Crossing Improvements (Continued)
MIDBLOCK CROSSINGS Midblock crossings can provide legal crossings at locations where pedestrians want to travel, and can be safer than crossings at intersections because traffic is only moving in two directions.
Pedestrian-vehicle conflicts can occur when drivers performing turning movements across the crosswalk do not see or yield to pedestrians who have the right-of-way. Pedestrians may also arrive at an intersection late, or may not have any indication of how much time they have to safely cross the intersection. Pedestrian traffic signal enhancements can be made to provide pedestrians with a head start, called a Leading Pedestrian Interval, or extend the walk time to allow them to safely and comfortably cross the street. TYPICAL APPLICATION • Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) are used to reduce right turn and permissive left turn vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. The pedestrian interval is initiated 3-10 seconds, in advance of the concurrent green with the potential for permissive right and left turn conflicts. The LPI gives pedestrians a head start making them more visible, and reducing crossing exposure time. Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) should be implemented with an LPI. • Push buttons can be configured to provide additional crossing time. The MUTCD requires signage indicating the walk time extension at or adjacent to the push button (MUTCD sign R10-32P). • Passive pedestrian detection devices save pedestrians the trouble of having to locate a push button. They are also capable of tracking pedestrians as they cross the intersection, and can be configured to extend the walk/flashing don’t walk interval when pedestrians are still in the intersection, and/or not dedicate walk time in the absence of pedestrians. • The US Access Board’s Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) guidance requires APS installation with any new or altered signal. Pedestrian Traffic Signal Enhancements
Action Plan for Implementing Pedestrian Crossing Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Locations
NCDOT has a policy to install high visibility marked crosswalks at mid-block crossing locations based on language in TEPPL. They are also recommended at some legs of an uncontrolled locations based on the Complete Streets Guide.
RECOMMENDATION #12: NCDOT will assess its current policies for installing high visibility marked crosswalks which currently supports them under many circumstances. Language from the Complete Streets Guide recommending the application of high visibility crosswalks should also be assessed and folded into a recommended comprehensive
Leading Pedestrian Interval
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons stop automobile traffic for bicyclists and pedestrians wishing to cross a high traffic volume/high speed roadway.
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), above left, alert drivers at unsignalized intersections of people biking or walking.
Table 2. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature.
Posted Speed Limit and AADT Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000–15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000
The chart to the right from the NCDOT Action Plan for Implementing Pedestrian Crossing Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Locations outlines
Roadway Configuration
≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph
1 2 1 456 56 56456 56 56456 56 56 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 lanes (1 lane in each direction)
1 2 3 1
3 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 lanes with raised median (1 lane in each direction)
4 5
5
5 4 5
5
5 4 5
5
5
9 7 9 7
9 7 9 7
7 9 7
9 7
9
9
1 2 3 1 3 456 56 56456 56 56456 5656 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
parameters for choosing an appropriate crossing treatment.
3 lanes w/o raised median (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane)
1
1
1
1
1
1
3 1
3
3
3 1
3
3
3 1
3
3
4+ lanes with raised median (2 or more lanes in each direction)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9
8 9 7 8 9
8 9
8 9
7 8 9 7 8 9
1
1
3 1
3 1
3 1
3
3 1
3 1
3 1
3 1
3
Pushbuttons require regular inspection
4+ lanes w/o raised median (2 or more lanes in each direction)
5 6 5 6
5 6
5 6
5 6
5 6
5 6
5 6 8 9
5 6 8 9
7 8 9 7 8 9
8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9
8 9 7 8 9
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS When pedestrians have to wait an entire cycle for the next walk phase, a higher incidence of non-compliance, in the form of jay-walking, or unpredictable behavior may occur. These signal enhancements facilitate safer, more predictable, and conspicuous crossing conditions. The Leading Pedestrian Interval and walk time extensions provide additional time for pedestrians who may need more time to cross the street such as wheel-chair users, people with disabilities, the elderly, and children.
Given the set of conditions in a cell, # Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. Signifies that the countermeasure should always be considered, but not mandated or required, based upon engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should always occur in conjunction with other identified countermeasures.* The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may be considered following engineering judgment.
1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels, and crossing warning signs 2 Raised crosswalk 3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line 4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign 5 Curb extension 6 Pedestrian refuge island 7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)** 8 Road Diet 9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)**
*Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures. **It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location.
46
This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/; Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, 47
FUQUAY-VARINA PEDESTRIAN PLAN
CHAPTER 3: INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting