@article{ref1,
title="Development of crash modification factors for uncontrolled pedestrian crossing treatments",
journal="NCHRP research report",
year="2017",
author="Zegeer, Charles and Srinivasan, Raghavan and Lan, Bo and Carter, Daniel and Smith, Sarah and Sundstrom, Carl and Thirsk, Nathan J. and Zegeer, John and Lyon, Craig and Ferguson, Erin and Van Houten, Ron",
volume="",
number="841",
pages="1-162",
abstract="This report quantifies the safety benefits of four types of pedestrian crossing treatments-- rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, pedestrian refuge islands, and advanced YIELD or STOP markings and signs--and presents a recommended crash modification factor (CMF) for each treatment type. This information, which is suitable for inclusion in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, FHWA's CMF Clearinghouse, and other guidance, will be valuable to transportation agencies in choosing the appropriate crossing treatment for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.   There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the use of pedestrian crossing treatments at uncontrolled crossing locations. Research shows that marking crosswalks without making additional improvements is associated with higher pedestrian crash rates under certain roadway configurations and operating characteristics, such as on high-volume multi-lane roads (Zegeer, C.V., Stewart, J.R., Huang, H.H., and Lagerwey, P.A. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Federal Highway Administration, 2001). However, failing to provide crossing opportunities, installing inappropriate roadway treatments, or over-improving an area are all undesirable solutions. Where a crosswalk alone might lead to increased pedestrian crashes, Zegeer et al. recommend enhanced crossing treatments, noting that &quot;pedestrian crossing problems and needs should be routinely identified, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access.&quot; While several studies have examined pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossing locations, robust CMFs are generally lacking.    Under NCHRP Project 17-56, the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC) was asked to (1) quantify the relationships between pedestrian safety and crossing treatments at uncontrolled locations (excluding roundabouts) and (2) develop CMFs by crash type and severity for (a) unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk signs and pavement markings, including advanced YIELD markings; (b) pedestrian hybrid beacons; (c) rectangular rapid flashing beacons; (d) pedestrian refuge areas; (e) curb extensions; (f ) in-pavement warning lights; and/or (g) high-visibility crosswalk marking patterns.    The HSRC conducted an extensive literature review, collected and evaluated data for numerous uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations in a number of cities, and narrowed the list of crossing treatments for full evaluation to four: rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, pedestrian refuge islands, and advanced YIELD or STOP markings and signs. The research team analyzed before and after crash data and developed crash prediction models for those four treatment types at nearly 1,000 locations in 14 cities and developed CMFs for each treatment. To facilitate implementation of the research results, the findings of this research are appropriate for inclusion in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, the Federal Highway Administration's CMF Clearinghouse, design guidance for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings, and other documents<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="2572-3766",
doi="10.17226/24627",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/24627"
}