FHWA-RD-04-100
PDF Version 2.78 Mb
Research and Development
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
U.S. Department of Transportation
6300 Georgetown Pike
Federal Highway Administration
McLean, Virginia 22101-2296
The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program's overall goal is to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. From better crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian technologies to expanding public educational and safety programs, FHWA's Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program strives to pave the way for a more walkable future. The following document presents the results of a study that examined the safety of pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks and provides recommended guidelines for pedestrian crossings. The crosswalk study was part of a large FHWA study, "Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities," that has produced a number of other documents regarding the safety of pedestrian crossings and the effectiveness of innovative engineering treatments on pedestrian safety. It is hoped that readers also will read the reports documenting the results of the related pedestrian safety studies. The results of this research will be useful to transportation engineers, planners, and safety professionals who are involved in improving pedestrian safety and mobility.
Michael F. Trentacoste
Director, Office of Safety
Research and Development
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. FHWA-HRT-04-100 |
2. Government Accession No. |
3. Recipient's Catalog No. |
||
4. Title and Subtitle Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines |
5. Report Date August 2005 |
|||
6. Performing Organization Code |
||||
7. Author(s): Charles V. Zegeer, J. Richard Stewart, Herman H. Huang, Peter A. Lagerwey, John Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell |
8. Performing Organization Report No. |
|||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center 730 Airport Rd., CB # 3430 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430 |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) |
|||
11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-92-C-00138 |
||||
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Office of Safety Research and Development Federal Highway Administration 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report: October 1996-March 2001 |
|||
14. Sponsoring Agency Code |
||||
15. Supplementary Notes This report is part of a larger study for FHWA entitled "Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities." FHWA Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTRs): Carol Tan and Ann Do, HRDS. |
||||
16. Abstract Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and they should, therefore, be able to use this system safely. Pedestrian needs in crossing streets should be identified, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. The purpose of this study was to determine whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under various traffic and roadway conditions. Another objective was to provide recommendations on how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians. This study involved an analysis of 5 years of pedestrian crashes at 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 matched unmarked comparison sites. All sites in this study had no traffic signal or stop sign on the approaches. Detailed data were collected on traffic volume, pedestrian exposure, number of lanes, median type, speed limit, and other site variables. Poisson and negative binomial regressive models were used. The study results revealed that on two-lane roads, the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location was associated with no difference in pedestrian crash rate, compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Further, on multilane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone (without other substantial improvements) was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate (after controlling for other site factors) compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Raised medians provided significantly lower pedestrian crash rates on multilane roads, compared to roads with no raised median. Older pedestrians had crash rates that were high relative to their crossing exposure. More substantial improvements were recommended to provide for safer pedestrian crossings on certain roads, such as adding traffic signals with pedestrian signals when warranted, providing raised medians, speed-reducing measures, and others. |
||||
17. Key Words Marked crosswalk, safety, pedestrian crashes |
18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. | |||
19 Security Classification (of this report) Unclassified |
20. Security Classification (of this page) Unclassified |
21. No. of Pages 112 |
22. Price |
Form DOT F 1700.7 Reproduction of completed page authorized.
CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A CROSSWALK?
CHAPTER 2. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
COMPARISONS OF CROSSWALK CONDITIONS
FINAL PEDESTRIAN CRASH PREDICTION MODEL
MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALK COMPARISONS
DRIVER AND PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOR AT CROSSWALKS
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GUIDELINES FOR CROSSWALK INSTALLATION
POSSIBLE MEASURES TO HELP PEDESTRIANS
APPENDIX A. DETAILS OF DATA COLLECTION METHODS
APPENDIX B. STATISTICAL TESTING OF THE FINAL CRASH PREDICTION MODEL
Figure 1. Pedestrians have a right to cross the road safely and without unreasonable delay.
Figure 2. A zebra crossing used in Sweden.
Figure 3. Sign accompanying zebra crossings in Sweden.
Figure 4. Pedestrian crash rates for the three crossing types by age group.
Figure 5. High visibility crossing with pedestrian crossing signs in Kirkland, WA.
Figure 6. Experimental pedestrian regulatory sign in Tucson, AZ.
Figure 7. Overhead crosswalk sign in Clearwater, FL.
Figure 8. Overhead crosswalk sign in Seattle, WA.
Figure 9. Example of overhead crosswalk sign used in Canada.
Figure 10. Regulatory pedestrian crossing sign in New York State.
Figure 11. Cities and States used for study sample.
Figure 12. Crosswalk marking patterns.
Figure 18. Pedestrian crash rate versus type of crossing.
Figure 21. Illustration of multiple-threat pedestrian crash.
Figure 22. Pedestrian crash types at marked and unmarked crosswalks
Figure 23. Severity distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks.
Figure 24. Distribution of pedestrian collisions by time of day for marked and unmarked crosswalks.
Figure 25. Pedestrian collisions by light condition for marked and unmarked crosswalks.
Figure 26. Age distribution of pedestrian collisions for marked and unmarked crosswalks.
Figure 31. Raised medians and crossing islands can improve pedestrian safety on multilane roads.
Figure 34. Curb extensions at midblock locations reduce crossing distance for pedestrians.
Figure 35. Curb extensions at intersections reduce crossing distance for pedestrians.
Figure 36. Raised crosswalks can control vehicle speeds on local streets at pedestrian crossings.
Figure 37. Adequate lighting can improve pedestrian safety at night.
Figure 39. Pedestrian warning signs sometimes are used to supplement crosswalks.
Figure 42. Pedestrian crosswalk inventory form.
Figure 43. Number of lanes for marked crosswalks.
Figure 44. Marked and unmarked crosswalks had similar traffic ADT distributions.
Table 1. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks.
Table 2. Parameter estimates for basic marked and unmarked crosswalk models.
Table 3. Results for a marked crosswalk pedestrian crash model.
Table 4. Parameter estimates for marked subset models.
Table 5. Results for an unmarked crosswalk model.
Table 6. Parameter estimates for unmarked subset models.
Table 7. Pedestrian crashes and volumes for marked and unmarked crosswalks.
Table 9. Parameter estimates for final model combining marked and unmarked crosswalks.
Table 10. Estimated number of pedestrian crashes in 5 years based on negative binomial model.
Table 12. Adjustment factors by time of day and area type used to obtain estimated pedestrian ADT.
Table 13. The number of marked crosswalks that were used in this study, by city or county.
Table 14. Criteria for assessing goodness-of-fit negative binomial regression model.
Table 15. Criteria for assessing goodness-of-fit Poisson regression model.
FHWA-RD-04-100 |
TFHRC Home | FHWA Home | Feedback
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration |