Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Final Report and Recommended Guidelines
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
View Table of Contents
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
Notice
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.
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.
Quality Assurance Statement
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.
SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
HOW TO USE THIS STUDY
WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A CROSSWALK?
STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
PAST RESEARCH
CHAPTER 2. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
COMPARISONS OF CROSSWALK CONDITIONS
FINAL PEDESTRIAN CRASH PREDICTION MODEL
CHAPTER 3. STUDY RESULTS
SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES
MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALK COMPARISONS
CRASH TYPES
CRASH SEVERITY
LIGHTING AND TIME OF DAY
AGE EFFECTS
DRIVER AND PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOR AT CROSSWALKS
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GUIDELINES FOR CROSSWALK INSTALLATION
GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
POSSIBLE MEASURES TO HELP PEDESTRIANS
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
APPENDIX A. DETAILS OF DATA COLLECTION METHODS
APPENDIX B. STATISTICAL TESTING OF THE FINAL CRASH PREDICTION MODEL
APPENDIX C. PLOTS OF EXPECTED PEDESTRIAN CRASHES BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL
APPENDIX D. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN CRASHES (IN 5 YEARS) BASED ON THE FINAL NEGATIVE BINOMIAL PREDICTION MODEL
REFERENCES
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 13. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus
pedestrian ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model.
Figure 14. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic
ADT for two-lane roads based on the final model (pedestrian ADT = 300).
Figure 15. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic
ADT for five-lane roads (no median) based on the final model.
Figure 16. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus
pedestrian ADT for five-lane roads (with median) based on the final model.
Figure 17. Predicted pedestrian crashes versus traffic
ADT for five-lane roads (with median) based on the
final model (pedestrian ADT = 250).
Figure 18. Pedestrian crash rate versus type of
crossing.
Figure 19. Pedestrian crash rates by traffic volume for
multilane crossings with no raised medians-marked versus unmarked crosswalks.
Figure 20. Percentage of pedestrians crossing at marked
and unmarked crosswalks by age group and road type.
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.
Figures 27-30. Percentage of
crashes and exposure by pedestrian age group and
roadway type at uncontrolled marked and unmarked crosswalks.
Figure 31. Raised medians and crossing islands can improve pedestrian safety on multilane roads.
Figure 32. Pedestrian signals help accommodate
pedestrian crossings on some high-volume or multilane roads.
Figure 33. Traffic signals are needed to improve
pedestrian crossings on some high-volume or 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 38. Grade-separated
crossings sometimes are used when other measures are not feasible to provide
safe pedestrian crossings.
Figure 39. Pedestrian warning signs sometimes are used
to supplement crosswalks.
Figure 40. Fences or railings in the median direct
pedestrians to the right and may reduce pedestrian crashes on the second half
of the street.
Figure 41. Angled crosswalks with barriers can direct
pedestrians to face upstream and increase the pedestrian's awareness of
traffic.
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.
Figure 45. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no
median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000.
Figure 46. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no
median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100.
Figure 47. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no
median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000.
Figure 48. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no
median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 2,000.
Figure 49 Response curves with 95 percent confidence intervals based on
negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no median, average daily
pedestrian volume = 50.
Figure 50. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, two lanes with no
median, average daily pedestrian volume = 800.
Figure 51. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no
median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 10,000.
Figure 52. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no
median, average daily pedestrian volume = 100.
Figure 53. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no
median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000.
Figure 54. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no
median, average daily pedestrian volume = 150.
Figure 55. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no
median, average daily pedestrian volume = 200.
Figure 56. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no
median, average daily pedestrian volume = 50.
Figure 57. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with no
median, average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500.
Figure 58. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median,
average daily pedestrian volume = 100.
Figure 59. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median,
average daily motor vehicle traffic = 15,000.
Figure 60. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median,
average daily pedestrian volume = 150.
Figure 61. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median,
average daily pedestrian volume = 200
Figure 62. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median,
average daily motor vehicle traffic = 22,500.
Figure 63. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median,
average daily motor vehicle traffic = 32,000.
Figure 64. Response curves with 95 percent confidence
intervals based on negative binomial regression model, five lanes with median,
average daily motor vehicle traffic = 7,500.
LIST OF TABLES
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 8. Crashes, exposure proportions, expected crashes, and binomial probabilities for categories of marked 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 11. Recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and other needed
pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.*
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.
Table of Contents | Next |