pedestrian origin and destination point and crossing patterns 4. Designated school walking routes 5. Existing sidewalk network and sidewalk ramps 6. Sight distances and sight obstructions 7. Street characteristics including grades, curvature, radii, pavement widths, medians, and number of vehicle and bicycle lanes 8. Location of adjacent driveways 9. On-street parking 10. Street lighting 11. Location of drainage structures 12. Distance to nearest protected (traffic signal or stop sign controlled, or grade separated) or marked crossing 13. Traffic signal progression 14. Potential for rear end crashes 15. Pedestrian accidents B. Guidelines General guidelines to be satisfied when considering installation of marked crosswalks, includes the following: 1. The installation of marked crosswalks should be based on engineering study. City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 3 2. Marked crosswalks should connect to established sidewalks/trails at both ends. 3. ADA accessible ramps should be included at both ends of marked crosswalk installations unless there are engineering reasons they cannot be provided. 4. Adequate street lighting should be provided for the safety of pedestrians. 5. Street parking must be restricted adjacent to marked crosswalks to allow for adequate sight lines for both the motorists and the pedestrians. The length of the parking restriction shall be based on an engineering study (judgment). 6. The provisions of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) shall be followed. IV. INSTALLATION CRITERIA 1. Minimum Traffic Volume Marked crosswalks should generally not be considered for roadways with less than 1,000 vehicles per day unless as part of a school walking route 2. Pedestrian Volumes Consideration can be given to marking a crosswalk if there is a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings during the pedestrian peak hour. A lower pedestrian traffic volume of 15 may be used if the proposed location is part of a school walking route or adjacent to an elderly facility. 3. Traffic Gaps Consideration can be given to marking a crosswalk if there is less than one adequate crossing gap in traffic per minute during the peak hour. A crossing gap is measured as the time (in seconds) between vehicles crossing (regardless of direction of travel) the proposed crosswalk location. An adequate gap is determined by dividing the roadway width (in feet) by a walking rate of 3.5 feet per second (may be slower for a crossing location serving elderly pedestrians) and adding 3 seconds of perception/reaction time. 4. Crosswalk Spacing Marked crosswalks should be spaced a minimum of 300 feet from a protected or marked crossing. 5. Mid-Block Crosswalks The use of mid-block crosswalks is generally discouraged unless an engineering study determines a specific need for this type of crosswalk. Installation of new City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 4 mid-block crosswalks shall include provisions for adequate street lighting and supplemental signage as determined appropriate by an engineering study. 6. Crosswalk Control The control for a marked crosswalk, including signing, pavement marking, traffic signals, flashing beacons, etc. shall be determined by engineering study and should conform to the MN MUTCD. 7. Traffic Signals Marked crosswalks should be installed at signalized intersections in accordance with the traffic signal design. 8. Central Business District Marked crosswalks should be considered in the Central Business District in areas of concentrated pedestrian activity. 9. Roundabouts Marked crosswalks should be installed at roundabouts in accordance with the roundabout engineering design. 10. Street Type and Speed Marked crosswalks may be considered at locations that are not protected by a Stop Sign or a Traffic Signal, subject to the table on the next page. (cont’d) City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 5 City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 6 Standard A = 6 - 12” B*=6’ *Dimension B shall be 6’ min., and may be the same width as the approach walkway. V. STREET LIGHTING Street lighting should be considered at all crosswalk locations, based on engineering study and City street lighting practice. VI. TREATMENTS 1. Pavement Markings Pavement markings shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD). a. Standard Crosswalks Standard crosswalks shall be a minimum of 6 feet and may be the same width as the approach walkway if the walkway is wider than 6 feet. This marking should be considered for crosswalks at Stop Sign, Traffic Signal, and Roundabout controlled intersections and intersection crosswalks of two-lane roadways. Figure 1 –Standard Crosswalk Markings. City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 7 *Dimension B shall be 6’ min., or the same width as the approach walkway. b. Special Emphasis Crosswalks Special emphasis crosswalk markings consist of white 3 foot wide bars with a 3 foot space at 90 degrees to the crosswalk (Figure 2). This marking should be used at mid-block crosswalks and crossings of multi-lane roadways with speed limits equal to or greater than 35 mph. Figure 2 - Special Emphasis Crosswalk Markings c. Decorative Crosswalks The use of decorative materials by themselves does not designate a crosswalk. Crosswalks are legally designated at intersections and no markings are needed. At mid-block crossings, standard or special emphasis markings must be used for designation as a crosswalk. d. Stop Lines Stop lines should be considered on multi-lane roadways in advance of mid-block crosswalks and crosswalks at intersections not controlled by a Stop Sign. Figure 3 – Stop Line Markings City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 8 2. Traffic Signing Traffic signing shall be in accordance with the MN MUTCD. The W11-2 Crosswalk Sign shall be used at marked mid-block crosswalks, and other crosswalks as indicated by engineering study. The S1-1 School Crossing Sign should be used at marked school crosswalks. When a W11-2 Crosswalk Sign or a S1-1 School Crossing Sign are used, a W16-7p arrow sign shall also be used. The W11-2 and S1-1 signs shall also be used as advance warning signs for crosswalks as established by the MN MUTCD W11-2 S1-1 W16-7p City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 9 When a W11-2 or S1-1 sign is used as an advance warning sign, a W16-9p sign shall also be used. W16-9p The R1-X1 “Stop for Pedestrian in Crosswalk” sign should be used based on engineering study, in advance of high volume pedestrian and school crosswalks. The R1-6a, 6b, or 6c sign may be used as a temporary enhancement for a new crossing where there are a high number of pedestrian crossings. The use shall be in accordance with the MN MUTCD. R1-6b Other signage and/or enhancements may be considered based on engineering study and updates to the MN MUTCD. R1-X1 City of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 10 3. Traffic Signals a. Traffic Signal Traffic signals may be installed when warrants are met in accordance with the MN MUTCD. b. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons may be installed when warrants are met in accordance with the MN MUTCD. c. Flashing Beacons Flashing beacons may be used based on engineering study as an enhancement to a crossing. If used, consideration should be given to having them actuated, so that they are only operating when pedestrians are present. d. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) RRFBs may be used based on engineering study as an enhancement to a crossing. When used, they shall be actuated, so that they are only operating when pedestrians are present. 4. Roadway Features a. Curb Extensions Curb extensions or bulb-outs may be used based on engineering study to shorten the length of the crosswalk and/or improve the sight distance of and for the pedestrian. b. Medians Medians may be used based on engineering study on streets with two-way traffic flow to allow for the pedestrian to cross one direction of traffic at a time and have a safe refuge in the roadway. The minimum median width for pedestrian refuge is 6 feet, but the design should be based on the pedestrian demand. City of Woodbury –website, refers to traffic safety committee Pedestrian Safety | Woodbury, MN (woodburymn.gov) CITY OF EAGAN PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK POLICY PREPARED BY: CITY OF EAGAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT May 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Minnesota State Statute ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Jurisdictional Authority ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Crossing Guidance ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Field Review and Preliminary Data Collection ........................................................................................... 4 2. Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Crossing Identification ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Roadway Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Multimodal Data ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 3. Evaluate Candidate Locations ......................................................................................................................... 7 Crossing Types ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Crossing Considerations ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Criteria Definitions .................................................................................................................................................. 11 4. Engineering Review ...........................................................................................................................................12 Step 1: Traffic Volume Review ........................................................................................................................... 12 Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Assessment ................................................................................. 14 Step 3: Evaluate Crossing Infrastructure Enhancements ........................................................................... 15 Step 4: Further Analysis of Major Enhancements ........................................................................................ 16 Crossing Infrastructure Treatments ................................................................................................................. 18 Removal of Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... 22 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Eagan encourages multimodal transportation to access destinations in daily life and recreate via the community’s many parks and trails. Eagan continues to receive high citizen survey satisfaction ratings for ease of walking and biking and for the availability of such infrastructure. Eagan strives to provide safe, accessible, and efficient travel for all modes of transportation, while prioritizing the transportation network’s most vulnerable users: people walking, rolling, and bicycling. As the City strives Toward Zero Deaths within the city’s transportation network, a consistent application of pedestrian crossing enhancements is critical to best serve all users. Dakota County began using a pedestrian crossing guidance process developed as a part of the County’s Pedestrian Crossing Safety Assessment in July 2022. As a partner jurisdiction in Dakota County, the City of Eagan has adopted Dakota County’s guidance to maintain a consistent application of crossing enhancements along all city and county roadways. The purpose of this policy is to leverage the County’s process to guide the City in evaluating and implementing a pedestrian crossing program that provides people walking, rolling, and bicycling a safe place to cross while providing motorists reasonable and consistent expectations for where and what that may look like. This consistent process and application are important for the safety of all as it sets reliable expectations while traveling throughout the transportation network. The intent is to ensure a mutual understanding between the City Council, Staff, and residents of Eagan when presented as part of a public improvement project, or by a citizen or City staff request. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE Minnesota State Statute Chapter 169 defines a crosswalk and pedestrians, as well as the rights of pedestrians and motorists regarding when and where to yield right-of-way. The definitions and legal language detailed in this section provide a foundation for how pedestrian crossings are viewed in Minnesota and considered by this assessment. 169.011 Definitions Subdivision 20. Crosswalk. "Crosswalk" means (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Subdivision 20. Pedestrian. "Pedestrian" means any person afoot or in a wheelchair. 169.21 Pedestrian Subdivision 2. Rights in absence of signal. 2 (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision. (b) When any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle. (c) It is unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle through a column of school children crossing a street or highway or past a member of a school safety patrol or adult crossing guard, while the member of the school safety patrol or adult crossing guard is directing the movement of children across a street or highway and while the school safety patrol member or adult crossing guard is holding an official signal in the stop position. A peace officer may arrest the driver of a motor vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has operated the vehicle in violation of this paragraph within the past four hours. (d) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who violates this subdivision a second or subsequent time within one year of a previous conviction under this subdivision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Subdivision 3. Crossing between intersections. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY This policy applies to streets owned and maintained by the City of Eagan, though Dakota County will perform the same assessment for their county facilities. The City and County will coordinate when applicable on projects to ensure proper application of crossing enhancements. 3 CROSSING GUIDANCE This section provides an evaluation process and guidance for when to consider enhancing a crossing at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block crossing locations. Enhanced crossing infrastructure is a key method of improving the safety and comfort of people walking, rolling, and bicycling (herein referred to as “multimodal users”) traveling throughout the transportation network, with research on the safety effects of appropriately enhanced crosswalks expanding in recent years. An uncontrolled crossing refers to a location where no traffic control (i.e., yield or stop sign, traffic signal) exists at the point in which people walking, rolling, or bicycling may cross. Uncontrolled crossings require additional review during planning and design because drivers are not consistently required to stop. Instead, a driver must recognize the presence of a person crossing and stop accordingly as required by Minnesota state law. This lack of consistency can create safety challenges acutely connected to these crossing locations. The FHWA states, “By focusing on uncontrolled crossing locations, local and state agencies can address a significant national safety problem and improve quality of life for pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”1 Uncontrolled crossing locations can be barriers for any multimodal user, notably children, older, and disabled populations, and require special attention to create a safe environment. Higher speed and traffic volume environments with multiple lanes are especially challenging and are locations where simply marking a crosswalk is insufficient. The objective of this section is to document a process for evaluation and design of crossing locations and ensure that anyone who wishes to be informed may understand how, where, and why crossing enhancements are recommended at certain locations based upon a variety of factors and contexts. INTRODUCTION The safety of multimodal users requires a holistic approach that focuses on engineering (implementing infrastructure improvements), education (for all roadway users), evaluation (continually collecting key data metrics to better inform decision-making), and encouragement (of following state laws). Engineering is the first step of this process to ensure the roadway and associated crossing design can effectively accommodate all users as safely and effectively as possible. It is important to focus upon the most vulnerable users of the transportation network throughout the process. Crashes are unacceptable and preventable, and though humans will make mistakes, Safe System of roadway design must always be considered to ensure a person’s mistake does not lead to serious injury or death. 1 Federal Highway Administration. (2018). Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, page ii. 4 Determining the appropriateness of enhanced crossing infrastructure requires a thorough review of the crossing location. The following steps are guidance for using or reviewing this process. Each crossing location requires staff review and engineering judgement beyond the basic guidelines included in this chapter and must include context-specific solutions beyond the scope of this document. Ideally this process is completed during the roadway design process, however, in many cases review occurs after the roadway is built or a new facility is added. This process is intended to help guide the reviewer through a methodical and data driven process such that engineering judgment can be effectively applied. 1. Performing field review and preliminary data collection to understand existing conditions and potential issues. Preliminary data collection includes existing, easily accessible data that is expected to take the reviewer less than 30 minutes and will determine if the crossing is acceptable for additional review performed by steps 2, 3, and 4. 2. Collect data to complete the review using recommended data points included in the Data Collection Form. The process includes the following steps: a. Identify crossing location. b. Collect roadway geometric and configuration data. c. Collect traffic and operational data. d. Collect multimodal data. 3. Evaluate the point of crossing using the flowchart and perform a high-level review to understand if a location is appropriate for consideration of an enhanced crossing. 4. If the flowchart leads to the conclusion that the consideration of an enhanced crossing is appropriate, continue to engineering review which includes the following steps: a. Review traffic volumes to determine proper roadway configuration/number of lanes. b. Determine if roadway geometric treatments are appropriate. c. Evaluate crossing infrastructure enhancements. d. Conduct specific warrant analyses or review of grade separation feasibility if applicable. 1. FIELD REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY DATA COLLECTION Upon identification of a crossing location by preemptive review (e.g., future development, etc.) or reactive evaluation (e.g., community input, recent crash, etc.), initial field review should be completed. This first step will aid in determining if an issue(s) is/are present, if other mitigation measures can be performed external to the process defined by this assessment, or if no additional follow up is necessary. Staff time and capacity is understood to be limited, and this will ensure that only crossings with the highest estimated need are provided the level of review described in the following sections. 5 2. DATA COLLECTION Data collection is a key component of this analysis. The Data Collection Form should be used for each study to collect all required data inputs. It is critical that all data points identified below are collected and properly organized to ensure the crossing location is successfully reviewed for potential improvements. Sometimes the planner or engineer is very familiar with the location and may have a good understanding of operations which may allow some of the data to be “approximated”, though it is important that all data inputs are completed to maintain the integrity of the process. Crossing Identification ▪ Major Street: Name of the street crossed by the location under review. ▪ Minor Street or Crossing Location: The connecting street of an intersection or specific location identified for the mid-block crossing. ▪ Multimodal Generating Land Uses, Destinations, or Activity Centers: Within 660 feet of the crossing, are there land uses, destinations, or activity centers that could generate trips by walking, rolling, or bicycling and list those that are pertinent. These could be existing locations or those planned in the near-term (less than five years). Roadway Characteristics ▪ Cross-section Type: Urban (curb and gutter) or rural (shoulder and ditch) cross-section. ▪ Roadway Configuration: Configuration of the roadway at the point of crossing which includes the total number of lanes and if it is divided or undivided. ▪ Total Number of Lanes to Cross: The total number of lanes present at the point of crossing. ▪ Number of Left-turn Lanes: The total number of left-turn lanes present at the point of crossing. ▪ Number of Right-turn Lanes: The total number of right-turn lanes present at the point of crossing. ▪ Stopping Sight Distance: The stopping sight distance in both directions from the point of crossing based upon guidance found in the AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. ▪ Obstruction: Sight distance obstruction present such as a tree, pole, sign, etc. that directly affects the crossing under review. Traffic Data ▪ Traffic Control: If a crossing under review is at an intersection, identify the traffic control present (side-street stop control, all-way stop, or traffic signal). ▪ Posted Speed Limit: Posted speed limit at the point of crossing. 6 ▪ 85th Percentile Speed: The 85th percentile speed recorded at the point of crossing. ▪ Existing AADT: The most recent average annual daily traffic available at the point of crossing. ▪ Future AADT: The future average annual daily traffic identified at the point of crossing if available. ▪ Existing V/C: The vehicle-to-capacity based upon the number of lanes and existing AADT at the point of crossing ▪ Future V/C: The vehicle-to-capacity based upon the number of lanes and future AADT at the point of crossing ▪ Total Crashes: The total number of crashes (all modes) that are recorded at the point of crossing in the last five years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes if present. Multimodal Data ▪ Sidewalk: Identify if a sidewalk directly connects to the crossing under review. ▪ Shared-use Path: Identify if a shared-use path, sidepath, or multiuse trail directly connects to the crossing under review. ▪ Crosswalk Lighting: Identify if lighting is present that would illuminate the crossing and specifically note if that lighting is pedestrian-scale. ▪ Transit Stop: Identify if a bus or transit stop is within 300 feet of the crossing under review. ▪ Multimodal User Volume: Record the three peak hour totals for multimodal users and specifically identify pedestrians versus bicyclists. User types are further defined under the “Criteria Definitions” section. A best practice is collecting data between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. during warmer months (i.e., April-June or September-October) and when school is in session. Collecting both a weekday and weekend count is also recommended. Previously collected count data within two years of this assessment can be applied if location conditions have not changed significantly. ▪ Multimodal User Volume – Vulnerable Population: Record the three peak hour totals for multimodal users that would identify as vulnerable (i.e., young, older, and/or disabled). User types are further defined under the “Criteria Definitions” section. ▪ Pedestrian Crashes: The total number of pedestrian-involved crashes that are recorded at the point of crossing in the last ten years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes and remove preventable crashes (e.g., driver impaired, etc.) if present. ▪ Bicycle Crashes: The total number of bicycle-involved crashes that are recorded at the point of crossing in the last ten years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes and remove preventable crashes (e.g., driver impaired, etc.) if present. ▪ Distance to Next Marked Crosswalk: The distance (in feet) between the closest marked crosswalk and the crossing under review. 7 ▪ Distance to Next Controlled Crossing: The distance (in feet) between the closest controlled crossing (i.e., traffic/pedestrian signal, all-way stop, PHB, or RRFB) and the crossing under review. ▪ Two-stage Crossing Distance: Total distance to cross (in feet) on either side of the pedestrian refuge island. ▪ Total Crossing Distance: The total crossing distance (in feet) to complete the roadway crossing from curb ramp to curb ramp or curb face to curb face if curb ramps are not present. 3. EVALUATE CANDIDATE LOCATIONS Once data collection is complete, the candidate crossing location should be evaluated using the flowchart. Starting at the top, proceed through each criteria box following the path of whether the data meets that criterion. Progress through the flowchart until reaching one of three boxes at the bottom which include: ▪ No Action Recommended: The crossing location does not meet one or more criteria and is not recommended. Directing users to the nearest marked crosswalk should be considered to reduce risk taking behavior. The nearest marked crosswalk should be consistent with the guidelines defined in this evaluation process or approved following staff review and engineering judgement. ▪ Consider an Unmarked Crossing: An “unmarked crossing” is any treatment that improves a person’s ability to cross a roadway, short of a marked crosswalk with signage or other enhancements detailed in Step 3 at the crossing location. Installation of this type of crossing is subject to staff review and engineering judgement and must include ADA- compliant curb ramps, appropriate pedestrian warning signage in advance of the crossing, and roadway geometric improvements if applicable (list of options found below in step 3, the engineering review process). No markings or additional signage beyond pedestrian warning signage are provided to attract or recommend that nonmotorized users cross at the location. The crossing is intended to operate as an improvement for a low volume pedestrian crossing where nonmotorized users are already crossing and will continue to cross at this location or to provide consistency where enhancements are not warranted. ▪ Consideration of a Crossing Enhancement is Appropriate: The crossing location is appropriate for consideration of infrastructure enhancements. Proceed to the engineering review process to complete context-specific analysis, staff review, and engineering judgement. 8 Crossing Types A pedestrian crossing is the section of the road at an intersection that acts as the prolongation, or extension, of the sidewalk for people walking, rolling, or bicycling to cross from one side of the road to the other and at all legs of any intersection. When no sidewalks exist, the crossing is the portion of the roadway within ten feet of the intersection unless modified by crosswalk markings, signage, or other infrastructure at a different location such as mid-block (i.e., between two intersections). ▪ Unmarked crosswalk: A legal crosswalk that does not feature any crosswalk striping or markings. ▪ Marked crosswalk: A legal crosswalk that features crosswalk striping or markings. ▪ Uncontrolled crossing: A legal crossing of a roadway intersection approach or mid-block crossing of a roadway between two intersections not controlled by a stop sign, traffic signal, pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), or pedestrian signal. ▪ Controlled crossing: A legal crossing of a roadway intersection approach or mid-block crossing of a roadway between two intersections controlled by a stop sign, traffic signal, pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), or pedestrian signal. Typical crosswalk marking implementation and designs are highlighted in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) and can include a variety of materials. To improve motorist vision of a crossing, high visibility markings are recommended (e.g., thermoplasti c) when applicable and notably for higher volume crossings. Source: Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (left); National Association of City Transportation Officials (right) Crosswalks that are appropriately marked and enhanced provide pedestrians with convenient opportunities to cross the street, while maintaining safety. Marked crosswalks are valuable as they direct pedestrians to a designated place to cross, alert drivers to the potential presence of pedestrians, and legally establish the crosswalk at non-intersection locations. 9 The MN MUTCD states that a marked crosswalk should not be installed alone without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence if the posted speed limit exceeds 40 mph and: 1. Four or more lanes present with no pedestrian refuge island and >12,000 AADT, or 2. Four or more lanes present with a pedestrian refuge island and >15,000 AADT Crossing Considerations External to crossing infrastructure, other considerations are important to review prior to potentially implementing infrastructure enhancements. Distance Between Crossings Crosswalk spacing criteria should be determined according to the pedestrian network, built environment, and observed desire lines. NACTO identifies that if it takes a person more than a three-minute walk to a crossing, wait to cross the street, and then resume their journey, they may decide to cross along a more direct, but unsafe or unprotected, route based upon perceived time savings. While this behavior depends heavily on the speed and volume of motorists, it is imperative to understand crossing behaviors from a pedestrian’s perspective (i.e., slower travel via a reduced travelshed). Of note, no state or national guidance exists identifying specific measured distances between crosswalks or enhanced crossings. Crossing placement is heavily dependent upon the surrounding context, land use and destinations, network connectivity, block length, and other factors. A high-level analysis of agency best practices in the United States showed typical marked crossing spacing from 200 to 600 feet when warranted. A minimum spacing of 300 feet between signalized crossings is identified in the MN MUTCD (page 4D-1). This spacing could fluctuate based upon engineering judgement and applicability given the roadway design, configuration, and intersection placement. Delay to Cross a Roadway The multimodal network should be designed in such a way where users are not unreasonably forced to wait for a gap in traffic or walk out of their way to access a crossing. The Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition states that when a pedestrian is forced to wait 30 seconds or more, they are highly likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. NACTO also has guidance regarding delay at signalized and unsignalized crossings. Delays exceeding 40 seconds at signalized crosswalks and 20 seconds at unsignalized, or yield-controlled crosswalks, may cause the pedestrian to exhibit risk- taking behavior. These are important considerations as another metric to proactively determine how a crossing could be made safer. 10 11 Criteria Definitions Additional detail regarding how to navigate each criterion is included by the corresponding number in the flowchart and footnotes. ▪ Meets minimum multimodal volume threshold: The multimodal user crossing demand during a 24-hour period meets one or more of the following criteria. This is the total after the 1.33 volume conversion factor is applied for vulnerable population (i.e., children/young adults (ages 0-17), older adults (60+), and persons with disabilities). o 1 hour (any hour): 20 crossings per hour o 2 hours (any two hours): 15 crossings per hour o 3 hours (any three hours): 10 crossings per hour Of note, the two- or three-hour counts do not need to be consecutive. Multimodal users include a person walking, rolling (e.g., skateboard, scooter, or other nonmotorized or motorized riding device), bicycling (pedal-powered or e-bike), or using a wheelchair, mobility aid, or other battery power-driven mobility device. ▪ Pedestrian or bicycle involved crash in the last ten years: ≥1 crash involving a multimodal user at the existing point crossing under review over the last ten years. A crash not addressable by engineering design (e.g., impaired driver, etc.) does not count. ▪ Location meets the sight distance requirement: The required sight distance for a vehicle to come to a complete stop at the point of crossing per AASHTO’s stopping sight distance outputs using the roadway’s design speed. ▪ Location directly serves a key destination or active transportation facility: Subject to staff review and engineering judgement, examine the surrounding land uses to determine if the proposed crossing directly serves, or is within close proximity, to a key destination or active transportation facility. Key destinations for consideration could include, but are not limited to: school, hospital, senior center, recreation or community center, library, park, bus stop or transit station, or a key activity center, destination, and/or land use subject to staff review. Active transportation facilities may include a multiuse trail, shared use path, sidepath, or greenway adopted by a City of Eagan plan, or other local planning document subject to staff review and approval. ▪ Location from the nearest marked crossing: The NACTO defines an approximate three minute out-of-direction walk as the threshold in which risk-taking behavior by a multimodal user may then occur. Pedestrians naturally desire to travel along the quickest and most direct pathway of travel. Utilizing the MN MUTCD’s 3.5 feet per second calculation for pedestrian travel, that equates to 600 feet total, or 300 feet in either direction from the crosswalk. These distances could vary and are dependent upon the surrounding context (i.e., urban, suburban, or rural) and characteristics of the roadway. The minimum distance allowable is 300 feet between crossings per the MN MUTCD (page 4D-1). 12 Exceptions to Criteria In some cases, it may be reasonable to allow exceptions to the criteria previously described. Any exception may require review, consideration, and discussion from city staff and must be clearly documented including the reason why the criteria exception was required. Examples could include a location that is identified for consideration of a crossing enhancement but does not meet the criteria outlined in this document though it has other factors where crossing enhancements may be applicable. The city may choose not to construct crossings that have a high cost, are not justified by the project’s benefits, or have constraints present that require significant design. Developers should coordinate planning, design, and implementation of all crossings with the City of Eagan’s Public Works Department. 4. ENGINEERING REVIEW If a location is identified as appropriate for consideration of crossing enhancements in the flowchart, then the following process should be completed to determine if additional crossing infrastructure enhancements could be implemented. This is a methodical process that potentially highlights items not previously considered. Step 1: Traffic Volume Review The first step of this process is important as the Potential Crossing Enhancement Matrix relies upon the number of lanes as one of three key inputs. This step ensures that the number of lanes (travel and turn lanes) at the point of crossing is adequate for the traffic volumes. Right sizing the crossing distance is critical to all modes of travel, but particularly important to non-motorized users, as the goal is to minimize their time in the hazard zone. 1. Analyze existing (and future traffic volumes subject to site-specific engineering judgement) using the Dakota County capacity thresholds to determine if the roadway design is appropriate (see Table 1). Table 1. Dakota County Roadway Capacities Roadway Design Capacity Range 110% of Capacity 2-lanes 10,000 11,000 3-lanes 18,000 19,800 4+ lanes 35,000 38,500 Source: Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan 13 ▪ Four-to-Three Conversion: Often referred to as a “road diet” it reduces the number of travel lanes from four through lanes to two through lanes with a two-way left-turn lane in the center of the roadway. This can both calm traffic, slow speeds, and provide additional roadway space for crossing enhancements such as a pedestrian refuge island. This is an option if the capacity is found to be appropriate for such a conversion based upon county guidance and engineering judgement. ▪ Multilane Threat: Removing lanes can also improve visibility and remove the multilane threat which is when two or more lanes in one direction approach a crossing. When one car stops for a person crossing the roadway, the second car may not be visible to the person crossing nor is that person visible to the second driver. 2. Engineering review of right- and left-turn lanes if applicable at the point of crossing to verify if they are necessary or if they can be removed. 3. If roadway design or turn lanes are appropriate, proceed to Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Options. 4. If roadway design or turn lanes are not appropriate, consider lane reductions or turn lane removal before proceeding. If this is not a near-term option, proceed to Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Options. 14 Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Assessment Marking a crosswalk is one of many tools that can be used to improve pedestrian conditions. Before considering additional signage, markings/striping, signals, etc., staff should evaluate the feasibility of roadway geometric improvements. Minimizing the time that multimodal users are crossing in the travel lane(s) is important as it reduces crossing width/distance, as well as helps manage vehicle speeds by narrowing the cross-section and tightening curb radii. In some cases, moving a crossing away from an intersection to a mid-block location can significantly reduce the number of conflict points between vehicles and multimodal users thereby improving overall safety. The following process reviews opportunities to slow speeds, reduce crossing distance, and improve visibility of people crossing the roadway. 1. Narrow Travel Lanes: MnDOT identifies the following lane width best practices per the Performance-Based Practical Design – Process and Design Guidance. These are superseded by MnDOT’s own design standards though used as an example for consideration by the City of Eagan. Studies have credited tighter lane widths by neutrally or positively impacting safety without affecting traffic operations. ▪ Rural Roadways: 11- or 12-foot-wide lanes ▪ Urban and Suburban Roadways: 10-foot-wide lanes (≤35 mph and turn lanes), 11-foot- wide lanes (suitable for all other typologies), 12-foot-wide lanes (≥50 mph and/or non- motorized traffic is absent). 2. Reduce Conflict Points: Consider moving the crossing to a location with the least number of conflict points depending upon engineering judgement. This could include an intersection leg with lower turning vehicles or overall traffic, as well as moving a crossing entirely out of an intersection and to a mid-block location. 15 3. Crossing Lighting: Ensure lighting is present that illuminates the entire crossing (curb ramp to curb ramp) per state and federal guidance. 4. Traffic Calming: Context-specific traffic calming measures using geometric improvements should always be considered. Each item is further defined in the section below. ▪ Curb Radius: Review the turning curb radius to understand if a reduced radius can be achieved based upon context-specific needs and design vehicles (i.e., if the roadway is a freight or bus route). Reducing the radius to as small as practical can create significant benefits via reduced crossing distance and vehicle turning speeds. Curb radius design should be based upon roadway type, crossing activity, and turning vehicle needs. ▪ Curb Extension: An extension or bump out of the curb into the roadway and typically a minimum of six-feet-wide though design is context specific. This could include removal or narrowing of a roadway shoulder to reduce the crossing distance. Special attention should be given to existing on-street bicycle infrastructure (e.g., bike lane) to ensure it does not remove space at the intersection for that connection. ▪ Pedestrian Refuge Island: A raised median that is a minimum of eight-feet-wide though ten-feet or greater is preferred to ensure it is wide enough to accommodate bikes. ▪ Several more traffic calming infrastructure opportunities are identified in best practice documents and guidance (e.g., NACTO, ITE, FHWA, etc.) and could be implemented based upon staff review and engineering judgement. Step 3: Evaluate Crossing Infrastructure Enhancements Review the crossing enhancement evaluation matrix to determine potential infrastructure improvements at the point of crossing. The improvement options are divided into four options which are further described in the matrix table below. ▪ Consider Lane Reduction: Review the existing and future roadway volumes to determine if a lane reduction can be implemented prior to potential crossing improvements to maximize crossing infrastructure and minimize cost. ▪ Markings and Signage: The most basic treatment for a location that qualifies for enhanced crossing. Two different scenarios for marking and signage (M&S 1 and M&S 2) specify which signs and roadway markings are included. ▪ Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon: Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) are generally designed for locations with higher traffic volumes and pedestrian activity. Three different scenarios for RRFBs (RRFB 1, RRFB 2, and RRFB 3) specify which combination of markings and signs should be used in coordination with the RRFBs. ▪ Further Analysis Required: An engineering assessment is required to determine if a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) or pedestrian signal are warranted per the MN MUTCD (which both require higher pedestrian volumes), as well as pedestrian demand, roadway conditions and context, and available gaps in traffic. The need for, and feasibility of, a grade-separated pedestrian crossing requires a more detailed engineering review to 16 understand the feasibility and cost. They are most applicable for highly used trail or greenway crossings, as well as high demand locations of high speed, multi-lane roadways, expressways, and freeways. Step 4: Further Analysis of Major Enhancements This step considers warrants found in the MN MUTCD for pedestrian hybrid beacons or pedestrian signals subject to engineering judgement and review of applicability. The feasibility of grade- separation may also be studied and is dependent upon context-specific needs. 