Search

• Research assessed nighttime effectiveness of the PHB, RRFB, and LED-Em. • The PHB is highly effective during the nighttime as well as the daytime. • Value of using advance yield lines was demonstrated. • Findings offer caution for LED-Em on higher speed, higher volume, or wider roads. Introduction: A large majority of pedestrian fatal crashes occurred during the nighttime. The focus of this research was to identify if the following pedestrian crossing treatments were more or less effective at night: pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB), or LED-embedded crossing warning sign (LED-Em). Method: For each treatment, two statistical evaluations were used on the staged pedestrian data: ANCOVA models that considered per site mean yield rates and logistic regression that considered the individual driver response to the crossing pedestrian. Results: For the PHB, essentially no difference was found between the very high daytime and nighttime driver yielding values. The research found RRFBs to be more effective at night, and the LED-Em to be more effective during the day. Using the results from the logistic regression evaluation, higher driver yielding was observed at LED-Em sites in the lower speed limit group (30 or 35 mph (48.3 or 56.3 kph), with 2 lanes (rather than 4 lanes), with narrow lanes of 10.5 or 11 ft (3.2 or 3.4 m) widths (rather than 11.5 or 12 ft (3.5 or 3.7 m) widths), and lower hourly volumes. The results from the ANCOVA model for LED-Ems also showed a statistically significant difference for yield lines (higher yielding when present). Conclusions: This analysis represents the only known study to date on the effectiveness of pedestrian crossing treatments at night. Practical Applications: This study provides additional support for the PHB as a treatment because the PHB was found to be highly effective during the nighttime as well as the daytime. The value of using advance yield lines was also demonstrated. The findings offer a caution regarding the use of the LED-Em treatment on higher speed, higher volume, or wider roads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Safety effectiveness of pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) was examined. • Significant crash reductions for all, rear-end, and pedestrian-related crashes. • PHBs with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island had fewer total crashes. Introduction: The pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is a traffic control device used at pedestrian crossings. A recent Arizona Department of Transportation research effort investigated changes in crashes for different severity levels and crash types (e.g., rear-end crashes) due to the PHB presence, as well as for crashes involving pedestrians and bicycles. Method: Two types of methodologies were used to evaluate the safety of PHBs: (a) an Empirical Bayes (EB) before-after study, and (b) a long-term cross-sectional observational study. For the EB before-after evaluation, the research team considered three reference groups: unsignalized intersections, signalized intersections, and both unsignalized and signalized intersections combined. Results: For the signalized and combined unsignalized and signalized intersection groups, all crash types considered showed statistically significant reductions in crashes (e.g., total crashes, fatal and injury crashes, rear-end crashes, fatal and injury rear-end crashes, angle crashes, fatal and injury angle crashes, pedestrian-related crashes, and fatal and injury pedestrian-related crashes). A cross-sectional study was conducted with a larger number of PHBs (186) to identify relationships between roadway characteristics and crashes at PHBs, especially with respect to the distance to an adjacent traffic control signal. The distance to an adjacent traffic signal was found to be significant only at the α = 0.1 level, and only for rear-end and fatal and injury rear-end crashes. Conclusions: This analysis represents the largest known study to date on the safety impacts of PHBs, along with a focus on how crossing and geometric characteristics affect crash patterns. The study showed the safety benefits of PHBs for both pedestrians and vehicles. Practical Applications : The findings from this study clearly support the installation of PHBs at midblock or intersection crossings, as well as at crossings on higher-speed roads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the findings from two new research studies on the usefulness of High-intensity Activated Crosswalk developed by Tucson, Arizona to address pedestrian crossing concerns. According to the Transit Cooperative Research Program and National Cooperative Highway Research Program study, devices showing red indication significantly shows a higher pedestrian compliance than those without it. Aside from Arizona, other cities have installed the pedestrian hybrid beacon device.

An interview with Kay Fitzpatrick, Senior Research Engineer at Roadway Design Program Texas A&M Transportation Institute is presented including examines that it used writing to convey transportation knowledge to other professionals and the greater world.

The article reports on the efforts of the technical committee formed by the Traffic Engineering Council of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to develop an informational resource on marking patterns used at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. The committee observed the minimal attention given to selecting a style of crosswalk markings in certain regions, and saw the need to distribute information on crosswalk markings. Information on ordering "Marking Patterns Used at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings" is provided.