United States Department of Transportation
ROSA P serves as an archival repository of USDOT-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other information authored or co-authored by USDOT or funded partners.
As a repository, ROSA P retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
i
Selection of pedestrian crossing treatments at controlled and uncontrolled locations.
-
2015-01-01
[PDF-4.47 MB]
Details:
-
Creators:
-
Corporate Creators:
-
Corporate Contributors:
-
Subject/TRT Terms:
-
Publication/ Report Number:
-
Resource Type:
-
Geographical Coverage:
-
Corporate Publisher:
-
Abstract:Designers and traffic engineers have to make decisions on selecting a pedestrian treatment whenever designing a new pedestrian
facility or retrofitting an existing one. The goal is either to provide or improve pedestrian safety at pedestrian crossing facilities, including
controlled locations of signalized intersections and approaches with stop and yield signs, and uncontrolled locations of intersections and
midblock sites. Currently, the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) has limited resources on pedestrian treatment selection that does
not take into consideration key elements such as number of lanes and the existence of a raised median. Therefore, there is a need to find a more
detailed and comprehensive approach to providing guidelines when deciding on a pedestrian crossing treatment. The approach has to be
practical and can be easily utilized by traffic and design engineers, planners, and other constituents.
Most of the State DOTs developed their guidelines on pedestrian crossing treatment based on several resources. However, the 2002
FHWA‐RD‐01‐075 study titled “Safety Effects of Marked Vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations” was adopted by several states
either “as is,” with some modifications, or referenced as a source on pedestrian crosswalk selection. State DOTs mainly use standards and
guidelines from the National MUTCD, Part 3 and NCHRP Report 672 for roundabout crosswalk markings. In general, there are no clear warrants
for grade separation treatment. In addition, there is a need for a national and comprehensive study to develop practical guidelines on pedestrian
crossing treatments, especially on multilane roadways, complex intersections, and when the speed is 45 mph or more.
This study proposed guidelines on crosswalk markings and treatment selection of pedestrian crossings based on a synthesis of federal
and state reports, guidelines, design manuals, polices, and other relevant publications. It is recommended to adopt these guidelines as a
reference for pedestrian treatment selection at INDOT.
The results of a survey on pedestrian crossing treatments indicate that the most effective and most frequently used treatments by the
different states represented in the survey are advanced signs, crosswalk signs and pavement markings, countdown displays at signalized
intersections, curb extensions, high‐visibility signs and markings, and median refuge islands. The least effective and least frequently used
treatments are automated detection, in‐roadway warning lights, overhead flashing beacons (passive), pedestrian crossing flags, pedestrian
railings, and split midblock signals. In addition, the main recommendation on high‐speed divided highway pedestrian crossings is to provide
enough time for pedestrian to cross the entire width of the intersection without a median whenever there is a demand.
-
Format:
-
Funding:
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
Download URL:
-
File Type:
