Pedestrian safety and mobility in the United States are in a constant state of growth and change. Increasing national, state, and local priorities to increase walking generate an even greater need to improve safety for pedestrians. New traffc control devices, designs, research, and guidance continually emerge. In their efforts to encourage more walking, some jurisdictions may also consider a variety of goals such as energy conservation, congestion mitigation, community livability, and economic equity, whereas others have not embraced such goals. As a result, pedestrian safety policies and practices often differ widely among cities and states, with little uniformity and sometimes without optimal conditions for pedestrians. This study compiles information on the state of existing practices regarding application of pedestrian crossing improvements, and does not produce new guidance. However, many key resources and tools, as well as examples of emerging state and local guidance and practices, are highlighted throughout the report. The study was carried out by (1) surveying state departments of transportation (DOTs) and local transportation agencies, (2) identifying and synthesizing current recommended practice and policy guidance, and (3) performing a comprehensive literature review of safety evidence for more than 25 pedestrian crossing treatments. For the survey, all 50 state transportation agencies and a select set of local (municipal and county) jurisdictions were asked about existing practices, what treatments are being applied by their jurisdictions, outcomes for different treatments, and continuing needs for information and tools to help in these processes. Forty states (80%), including the District of Columbia, responded to the requests to participate in the survey. Nineteen of the 39 targeted local city and county jurisdictions responded. The literature review and survey results were summarized and case examples were highlighted of more comprehensive pedestrian safety practices, as presented in chapter fve of this report. The study confrmed that a wide array of policies and practices exist with regard to application of crossing treatments, decision frameworks, and approaches used to create safer pedestrian crossings. In addition to policy requirements, a number of states and cities are also voluntarily adopting policies such as Complete Streets, and Toward Zero Deaths or Vision Zero frameworks to help meet community goals for safer and better-connected pedestrian networks. Many states and local jurisdictions–more than 700 in all, according to Smart Growth America–are committed to using Complete Streets approaches, to develop and retroft urban and suburban streets in ways that will meet the needs of safe travel for all. Complete Streets is often considered an approach to providing a balanced transportation system. The National Association of City Transportation Offcials (NACTO) has further developed principles and design guidance that demonstrate this collaborative organization’s vision of how a safer, more accessible network and improved social and economic opportunities can be enhanced through design. A number of jurisdictions indicated that they are fnding NACTO to be a valuable resource for their communities. At least 16 major cities have adopted a Vision Zero philosophy to address traffc safety. Vision Zero strategies place responsibility on the system designers and operators as well as the users of the transport system to minimize the possibility of people dying or becoming seriously injured on the nations’ streets and highways. The cities that have adopted Vision Zero principles operate under the assumption that traffc fatalities are preventable, and that road owners and operators have an ethical responsibility to try to prevent them. Vision Zero programs generally include data-driven approaches to analyze problems and evidence-based methods to prioritize the use of resources to most effectively reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries. In addition, some of these same cities are coordinating a wide variety of stakeholders, public processes, and program areas. Examples of comprehensive program areas include setting lower speed limits and enhancing enforcement through automated means, and implementing new designs and operational measures to reduce con?icts and pedestrian crashes. Vision Zero cities such as New York City and San Francisco are highlighted in this report. At the same time, the survey results revealed that about 20% of states and 11% of local jurisdictions responding infrequently or never use crash data to help identify and prioritize locations for pedestrian safety improvements. However, a majority frequently or always use crash data to varying degrees. Public input and complaints are used at least as widely by states and even more so by the select local jurisdictions to identify locations that may need safety improvements. At least a few states (e.g., California, North Carolina) and a number of local jurisdictions (e.g., Seattle, Washington; Washington, D.C.; Boulder, Colorado) have also applied knowledge of systemic risks identifed from research studies such as the Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations to assess locations and identify improvements, and some are using TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562, Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, to help assess and home in on the right type of traffc control devices to use at currently unsignalized crossings. When it comes to identifying the right treatments, research sponsors and jurisdictions have collaborated to develop an extensive body of safety evidence beyond the aforementioned reports, including some crash-based evidence, over the past couple of decades. However, the quality and quantity of crash-based and operational evidence vary for different treatments. The available information has been widely captured and interpreted in existing resources and expert-developed tools such as PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (an interactive online resource), Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes [containing crash modifcation factors (CMFs) for pedestrian crashes], and a number of other guides including earlier NCHRP reports. However, a number of these guides are being used relatively infrequently to help select countermeasures. Instead, there appears to be greater reliance on locally tailored design and other guides, AASHTO and NACTO guides, and use of crash-based evidence such as from the CMF Clearinghouse and locally developed CMFs. Practitioners all expressed the need for more crash-based safety evidence for countermeasures. Treatments of all types are also being applied in varied circumstances and in different combinations. Design treatments that are used sometimes by a vast majority (90% or more) of states and local jurisdictions surveyed include pedestrian median crossing islands and curb extensions. A majority of states also sometimes use raised median islands for pedestrian safety. Raised medians are typically applied on multilane roads (with speed limits as low as 25 mph). Pedestrian median islands may be installed at unmarked and some marked crosswalks on urban arterials where signalized intersections are infrequent. Both medians and median islands are used with marked crosswalks and signs, most often in conjunction with other treatments such as curb extensions, rectangular rapid ?ash beacons (RRFBs) or overhead and other ?ashing devices, and sometimes pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs). Street trees and context-sensitive designs were also mentioned. However, a few agencies qualifed that their primary reason for using medians was for motor vehicle reasons, that this was the typical design for all arterial streets, or the treatment was applied when space and other circumstances allowed. Curb extensions are most often used in downtown and urban settings or along main roads/trunk lines that pass through cities and towns. Issues mentioned included presence of a signifcant number of pedestrians and the need to shorten crossing distances or reduce exposure. Some agencies pointed out the need to have on-street parking present on the approaches, as best practice guides suggest. Some jurisdictions use curb extensions to help enforce parking restrictions to improve visibility at crossings. Cities such as Cambridge, Massachusetts, with Complete Streets priorities select designs including narrow radii, curb extensions, and raised pedestrian crossings to calm traffc, aiming to provide safer interactions in residential areas without relying extensively on traffc control devices and enforcement. Other design treatments used by a majority of states include pedestrian overpass or bridge and underpass/tunnel (usually with restrictions to locations with signifcant barriers such as freeways or natural barriers), narrowed lane widths, reduced corner radii, and enhanced lighting. Less than half of states employ corridorwide speed calming or raised devices including raised crosswalks or speed tables. The main differences in application among the local jurisdictions surveyed were that most local jurisdictions also use raised crosswalks or speed tables, and a higher percentage also use corridorwide speed calming, while fewer use underpasses and tunnels; these differences may re?ect in part the types of streets under state versus local management. Although there is limited evidence of safety effectiveness, 100% of states use pedestrian warning signs, often in combination with other treatments, although some appear to preferentially try signs and pavement markings before other more extensive changes. Most local jurisdictions surveyed also use warning signs, again usually in combination with other treatments. Traffc signals with pedestrian countdown signals (PCSs) are also now being routinely used by almost all jurisdictions when signals are replaced or installed, as per Manual on Uniform Traffc Control Devices (MUTCD) guidance. This means that other potentially effective traffc control strategies such as protected left turns, exclusive pedestrian phases, more walk time, leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs), and right turn on red (RTOR) restrictions may be tried at appropriate locations when needed. About two-thirds of states and three-fourths of the local jurisdictions use LPIs on occasion, with higher percentages sometimes using RTOR restrictions. These are often used on a case-by-case basis, either where complaints come in or where collision history, heavy turning traffc, dual turn lanes, or high pedestrian volumes suggest their use. Advance stop/yield bars and signs appear to have been taken up widely (by close to 90% of both types of jurisdictions), in keeping with evidence that these provide better stopping sight distance at multilane crossings. High-visibility crosswalk markings are also widely used– some jurisdictions use them at all types of crossings, whereas others tend to restrict their use to locations such as those with high pedestrian activity, high-priority intersections, or school-related crossings, or at midblock or uncontrolled locations. Vision Zero policies and Complete Streets design priorities also are affecting treatment selection, with countermeasures and designs deemed to improve pedestrian safety and mobility sometimes being prioritized over those that may prioritize motorized mobility. For example, whereas three-fourths of states and a smaller percentage of local jurisdictions (65%) indicated that they have tried PHBs, San Francisco, a Vision Zero jurisdiction, mentioned preferring traffc signals to PHBs in its urban environment. Motorist yielding has, however, been uniformly high in evaluations of PHBs, and FHWA considers the device a proven safety treatment with respect to crashes. Eugene, Oregon, and others are sometimes shifting to PHBs where ?ashing warning devices including RRFBs might previously have been applied. Three-fourths of the states and 82% of the local jurisdictions have used RRFBs, with some jurisdictions having used them often. Different jurisdictions also report different experiences and degrees of success with these treatments. For example, some jurisdictions are reporting signifcant use and success from applying RRFB devices where they might have used more traditional overhead and sidemounted ?ashing beacons in the past, including on multilane roads with higher speeds (40 mph and faster). Others restrict the use of RRFBs to lower-speed roads. Both RRFBs and PHBs are sometimes being used on multilane roads, at school crossings, and in other areas with signifcant pedestrian demand. There is also a trend away from using in-pavement ?ashing crosswalk lights and traditional ?ashing beacons, with some jurisdictions shifting to RRFBs instead. Warrant guidelines may also affect treatment selection because warrants do not have to be met for RRFBs. Different treatment outcomes likely relate to a variety of factors, including extent and history of use, variations in locations and other treatments, and differences in traffc law enforcement and driving culture, but these factors are not yet well understood. Thus, both policy differences in treatment preferences and effectiveness differences when treatments are implemented in different jurisdictions suggest that there is no one-size-fts-all prioritization or decision matrix that can be universally applied, and engineering judgment remains an important aspect of existing practice. This situation appears to lead to some situations where practitioners are frustrated, believing that pedestrian needs are not being fully addressed under the current policy and practice environment. However, a number of local jurisdictions and some states have begun developing their own guidance that incorporates existing safety research, warrant information, and local experiences and priorities into decision tools to help assess locations, streamline processes, and improve consistency of outcomes when pedestrian needs do come to practitioners’ attention. Several good examples are included in this synthesis report. Ongoing research needs include quantifying crash effects of more pedestrian treatments, identifying the types of crashes most affected by different treatments, quantifying effects of multiple treatments, and helping sort through the contexts where certain treatments and combinations may be most effectively applied. Although some crash effect estimates are available for a number of treatments included in this guide, they are sometimes based on one or only a few studies, and, as mentioned, treatment effects may vary in practice. Jurisdictions also expressed a need for better information and more guidance or tools to help them proactively identify safety risks and thresholds for treatment, and for easy-to-apply pedestrian demand estimators to address the frequent lack of count data. Some also expressed a need for other, non-warrant-based decision criteria to help prioritize needs and applications to help address some of the current limitations. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting