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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
2009 MUTCD Chapter 4F Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons

8. 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)

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

10. 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.

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

12. 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

13. Raised Crosswalks

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

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

20. Data Collection Plan – Site Identification
35 agencies further contacted by phone or
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

21. 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

22. 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

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

24. Data Collection Plan – Summary of Sites by Treatment Type

25. 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.

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

27. 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

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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

37. 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

38. Project Task Schedule