Establishing Procedures and Guidelines for Pedestrian Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations

Yan QiSouthern Illinois University Edwardsville

66th Illinois Traffic Engineering and Safety ConferenceChampaign, IllinoisOctober 18, 2017

1

Outline

• Project Introduction

• Guidelines• Components• Examples to illustrate how to use the guidelines

2

Project Introduction

• Problem Statement• Pedestrian safety is a global issue, particularly pedestrian safety at uncontrolled

crossings• No systematic guidelines are available

• Project Objective• To identify the best practices and develop guideline for approving pedestrian

crossings and selecting pedestrian treatments at uncontrolled locations (midblock locations and intersection approaches without traffic signals or stop/yield signs are considered as uncontrolled locations)

3

Project Introduction (Cont.)

• Research Approach• Literature review• Survey and interview• Crash data analysis• High Crash Corridors (HCC) field review• Engineering judgement and local experience

• Project Outcome• Guidelines for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Locations

4

Guidelines

5

Key Components

• Section 1: Introduction

• Section 2: Evaluation of candidate locations for installation of crossing treatments

• Section 3: Selection of at-grade pedestrian crossing treatments for uncontrolled locations

• Section 4: Other safety considerations

• Section 5: Additional treatments

6

Section 1: Introduction• An informational resource to supplement, not to replace

or supersede, existing standards and manuals• Serve state and local agencies • A large variety of treatments • Quantities/thresholds and flexibility• Can be used to

• Evaluate candidate sites• Select appropriate treatments• Assess existing treatments

7

Section 2: Evaluation of candidate locations for installation of crossing treatments

• ‘Yes’ situations• Crash record

• Two B or A- injury crashes in two years or one fatal crash

• Crosswalk usage• Request from the local government or community• On the path towards identified pedestrian

generator/destinations

• ‘No’ situations• Speed limit

• Speed limit>40 mph

• Traffic volume• ADT >35,000 vpd

• Crossing distance• Undivided roadways > 4 lanes• Divided roadways > 6 lane

• Crosswalk spacing • An alternative crossing location, marked or

unmarked, is within 300 feet (recommended) or 200 feet (minimum).

• <100 ft. away from the nearest side street or driveway

• Sight distance • Inadequate stopping sight distance or pedestrian

sight distance

8

Section 3:Selection of at-grade pedestrian crossing treatments for uncontrolled locations

9At-grade pedestrian treatment categories Example

Basic Treatments Marked crosswalk with warning sign

Enhance Treatments

Advanced stop line and sign

In-street crossing sign

Overhead crossing sign

Geometric Elements

Curb Extension

Road diet

Raised median

Raised crosswalk

Warning BeaconFB (Flashing Beacon)RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon )

Control Beacon PHB (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon)

Basic Treatments

10

Pedestrian Crossing and Warning Signs (FHWA, 2009)

Enhanced Treatments

11

Uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk signs

Advanced Stop Line and Sign (PEDSAFE, 2017)

Geometric Elements

12

Raised Crossing (PEDSAFE, 2017)

Road Diet (Knapp, et al., 2014)

a) Raised median (Pulugurtha, et al., 2012); b) Split pedestrian crossover (VDOT, 2004)

Curb extensions (Turner and Carlson, 2000)

Warning Beacons

13

RRFB system (Pecheux, et al., 2009)

a) Pole Mounted and b) Overhead Flashing Beacons(Fitzpatrick, et al., 2006)

Control Beacon

14

PHB treatment at Arizona (Fitzpatrick, et al., 2014)

Recommended minimum treatments at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings

15

*Lane Configuration

ADT≤ 9,000 9,000<ADT<15,000 15,000<ADT≤ 25,000 25,000< ADT≤35,000 ADT>35,000

posted speed, mph

≤ 30 35 40 4 5 ≤ 30 35 40 45 ≤ 30 35 40 45 ≤ 30 35 40 45 ≤ 30

to

45

2 lanes or 3 lanes withraised median

BT In-street sign

RRFB(or FB) + ASLS

unco

ntro

lled

pede

stria

n cr

ossin

g is

not

reco

mm

ende

d

BT FBRRFB(or FB) + ASLS

Unco

ntro

lled

pede

stria

n cr

ossin

g is

not

reco

mm

ende

d

In-street sign FB

RRFB(or FB) + ASLS

Unco

ntro

lled

pede

stria

n cr

ossin

g is

not

reco

mm

ende

d

In-street sign

RRFB(or FB) + ASLS

RRFB(or FB) + ASLS

Unco

ntro

lled

pede

stria

n cr

ossin

g is

not

reco

mm

ende

d

Unco

ntro

lled

pede

stria

n cr

ossin

g is

not

reco

mm

ende

d

3 lanes withoutraised median

BT In-street sign

RRFB(or FB) + ASLS

BTRRFB(or FB) + ASLS

RRFB(or FB) + ASLS

FBRRFB(or FB) + ASLS

RRFB + ASLS

RRFB(or FB) + ASLS

RRFB (or FB) + ASLS

**PHB+ CSOR

4 lanes withraised median

In-street sign

ASLS 4RRFB (or overhead FB) + ASLS

ASLS ASLS (consider 4RRFB)

4RRFB (or overhead FB) + ASLS

4RRFB (or overheadFB) + ASLS

4RRFB (or overheadFB) + ASLS

**4 RRFB (considerPHB)+ ASLS

4 RRFB (or overheadFB)+ ASLS

** PHB + CSOR

**PHB+ CSOR

6 lanes withraised median

ASLS

4RRFB (or overhead FB) + ASLS

4RRFB (or overheadFB) + ASLS

ASLS4RRFB (or overhead FB)+ ASLS

PHB+ ASLS4RRFB (or overheadFB)+ ASLS

4RRFB (or overhead FB) + ASLS

**PHB+ ASLS

PHB+ CSOR

** PHB + CSOR

**PHB+ CSOR

4, 5, or 6 lanes without raised median

Consider pedestrian refuge island or road diet, if feasible. If raised median, or road diet is feasible then follow the recommendations for the above lane configurations, other wise follow the recommendation below for 4-lane without raised median to decide pedestrian crossing treatments, providing uncontrolled crossings of more than four lanes without a raised median is not recommended

4 lanes, raised median not feasible

ASLS ASLS

PHB+ CSOR

ASLS RRFB (or overhead FB)+ ASLS

PHB +CSOR RRFB (or

overheadFB)+ ASLS

PHB +CSOR

** PHB+ CSOR

PHB +CSOR

** PHB +CSOR

**PHB +CSOR

BT= Basic Treatment (W11-2 with W16-7P)In-street sign= In-street stop for pedestrian sign (R1-6a); Overhead sign= Overhead crossing sign (R1-9a) may be used based on engineering judgmentASLS= Advanced stop line and sign (R1-5b and R1-5c)FB= Pedestrian activated flashing beacon (pole mounted) RRFB= Non-median installation of RRFB; 4 RRFB= Median installation of RRFBPHB=Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon; CSOR=Crosswalk Stop on Red line and sign

Recommendedminimum treatments at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings (cont.)

16*= Lane configuration includes turn lanes, through lane, and bi-directional lanes.**= Check IL MUTCD signal warrants and consider the feasibility of a grade-separated crossings. Pedestrian hybrid beacons, when installed, create a controlled crossing. Check PHB warrants and comply with IL MUTCD. If PHB is not warranted then consider signal or grade separated crossing.

Notes:1. These treatments are recommended for existing uncontrolled crossings where enhancement is

sought, and for new uncontrolled crossings where an engineering study indicates a clear warrant for a crossing.

2. Provision of lighting is recommended at midblock crossings. Refer to (Section 6.3.3) for guidance on lighting requirements for pedestrian crossings.

3. Ensure that adequate sight distance is provided for both drivers and pedestrians at uncontrolled crossings. Refer to (Section 6.1.4) for guidance.

4. At densely developed urban areas and on multi-lane roadway (4 or more lanes), curb extension should be considered when street parking is allowed and posted speed limit is ≤ 35 mph.

5. Uncontrolled crosswalk is not recommended if the speed limit is above 40 mph. 6. RRFB shouldn’t be installed within 300 ft. of a traffic signal. 7. At places where motorists do not expect crossing (mid-blocks and crossings in rural areas)

and in school zones, advanced warning signs with AHEAD/distance plaque (W16-9P or W16-2P) should be considered.

Section 4: Other safety considerations

• Crosswalk Pattern

17

Recommended Crosswalk Patterns at Uncontrolled Locations (Zegeer, et al., 2005(b))

Section 4: Other safety considerations (cont.)

• Bus Stop Location

18

Placement of bus stop on the far side of the crossing (PEDSAFE, 2017)

Section 4: Other safety considerations (cont.)

• Crosswalk Lighting

19

Midblock crosswalk lighting layout (Gibbons, et al., 2008)

Section 4: Other safety considerations (cont.)

• Use of Highlighted Pole and Dual Back-to-Back Display

20

Retroreflective Signpost along IL 23, Rochester, IL.Pedestrian Crossing Sign (Dual back-to-back Display) at North Clark St, Chicago

Section 4: Other safety considerations (cont.)

• Education Program

21

Sequence for a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (FHWA, 2009)

Section 5: Additional Treatments• Fencing is recommended at Locations that

•Meet the pedestrian crossing need requirement, especially with documented B or more severe pedestrian crashes; and •Don’t meet minimum crosswalk spacing requirement, and•Don’t meet minimum requirements of speed, or crossing distance, or sight distance. •Corresponding pedestrian signs should be used in conjunction with the fencing to guide pedestrians to nearby crossings.

22

Pedestrian signs used in Conjunction with Fencing(FHWA, 2009)

Section 5: Additional Treatments• Grade Separated Crossing

• Locations with large pedestrian generators/attractions, high pedestrian and traffic conflicts, especially with documented B and more severe pedestrian crashes, but don’t meet the minimum requirements for at-grade crossing of speed limit (speed limit>40 mph) or crossing distance (more than six lanes) or sight distance

• Pedestrian warrants for a traffic signal is met, but the decision is made not to have a traffic signal, and the location doesn’t meet the minimum requirements for at-grade crossing because of speed limit (speed limit>40 mph) and/or crossing distance (more than six lanes)

• The proposed sites should be at least 600 feet from the nearest alternative safe crossing

23

Examples

• 1. Evaluate candidate sites for uncontrolled pedestrian crossing

• 2. Selection of appropriate treatments at uncontrolled locations

• 3. Evaluate existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations and treatments

24

Example 1-PeoriaSW Jefferson St. with Harrison St.

251. Evaluate Candidate SitesCrash History A- Injury =1

C-Injury =2Established pedestrian generator/attractor

Bus hub, bank, Peoria civic center

Traffic Speed, mph 30Adequate sight distance & lighting YesProposed crosswalk location ≥ 300 ft. away from the nearest crosswalk**

Distance between two adjacent intersections are 770 ft.

Number of lanes Undivided three lanes (one way )

Traffic Volume 9200 (2012)Conclusion Crosswalk is

recommended

Example 2-Champaign

Springfield Ave.with S. Fair St.

Crash History Fatal =1B-Injury =1

Established pedestrian generator/attractor

Restaurant, grocery stores, bus stop, ATM, residential units

Speed Limit, mph 35Adequate sight distance YesProposed crosswalk location ≥ 300 ft. away from the nearest crosswalk

Yes

Number of lanes Undivided Five lanes (one BDLT)

Traffic Volume 13,800(2015)Conclusion Crosswalk is recommended if

installation of Raised median/Road diet is possible

26

Example 3- Chicago

N. Clark St. with W. Buckingham Pl.

Traffic Volume 9600(2014)

Established pedestrian generator/attractor

Restaurant, grocery shop, residential area

Speed Limit, mph 25Adequate sight distance YesProposed crosswalk location ≥ 300 ft. away from the nearest crosswalk

290 ft, (but in urban environment)

Number of lanes Undivided two lanes

Traffic Volume 9600(2014)Conclusion Crosswalk is

recommended

27

Example 1-Peoria

SW Jefferson St. with Harrison St.

ADT 9200 (2012)Speed Limit,mph

30

Number of lanes

Undivided three lanes (one way )

Conclusion Marked crosswalk with warning sign is recommended

282. Selection of Appropriate Treatments

29Example 2-Champaign

Springfield Ave.with S. fair St

ADT 13,800(2015)Traffic Speed, mph

35

Number of lanes

Undivided Fourlanes

Conclusion RM+ASLS or RRFB+ASLS

If median is feasible

If median is not feasible

Example 3- Chicago

N. Clark St. with W. Buckingham Pl.

ADT 9600(2014)Speed Limit, mph

25

Number of lanes

Undivided two lanes

Conclusion Marked crosswalk with warning sign is recommended

30

3. Assessment of Existing TreatmentsExample 1

NE Monroe Street with Mary St. Peoria

ADT= 1900, speed= 30 mph, Lane= 2

31

Existing Treatment= BT+ FB Recommended = BT Current treatment is more than the suggested Continental pattern is recommended On-street parking restriction in front of crosswalk is recommended

Example 2

US Business 51 (Main St.), Champaign

ADT= 21800 (2015), speed= 30 mph, Lane = 4 (with Raised median)

32

Existing Treatment= BT with Raised Median Recommended = RRFB +ASLS

Current treatment is less than the suggested

Example 3

N Clark St. with W. Roslyn Pl. Chicago

ADT= 19200(2014), speed= 25 mph, Lane = 2

33

Existing Treatment= BT+ In-street crossing sign Recommended = BT+ In-street crossing sign Consistent with the guidelines

Example 4N Pulaski Rd. with W Van Buren St. Chicago

ADT= 17,900 (2014), speed= 20 mph, Lane = 2

34

Existing Treatment= MC alone Recommended = BT+ In-street crossing sign Current treatment is less than the suggested

Example 5W Lawrence Ave. with Olcott Ave. Cook County

ADT= 17,600 (2014), speed= 35 mph, Lane = 5 (Undivided, one left turn lane)

35

Existing Treatment= MC (brick paver) alone Recommended = Raised Median +RRFB +ASLS Current treatment is less than the suggested

Example 6

Illinois Rte. 29 with Taft Dr. Rochester

Speed limit is over 40 mph Uncontrolled crosswalk is not recommended ADT= 13,000 (2015), speed= 45 mph,

Lane = 4 (Divided)

36

Thank You !

37