The effects of traffic calming measures on pedestrian and motorist behavior
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

The effects of traffic calming measures on pedestrian and motorist behavior

Filetype[PDF-883.20 KB]


English
Details You May Also Like

Details:

  • Creators:
  • Corporate Contributors:
    United States. Federal Highway Administration
  • Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
    FHWA-RD-00-104, ,Research Report
  • Resource Type:
    Tech Report
  • TRIS Online Accession Number:
    00818848
  • Corporate Publisher:
    Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
  • NTL Classification:
    NTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-Highway Safety;NTL-OPERATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS-Traffic Control Devices;
  • Abstract:
    Traffic calming treatments may benefit pedestrians who are crossing the street by slowing down vehicle traffic, shortening crossing distances, and enhancing motorist and pedestrian visibility. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of selected traffic calming treatments, at both intersection and mid-block locations, on pedestrian and motorist behavior. Before and after data were collected in Cambridge, MA (bulbouts and raised intersection), Corvallis, OR (pedestrian refuge island), and Seattle, WA (bulbouts). Data were also collected at "treatment" and "control" sites in Durham, NC (raised crosswalks), Greensboro, NC (bulbouts), Montgomery County, MD (raised crosswalks), Richmond, VA (bulbouts), and Sacramento, CA (bulbouts). The key findings include: (1) Overall vehicle speeds were often lower at treatment sites than at control sites. (2) The combination of a raised crosswalk with an overhead flasher increased the percentage of pedestrians for whom motorists yielded. It is not known what part of the improvement was attributable to the raised crosswalk and what part was attributable to the flasher. None of the other treatments had a significant effect on the percentage of pedestrians for whom motorists yielded. (3) The treatments usually did not have a significant effect on average pedestrian waiting time. (4) Refuge islands often served to channelize pedestrians into marked crosswalks. The raised intersection in Cambridge also increased the percentage of pedestrians who crossed in the crosswalk. In conclusion, these devices have the potential for improving the pedestrian environment. However, these devices by themselves do not guarantee that motorists will slow down or yield to pedestrians.
  • Format:
    PDF
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files
More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov