NCHRP 17-56: Development of Crash Reduction Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

Presentation Overview Team Overview/Project Background Treatment Types Task Approach Data Collection Plan Overview Project Schedule/Timeline Questions/Discussion

Team Overview – Project Team Team Member Role Charlie Zegeer, HSRC Project PI Raghavan Srinivasan, HSRC Statistical Analysis Daniel Carter, HSRC Oversee Data Collection Carl Sundstrom, HSRC City & Site Selection Sarah Smith, HSRC Project Coordination Kittelson and Associates, Inc Data Collection & Implementing Results Persaud & Lyon, Inc Center for Education and Research Safety Technical Advisor

Objective is to develop CMF’s for: Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk signs and pavement markings, including advance yield markings High-intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) signals Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB’s) Pedestrian refuge areas Curb extensions In-pavement warning lights High-visibility crosswalk marking patterns Raised crosswalks

Unsignalized Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs and Pavement Markings R1-6a R1-6 MUTCD signs Yield or Stop depends on state law In-street signs increase yield rates, especially on slow speed-streets 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.12 and Figure 2B-2

Advanced Yield or Stop Markings and Signs Advance yield line (shark’s teeth) & sign Advance stop line and sign 2009 MUTCD Section 3B.16 and Figure 3B-17 2009 MUTCD Section 3B.16

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 2009 MUTCD Chapter 4F Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Beacon is yellow, rectangular, and has a rapid “wig-wag” flash Beacon located between the warning signs and the arrow plaque Must be pedestrian activated (push button or passive) Beacons required on both right and left sides or in a median (if practical)

Pedestrian Refuge Areas Crossing island at marked crosswalk – breaks long complex crossing into two simpler crossings

Curb Extensions Curb extensions extend the curb line into the street, improving visibility for pedestrians and motorists, reducing pedestrian crossing distances, and reducing vehicle turn speeds.

In-Pavement Warning Lights Example of a crosswalk with in-pavement flashing lights installed.

High-visibility Crosswalk Marking Patterns Crosswalk marking types Place longitudinal markings to avoid wheel tracks, reducing wear & tear & maintenance 2009 MUTCD Section 3B.18, Paragraph 15

Raised Crosswalks

Task Approach Task 1 – Conduct a Kick-off Teleconference Meeting Task 2 – Conduct a Literature Review of Relevant Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Task 3 – Develop Data Collection Plan for Existing Data from Agencies Identification of Potential Sites Collect Data on Study Sites Site Characteristics Treatment Characteristics Crash Data

Task Approach Task 4 – Execute Task 3 Plan Task 5 – Initial Development of CMFs from Existing Data Before-After Analysis Cross-sectional Regression Analysis Alternative Case-Control Evaluation Develop Plan to Collect Remaining Necessary Data to Complete CMF Development Present Interim Report

Task Approach Task 6 (Phase II) – Execute Task 5 Data Collection Plan Task 7 – Complete Development of CMFs using Collected Data Task 8 – Prepare Final Report and PowerPoint Presentation

Task 3 – Develop Data Collection Plan for Existing Data from Agencies Objective: Existing data Need to… “Develop a data collection program to leverage funds as effectively as possible” “Carefully target data collection funds to the highest research priority” Data Collection Plan must… Identify and prioritize treatments and agencies Specify data elements to collect

Data Collection Plan – Site Identification Research team used multiple methods for identifying cities and states: Utilized knowledge of Walk Friendly Communities program Approached state and local DOTs to identify potential sites Contacted ped coordinators Solicited agencies through APBP listserv Communicated with other research teams about ongoing projects Contacted vendors Made personal telephone calls to selected agencies

Data Collection Plan – Site Identification Developed and distributed flyer Received approximately 80 emails in response Used information gathered to identify agencies that “looked promising” in terms of number of sites and types of treatments installed

Data Collection Plan – Site Identification 35 agencies further contacted by phone or email: To gain buy-in in participating in the project To get more information about number and types of treatments available To determine availability of data Developed a matrix of available sites by treatment type and prioritized agencies to pursue: Priority 1 – cities that are definitely eligible for inclusion Priority 2 – cities that could be included Priority 3 – cities that will probably not be included

Data Collection Plan – Priority 1 Cities Arlington, VA Miami, FL Atlanta, GA Phoenix, AZ Austin, TX Portland, OR Charlotte, NC St Petersburg, FL Garland, TX Tucson, AZ Los Angeles County, CA Washington, DC