17 18 Crossing Infrastructure Treatments The following section describes crossing infrastructure to illustrate the universe of opportunities to mark/stripe, sign, and implement geometric improvements to upgrade locations for crossing a roadway by walking, rolling, or bicycling. The list is not exhaustive and only highlights key treatments beyond typical pedestrian crossing and warning signage, or in-street pedestrian signs. Guidance of infrastructure treatments and best practices continues to grow nationally and should be reviewed during some frequency to ensure the latest enhancements are understood (i.e., type, impact, cost, etc.). Of note, construction estimates, and crash reduction percentages are from MnDOT’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021) or the FHWA. Lane Reduction A road diet reconfigures the roadway by converting a four-lane (or sometimes more), undivided roadway into a three-lane roadway with two through lanes and a two-way left-turn lane in the center of the roadway. The three-lane configuration provides added space to implement a pedestrian refuge island or landscaped median, bike infrastructure, and other elements for traffic calming. This is a candidate treatment for any undivided road with wide travel lanes or multiple lanes that can be narrowed or repurposed to improve pedestrian crossing safety. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 19 to 47 percent. Typically, a roadway with 20,000 AADT or less is a good candidate for a four- to three-lane conversion, though some examples in the United States have shown successful conversions with traffic volumes as high as 26,000 AADT in addition to lower turning volumes. Average cost of implementation is $25,000 to $40,000 per mile. Curb Radii Source: Federal Highway Administration Source: Federal Highway Administration 19 Tightened curb radii provide several benefits including shortened crossing distance, slowed turning vehicle speeds, and a larger pedestrian-realm. An actual curb radius of five to ten feet should be considered whenever possible, and not to exceed 30 feet.2 The effective curb radius should be minimized whenever possible and increased to accommodate turning buses or large trucks when absolutely required. In most conditions, the roadway has passenger vehicles or smaller trucks and, in some cases, large vehicles overtaking a lane to complete their turn should be acceptable unless specific issues are identified per staff review and engineering judgement. Creative designs can also be employed such as staggered stop bars and/or truck aprons to accommodate larger vehicle turning movements. Curb Extension The impact for driver sight of people crossing with the addition of curb extensions shown at right. Source: National Association of City Transportation Officials. A curb extension is an extension of the sidewalk and curb line into the roadway to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and exposure to vehicles. They also provide visual cues to drivers and improve vision of pedestrians crossing while reducing turning speeds. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 45 percent. Curb extensions can double as a traffic calming device in mid-block locations as pinch points or chicanes. Average cost is $2,000 to $3,500 per corner without storm sewer impacts and $10,000 to $20,000 per corner if storm sewer is impacted. 2 Minnesota Department of Transportation. (January 2016). Infrastructure Reference Guide. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/assets/downloads/MnDOT_SRTS_InfrastrctureReferenceGuide.pdf 20 Pedestrian Refuge Island Source: Federal Highway Administration Crossing Lighting A pedestrian refuge island (i.e., a median) are raised areas that are constructed in the center of the roadway and serve as a place of refuge for people who cross mid-block or at an intersection and shorten the crossing distance. They allow people crossing to concentrate their attention on one direction of traffic at a time and allow users to wait for motorists and find an adequate gap in traffic before crossing the second half of the street. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 46 to 54 percent. Average total costs vary. Crosswalk lighting is a strategy that installs streetlights at, and in advance of, intersections and crosswalks to improve visibility and safety of the person crossing. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 42 percent. The lux (amount of light in lumens per square meter) is recommended at 20 to 40 lux at five feet above the road surface to provide adequate vertical illumination within a crosswalk. Lighting is particularly important at mid-block crossings and should illuminate the entire crossing form curb ramp to curb ramp as illustrated above. Average cost is $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection. Advanced Stop Bar and Signage Source: National Association of Transportation Officials An advanced stop bar is typically striped 20 feet to 50 feet in advance of a marked crosswalk to encourage drivers to stop further back from the crossing which enhances the comfort for those crossing. The stop bar and corresponding sign also provides the key benefit for multilane roadways of removing the multilane threat by improving the visibility of a crossing pedestrian for motorists. Source: National Association of Transportation Officials (left), Federal Highway Administration (right) 21 Source: National Association of Transportation Officials Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) A crossing enhancement that is activated by a pedestrian and uses two rapid and alternate flashing yellow rectangular beacons. RRFBs are applicable on roadways with higher pedestrian demand, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 47 percent. Average cost is $15,000 to $50,000 per crossing or $80,000 to $100,000 for an overhead system. Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) A pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), formerly known as a HAWK, is a beacon installed to warn and control traffic by having vehicles stop with a red light. It consists of two red lenses and one yellow lens and is dark until pedestrian activated. PHBs are applicable on high speed, multilane roadways, with higher traffic volumes and where RRFBs are no longer a viable safety solution, such as when gaps in traffic are not sufficient. If PHBs are not already familiar to a community, agencies should conduct appropriate education and outreach as part of implementation. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 55 percent. Average cost is $100,000 to $170,000 per crossing. Of note, if pedestrian demand is higher, a pedestrian signal should be explored in lieu of a PHB. A pedestrian signal is a traffic signal placed at a pedestrian crossing and does not refer to a signalized intersection. 