Date post: | 02-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | trec-at-psu |
View: | 36 times |
Download: | 4 times |
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behaviors at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
Nick Foster, AICP
A Case Study in Portland, OR
Introduction
• Problem
– Over 4,000 pedestrian deaths in 2010
• Potential solution
– Enhanced crossings
• Effectiveness?
• Use?
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 2
Project Overview
• Two marked midblock crossings
– Rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB)
– Raised median refuge islands
– Z-crossing (Danish offset)
• One site only
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 3
Background
• RRFB research focused on drivers
– Driver yielding rates: 54%-88%
• Crossing decisions based on distance to crosswalk
– Limited research on attraction
• No literature on Z crossing use
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 4
Site 1 – Barbur Boulevard
• 30,700 ADT
• 35 MPH
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 5
Site 2 – B-H Highway
• 26,400 ADT
• 40 MPH
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 6
Methodology
• 62 hours of video
– Weekdays in February 2013
• Driver and pedestrian behavior MOEs
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 7
Driver Yielding Rates
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Overall
Stage 2
Stage 1
Overall
Stage 2
Stage 1
B-H
Hig
hw
ayB
arb
ur
Bo
ule
vard
Driver Yielding Rate
Loca
tio
n
RRFB Not Activated Crossings RRFB Activated Crossings
n=240
n=16
n=20
n=135
n=13
n=0
n=16
n=468
n=33 n=297
n=228
n=162
9
Comparison to Other Studies
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
This study
Shurbutt, et al. (4 Beacons)
Shurbutt, et al. (2 Beacons)
ODOT (Bend)
ODOT
Western Michigan
Hunter, et al.
Average Driver Yielding Rate
Stu
dy
10
Pedestrian Actuation Rates
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Overall
Cars Present
No Cars Present
Overall
Cars Present
No Cars Present
Bar
bu
r B
ou
leva
rdB
-H H
igh
way
RRFB Actuation Rate
Loca
tio
n
11
Crossing Locations
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
Bus Stops
SW 6
2n
d A
ve
B-H Highway
15% 70%
15%
12
Diverted Crossings
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
Bus Stops
SW 6
2n
d A
ve
B-H Highway
• 52% of crossings at crosswalk are out-of-direction
13
Diverted Crossings – SB Only
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
Bus Stops
SW 6
2n
d A
ve
B-H Highway
56%
44%
14
Z-Crossing Use
• Path use = 52%
– High yielding rates
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 15
Other Findings
• Avoidance maneuvers
– Hard braking (2)
• Stranded pedestrians
– RRFB activated (1 – 0.3%)
– RRFB not-activated (6 – 15%)
• Minimal pedestrian delay
– 20 sec max (RRFB not activated)
– All but one <15 sec (RRFB activated)
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 16
Conclusions
• 91-92% overall driver yielding rate
• Marked midblock crossing with RRFB may encourage diversion
• Z-crossing effectiveness limited
– Adequate sight distance
– No physical barrier
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 17
Future Research
• Pedestrian diversion
– More sites
– Before/after
– Wider field of view
– Automated analysis
– Survey
• Z-crossing
– More sites
• Driver understanding
Evaluating Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Enhanced Multi-lane Midblock Pedestrian Crossings 18