Data Collection Plan – Priority 2 Cities Alexandria, VA Milwaukee, WI Boulder, CO New York, NY Cambridge, MA Pittsburgh, PA Columbia, MO Santa Monica, CA Eugene, OR Scottsdale, AZ Kirkland, WA Springfield, MO Los Angeles, CA

Data Collection Plan – Priority 3 Cities Anaheim, CA Chicago, IL Gainesville, FL La Mesa, CA Orange County, CA San Francisco, CA

Data Collection Plan – Summary of Sites by Treatment Type

Data Collection Plan – Treatment Selection Project funds and timeline are not sufficient to fully evaluate and develop CMFs for all ten treatments. Proposal estimates that the team could collect data (via field visit) for 600 sites. Additionally the team expects to obtain exposure data for an additional 400 sites from local agencies. With 1000 total sites, assume 150 per treatment will be sufficient to develop CMF which allows us to evaluate only 4 treatments (150 sites/treatment over 600 sites). Evaluating more than 4 treatments would create a risk of having insufficient sample size for CMF development.

Data Collection Plan – Treatment Selection Two have an insufficient sample of sites within top two priority groups (In-Pavement Warning Lights and Raised Crosswalks)

Data Collection Plan – Treatment Selection Concentrate on evaluating four treatments based on available project funds and importance of CMF development. RRFBs Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) Pedestrian Refuge Islands Advance Yield or Stop Markings and Signs

Data Collection Plan – Treatment Selection Support for selecting RRFBs and PHBs Agencies have interest in RRFBs and PHBs (based on questions posed to Ped Bike Information Ctr) Current study of PHBs used sites primarily from Tucson, AZ and there is a need to know broader effects of treatment in other cities. RRFBs have been evaluated for motorist yielding but not based on crash effects.

Data Collection Plan – Treatment Selection Support for selecting Pedestrian Refuge Islands Long been considered a safety treatment for pedestrians, particularly on multi-lane roads and there are many installed. Little crash-based research that quantifies safety effects. Support for selecting Advanced Yield or Stop Markings and Signs Found to reduce conflicts between motorists and pedestrians at multi-lane crossings. Logical and low cost solution. No crash-based evaluations have been conducted.

Data Collection Plan – Treatment Selection In order to have sites where treatment effectiveness would be greatest, the team will focus on: Higher volume roads Multilane streets and/or 2-lane roads at busy downtown locations Past research has shown that pedestrian crash risk is low on 2-lane roads, particularly those having low traffic and low pedestrian volumes.

Data Collection Plan – Compile Data from Existing Sources Pilot data collection effort with six agencies: St Petersburg, FL Charlotte, NC Austin, TX Phoenix, AZ Tucson, AZ Arlington, VA

Data Collection Plan – Site Characteristics Relevant geometric and volume data must be collected for each site. Data will be used to develop safety performance functions (instead of before-after study), disaggregate the results by site type, or categorize sites for cross-sectional analysis.

Data Collection Plan – Treatment Characteristics Installation date and location Treatment combinations Advanced yield or stop markings in signs often combined with RRFB. Pedestrian refuge islands often combined with both RRFBs and PHBs. Data Collection Plan contains guidelines for installation consistency However, flexibility will be needed in selecting the final treatment sites

Data Collection Plan – Crash Data Crash data will be obtained from agencies (preferably in electronic form). May need to coordinate with local police department, city IT department, or state safety office. Identify crash location given that treatment may only be installed on one/two legs of an intersection. May need to examine crash diagrams, narratives of each crash to accurate locate crashes relative to treatment of interest.

Data Collection Plan – Anticipated Issues for CMF Development Choice between before-after methodology and a cross-sectional study. Before-after is preferred but highly contingent on accessibility of “before” data. Pedestrian volume data (key piece for evaluation) was not found to be available for the before period at most potential study sites. Thus, before-after analysis would be severely biased so most (if not all) CMFs from this study will be developed based on a cross-sectional analysis.

Project Deliverable Dates Phase I Task Date Task 1: Project Panel Kick-Off Call Jan 7, 2013 Task 2: Draft Lit Review and Technical Memo Feb 1, 2013 Task 3: Draft Data Collection Plan and Technical Memo Mar 1, 2013 Task 4: Technical Memo Oct 1, 2013 Task 5: Interim Report Feb 1, 2014

Project Deliverable Dates Phase II Task Date Task 6: Technical Memo Jun 1, 2014 Task 7: Technical Memo Jul 1, 2014 Task 8: Final Report and PowerPoint Aug 1, 2014 Task 9: Final Report and Executive Summary Oct 31, 2014

Project Task Schedule