22 Grade-separated Crossing Vertical separation of a pedestrian crossing (over or under a roadway) are most applicable for high volume and high speed roadways, railroads, and other topographically challenging locations or physical barriers. The overpass or underpass should always try to be conveniently located to reduce out-of-direction travel. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 87 percent. Cost is typically significant and can vary wildly and is dependent upon the surrounding context. Removal of Infrastructure Conditions that contribute to the need for a crossing enhancement may change over time, or a crossing may no longer be needed. When a roadway surface is to be impacted by reconstruction or resurfacing, a review should be performed to determine their use and need. If a crosswalk or crossing meets the criteria outlined in this assessment, it should be maintained. If it does not meet the criteria, it should be brought to the City Engineer for consideration of removal. In lieu of a removal, a crossing may also be reviewed for changes to align with the latest guidance or changing conditions. Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation City of Blaine Crosswalk Policy (Adopted by City Council on November 20, 2014) Background The City of Blaine strives to provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services throughout the city. It shall be the policy of the City of Blaine to provide for safe pedestrian crossings along public streets by installing and maintaining marked crosswalks at all locations where there is substantial conflict between vehicle and pedestrian movements, where significant pedestrian concentrations occur, or where pedestrians would not otherwise recognize the proper place to cross. A marked crosswalk is any crosswalk that is delineated by markings placed on the pavement for the purpose of directing pedestrians to use a particular location to cross the street. General Both pedestrians and motorists in the State of Minnesota have rights and responsibilities when traveling along or across roadways. It is important to recognize that all intersections, by default, are legal crosswalks and thereby drivers are required to yield to pedestrians. Pedestrians are urged to cross with caution in any street crossing, marked or unmarked. Marked crosswalks are viewed as safety devices and pedestrians have the right of way within them. There is strong evidence that these facts prompt many pedestrians to feel overly secure when using a marked crosswalk. As a result pedestrians will often place themselves in a hazardous position by believing that motorists can and will stop in all cases, even when it may be impossible to do so. In contrast, a pedestrian using an unmarked crosswalk generally feels less secure and less certain that motorists will stop and will thereby exercise more caution before crossing. Marked pedestrian crossings at intersections will have the effect of lowering the effective rate of compliance at similarly marked intersections. Minnesota Statutes describes responsibilities of motorists approaching crosswalks and pedestrians crossing roadways:  Where traffic control signals are not in place or operational, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield to a pedestrian within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped.  A pedestrian must not enter a crosswalk if a vehicle is approaching. There is no defined distance but the pedestrian must use common safety sense. Minnesota Statute states: "No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield."  When a vehicle is stopped, at a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk, to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.  When crossing between intersections, every pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right of way to all vehicles on the roadway.  Pedestrians or persons in a wheelchair using the shoulder of the road shall walk or move along the left side of the roadway facing oncoming traffic. Where sidewalks are provided, and accessible and usable, it shall be unlawful for a pedestrian or person in a wheelchair to use the roadway. Note: See Minnesota State Statutes 169.21 Pedestrian for more information pertaining to the rules of pedestrians and motorists. Process Residents of Blaine may make a request pertaining to a pedestrian safety concern to the Engineering Department. A member of the Engineering Department will work with the requestor and gather the pertinent facts, define the problem, and seek a solution. The following policy criteria will be reviewed to make a determination regarding the matter. In all cases, the City Council will make the final decision. Policy Criteria 1. All crosswalks installed shall conform to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices (MUTCD). 2. Relevant speed, volumes, accident records, pedestrian counts, sight obstructions, and demographic analysis shall be reviewed when considering pedestrian crosswalk installation. 3. Pedestrian crosswalks shall only be placed in an area that has in excess of five pedestrians per hour crossing during any ten hour period. 4. Mid-block crosswalks shall be avoided whenever possible, because mid- block crossings generally are not expected by motorists. Only special circumstances warrant their creation. 5. All marked crosswalks should extend from one safe landing zone to another. A safe landing zone is as an area where a pedestrian is safe from vehicle conflict while waiting to cross or when finish crossing. 6. Crosswalks shall be placed in areas where there is sufficient stopping sight distance for the posted speed limit and be lighted for nighttime use on higher functional classification streets. 7. Pedestrian crosswalks shall not be located on arterial streets or streets with speeds greater than 30 mph unless in conjunction with signalization. 8. Any of the following conditions may warrant marked pedestrian crosswalks: a. Locations adjacent to schools and up to one block away, to establish walking routes to and from school. b. Locations adjacent to public parks. c. Locations along designated trail systems. d. Locations adjacent to community centers, libraries, and other high use public facilities. e. Locations where traffic volumes, accident records, pedestrian counts, sight obstructions, and demographic analysis warrant the installation. Pedestrian safety at crossing locations • Pedestrian Crossings, Uncontrolled Locations - https://www.mnltap.umn.edu/publications/handbooks/pedcrossingguide/documents/ped_guid ebook.pdf • Washington County Pedestrian Safety Brochure - https://www.co.washington.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/12405/Pedestrian-Safety?bidId= Technical guidance for these topics, the following are industry standard resources: • MnDOT Facility Design Guide, Chapter 8 – Non-motorized Facilities - https://roaddesign.dot.state.mn.us/facilitydesign.aspx • Traffic Engineering Manual, Chapter 13 - https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/tem/index.html • Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD), Part 3 - Markings - https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mutcd/index.html