NYMTC Regional Pedestrian Safety Study - New York Metropolitan ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

crashes, the 52 percent is an overstatement of the impact that could be expected in other locations. (Markowitz, et al., 2006) A more realistic crash reduction factor for countdown pedestrian signals is 25 percent (NYMTC workshop, 2006). The study also found the meaning of the countdown was obvious to pedestrians; note that in San Francisco the countdown starts when the flashing hand would have started. Additional findings were that the number of pedestrians who were in the intersection when the signal turned red decreased, as did the number of pedestrians who started running. There was a small (insignificant) decrease in pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. The shifts in driver behavior that the study noted were not statistically significant. (Markowitz, et al., 2006) Other studies were not as positive. In Lake Buena Vista, Florida, Huang and Zegeer (2000) found that countdown pedestrian signals reduced the number of pedestrians that start running due to the flashing DON’T WALK signal. However, the number of pedestrians who did not comply with the Walk phase actually increased. In Berkeley, California, the impact of countdown pedestrian signals was an increase in pedestrian speeds and a decrease in the number of “late finishers,” but otherwise there were few changes in pedestrian behavior (PHA, 2005). Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) (also known as Advanced Walk Signals): LPIs provide a head start to the pedestrian signal indicator (often 3 seconds) before the vehicular green phase starts. NYCDOT uses a six second LPI. By allowing pedestrians to take possession of the intersection first instead of being intimidated by the turning cars, they clear the intersection sooner, allowing more time for the cars. Thus, they can improve traffic operations also. NYCDOT has implemented LPIs at many intersections and has found them well received by the public. King (1999) found a 12 percent decrease in vehicular-pedestrian crashes after the implementation of LPI at some New York City intersections. When compared to control sites and factored for severity, he estimated a 64 percent decrease in crashes. The LPIs combined with the audible signals are very successful; the audible signal alerts the pedestrians that the signal has changed, allowing them to take advantage of the early start; this is particularly valuable where the LPI is only three seconds. Split Phasing: Split phasing is recommended where there is heavy pedestrian activity. The green phase is split into two parts. During the first part (which is long enough for pedestrians to cross the intersection), pedestrians receive protected walk time when vehicles can go straight but not turn. In the second part of the green phase, vehicles are allowed to turn. See Figure 5.17 below. NYCDOT found an average reduction of 86 percent in pedestrian-vehicle conflicts after the implementation of split phasing at 12 midtown Manhattan intersections, as well as a ten percent decrease in pedestrian crashes, and a reduction of 52 percent in illegal pedestrian crossings. The reduction in conflicts also had the impact of increasing vehicular speed by 33 percent. (NYCDOT, 2004) NYMTC Pedestrian Safety Study 76
Figure 5.17 Split Phase Cycle Source: NYCDOT, 2004. Pedestrian Scramble (Barnes Dance or exclusive pedestrian phase): The pedestrian scramble is an exclusive pedestrian phase. It is usually accompanied with pedestrian crossing marking diagonally across the intersection. A consequence of this is a longer signal cycle length that potentially may increase vehicle delays. It also increases the wait for the pedestrian during the vehicle phases. This may lead to the pedestrian crossing when there is a gap in traffic, thus negating any potential safety benefit. Yet, exclusive pedestrian timing has been shown to reduce pedestrian crashes by 50 percent in some downtown locations with heavy pedestrian volumes and low vehicle speeds and volumes. (See Signals and Signs in Countermeasures, Harkey and Zegeer, 2004) Protected Left Turns: A particularly dangerous situation for pedestrians at signalized intersections is the conflict between the pedestrian crossing with the signal and cars turning left from the parallel street; if the vehicles do not have protected left turn, they are under pressure to observe and use a gap in the on-coming traffic for their turn, while simultaneously watching the signal. When the gap occurs (sometimes not until the signal has turned to amber or even red), the driver has to quickly react and make the turn, often without noticing that a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. Providing a protected left turn takes the pressure off the driver and prevents the conflict by holding the pedestrian out of the crosswalk during the left turn interval. The crash reduction factor for protected left turns is 50 percent (NYMTC workshop, 2006). One factor that probably reduces the effectiveness of the protected interval is pedestrians that, noticing that vehicles on the cross street have a red signal, assume that it is safe to cross despite the red DON’T WALK or hand. A related measure is to provide a left turn bay. This further reduces the pressure on the driver by removing the threat of rear end collisions from behind. In addition, by converting a two through- NYMTC Pedestrian Safety Study 77
Page 1 and 2:
New York Metropolitan Transportatio
Page 3 and 4:
1. Report No. 2. Government Accessi
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1
Page 7 and 8:
Table of Figures 2.1 Ten Year Trend
Page 9 and 10:
I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Origin an
Page 11 and 12:
in the United States; the 2004 data
Page 13 and 14:
Table 1.1 Organizations That Were I
Page 15 and 16:
II. BACKGROUND ON PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 2.1 Ten Year Trend in Pedest
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 2.3 Historic Trend in Annual
Page 21 and 22:
than fatality rates.) The most noti
Page 23 and 24:
III. ORGANIZATIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN S
Page 25 and 26:
• Updating and creating new stand
Page 27 and 28:
The New York State Metropolitan Pla
Page 29 and 30:
getting input from people who have
Page 31 and 32:
i. 20% of priority crash locations
Page 33 and 34: located by reference marker (the sm
Page 35 and 36: that the proper signage and other t
Page 37 and 38: and funding has been secured to adv
Page 39 and 40: Westchester County and NYSDOT have
Page 41 and 42: programs in each borough. The NYCDO
Page 43 and 44: IV. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ISSUES IN THE
Page 45 and 46: Drivers: Typical statements about d
Page 47 and 48: • Ability to lift foot high decre
Page 49 and 50: The national data indicates that th
Page 51 and 52: Vendors Vendors set up their carts
Page 53 and 54: Table 4.1 Continued Staten Island H
Page 55 and 56: 4.4 Existing Infrastructure and Lan
Page 57 and 58: Some sidewalks are poorly designed
Page 59 and 60: pedestrian design. At least one per
Page 61 and 62: Crosswalks need to be more visible.
Page 63 and 64: V COUNTERMEASURES AND STRATEGIES Th
Page 65 and 66: timing and street lighting. New Jer
Page 67 and 68: Providing Sidewalks: Walking-along-
Page 69 and 70: the pedestrian crash rate was signi
Page 71 and 72: Speed management through engineerin
Page 73 and 74: nearby streets. Whereas Bus-pedestr
Page 75 and 76: and have geometric curvature that e
Page 77 and 78: Roadway narrowings are used to prov
Page 79 and 80: have experienced a maintenance prob
Page 81 and 82: measures with specific geographic a
Page 83: and 3.0 feet per second more approp
Page 87 and 88: Combined Automatic and Actuated Sig
Page 89 and 90: 5.2.5 Visibility To insure safety,
Page 91 and 92: Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs: There a
Page 93 and 94: also be placed next to the stop lin
Page 95 and 96: Table 5.5 Crash Reduction Factors f
Page 97 and 98: ask them to act as role models for
Page 99 and 100: 5.3.3 Educating Local Officials and
Page 101 and 102: • Good planning and organization.
Page 103 and 104: VI. FUNDING Funding for pedestrian
Page 105 and 106: York, Projects are chosen by the NY
Page 107 and 108: NHTSA distributes the Section 402 f
Page 109 and 110: VII. RECOMMENDATIONS As noted in Ch
Page 111 and 112: o Safe Routes to School • NYMTC s
Page 113 and 114: easy to use is residential populati
Page 115 and 116: REFERENCES American Council of the
Page 117 and 118: ITE (1998) Design and Safety of Ped
Page 119 and 120: Parsons Brincherhoff Quade & Dougla
Page 121 and 122: Intentionally left blank. NYMTC Ped
Page 123 and 124: Intentionally left blank. NYMTC Ped
Page 125 and 126: NYMTC Pedestrian Safety Interview f
Page 127 and 128: 12. Do you have any strategies or t
Page 129 and 130: Appendix B: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CONTA
Page 131 and 132: New York City Department of Transpo
Page 133 and 134: Suffolk County Department of Public
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix C: TRAFFIC SAFETY BOARD CO
Page 137 and 138:
Appendix D: ON LINE PEDESTRIAN SAFE
Page 139 and 140:
FARS Query System is an interactive
Page 141 and 142:
Education and Enforcement Counterme
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix E: NEW YORK CITY FATATLIES
Page 145 and 146:
Appendix F: Prompt Lists for Pedest
Page 147 and 148:
Pedestrian Safety Prompt List Gener
Page 149 and 150:
pathway provide direct access to wa
Page 151 and 152:
If so, is there a sign that explain
show all

NYMTC Regional Pedestrian Safety Study - New York Metropolitan ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?