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 offers information on pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) that is a traffic control device used at pedestrian crossings including reports that device is pedestrian activated and upon activation, drivers see a sequence of indications that start with a flashing yellow.

The article discusses a study which revealed that various roadway and traffic control device characteristics are linked with traffic operating conditions that are more supportive of walking.

The article talks about the pedestrian issues related to rapid-flashing beacons. Topics include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and their studies on the effect of shape, flash pattern, and beacon location. Other topics include the effect of rapid-flashing yellow light-emitting diodes (LEDs) on pedestrian detection, circular rapid-flashing beacons (CRFB) and rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFB), and rapid-flashing patterns.

Left-turn gap acceptance at an unsignalized intersection is dependent on many factors. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) uses a single value of critical gap for all types of intersections; however, this may be oversimplistic and lead to inaccurate estimates of left-turn delay and capacity. Most existing studies also do not differentiate between gap and lag when evaluating gap acceptance. In this paper, binary logit models were developed to estimate the probability of accepting or rejecting a given gap or lag for a left-turning vehicle from a major road at an unsignalized intersection considering a number of potential influencing factors. Gap acceptance behavior was found to be influenced by the type of gap presented to the driver (gap or lag). Gap duration, total wait time, time to turn, distance to next signal downstream, and median type were found to be significant factors in predicting the probability of accepting or rejecting a gap. In the model for lag acceptance lag duration, time to turn, crossing width, speed limit, and distance to next signal downstream were found to be significant. Equations for estimating the critical gap and lag were developed. Critical gap and lag were found to be varying over a wide range of values depending on the type of intersection. The range was smaller for critical gaps than lags. The findings from this study can improve operational analysis of left turns at unsignalized intersections by using different critical gaps for different traffic and geometric conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]