Pedestrian and Bicyclist Traffic Control Device Evaluation Methods
CHAPTER 6. SOURCES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
CONTACTING FHWA
The FHWA MUTCD team is available to assist with technical questions or comments about MUTCD in general or about a particular section or figure in MUTCD. Contact information for members of the team is available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/team.htm.
An agency can contact FHWA at MUTCDofficialrequest@dot.gov for an interpretation of MUTCD or to determine if an evaluation is needed. Communications will receive quicker attention if they are submitted electronically.
The FHWA Office of Safety maintains a helpful Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Web site that includes safety facts, information on roadway safety audits, research reports, and other resources: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/.
EXAMPLES OF EXPERIMENT OR INTERPRETATION REQUESTS
Examples of requests to experiment and letters requesting interpretation are available from the the American Traffic Safety Services Association at http://www.atssa.com/cs/root/news_pr/2009_interpretation_letters.
This site offers the experimentation and interpretation letters for 2009 and 2010. Earlier letters dating back to 2004 are also available on the Web site (click the archives button).
MUTCD RESOURCES
The MUTCD Web site includes a Resource page. It provides information on several topics including the following:
The main page is available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-resources.htm. FHWA MUTCD official rulings older than 2 years are at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/official_rul.htm.
EXAMPLES OF EVALUATION REPORTS
The following lists several examples of evaluation reports:
Fitzpatrick, K. and Park, E.S. (2010). Safety Effectiveness of the Hawk Pedestrian Crossing Treatment, Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-042, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10042/10042.pdf. -
Fitzpatrick, K. and Park, E.S. (2010). TechBrief: Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment, Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-045, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10045/10045.pdf.
Shurbutt, J. and Van Houten, R. (2010). Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks, Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-043, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/10043/10043.pdf. Shurbutt, J. and Van Houten, R. (2010). TechBrief: Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks, Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-046, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/10046/10046.pdf. Hunter, W.W., Thomas, L., Srinivassan, R., and Martell, C.A. (2010). Evaluation of Shared Lane Markings, Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-041, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Hunter, W.W., Thomas, L., Srinivassan, R., and Martell, C.A. (2010). TechBrief: Evaluation of Shared Lane Markings, Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-044, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/10044/10044.pdf. Fitzpatrick, K., Chrysler, S.T., Iragavarapu, V., and Park, E.S. (2010). Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study, Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-068, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Fitzpatrick, K., Chrysler, S.T., Iragavarapu, V., and Park, E.S. (2010). TechBrief: Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study, Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-067, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/10067/10067.pdf. Zegeer, C.V., Steward, J.R., Huang, H.H., and Lagerwey, P.A. (2002). Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontroleld Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines, Report No. FHWA-RD-01-075, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/Effects_Un_MarkedCrosswalks_Summary.pdf. Clark, K.L., Hummer, J.E., and Dutt, N. (1996). "Field Evaluation of Fluorescent Strong Yellow-Green Pedestrian Warning Signs," Transportation Research Record 1538, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://trb.metapress.com/content/46528322163j3731/fulltext.pdf. Carlson, P.J. and Miles, J.D. (2006). Driver Understanding of Red Retroflective Raised Pavement Markers, Report No. FHWA-CFL/TD-06-008, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/Driver_Understanding_of_Red_RPMs.pdf. Singer, J.P. and Lerner, N.D. (2005). Countdown Pedestrian Signals: A Comparison of Alternative Pedestrian Change Interval Displays, Final Report, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.atssa.com/galleries/default-file/Ped_Countdown_Report.pdf
Markowitz, F., Sciortino, S., Fleck, J.L., and Lee, B.M..(2006). "Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience with an Extensive Pilot Installation," ITE Journal. Obtained from: http://www.ite.org/.
RESOURCES FOR HUMAN-SUBJECT PROTECTION
Some of the research methods identified in appendix C of this report involve direct contact
with roadway users through surveys or interviews. When people are the subject of research, certain regulations regarding their protection may apply. Below lists resources pertaining to human-subject protection. In general, observations of public behavior are not subject to these regulations.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Office of Human Subject Protection, Code of Federal Regulations and Institutional Review Board Information, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Human Subjects Research, Health Resources and Services Administration, Protecting Human Subjects Training, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.hrsa.gov/humansubjects/.
RESOURCES FOR EVALUATION METHODS
Table 8 lists resources pertaining to evaluation methods. These materials may be available through a local university library.
Table 8. Resources for evaluation methods.
Bibliographical Information |
Description |
ITE. (2009). Traffic Engineering Handbook, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/Orders/index.cfm. |
Chapters of particular interest include chapter 6, “Probability and Statistics,” and chapter 8, “Traffic Engineering Studies.” |
ITE. (2000). Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.ite.org/emodules/ scriptcontent/Orders/index.cfm. |
The manual shows how to conduct several transportation engineering studies in the field; discusses experimental design, survey design, statistical analyses, data presentation techniques, and report writing concepts; provides guidelines for both oral and written presentation of study results; and includes useful forms for various transportation studies. |
Knoblauch, R.L. and Crigler, K.L. (1987). Model Pedestrian Safety Program: User’s Guide Supplement, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. |
This supplement to the Model Pedestrian Safety Program: User’s Guide provides information on specific pedestrian safety countermeasures. The countermeasures are grouped into the three major areas of engineering countermeasures, education countermeasures, and enforcement countermeasures. |
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2010). Highway Safety Manual, AASHTO, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx. |
This manual provides evidence-based crash modification factors for many countermeasures. It also provides guidance on conducting crash-based evaluations and cost/benefit calculations. |
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. SafetyAnalyst, AASHTO, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.safetyanalyst.org. |
This software tool assists practitioners with identifying safety improvement needs and identifying improvement projects with good cost effectiveness. |
Trochim, W.M.K.. Research Methods Knowledge Base, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Obtained from: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php. |
This Web site provides resources for research design and analysis in the behavioral sciences. |
Spiegelman, C.H., Park, E. S., and Rilett, L.R. (2010). Transportation Statistics and Microsimulation. Obtained from: http://www.crcpress.com. |
This textbook is useful for researchers and scientists. |
Hauer, E. (1997). Observational Before-After Studies in Road Safety, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.(13) |
This textbook is useful to researchers and scientists. However, the concepts are complex, and some of the recommended experimental designs (e.g., empirical Bayes (EB)) are difficult to use to evaluate pedestrian and bicyclist safety because of sample size limitations. |
RESOURCES TO BECOME INVOLVED WITH THE MUTCD
NCUTCD assists in the development of standards, guidelines, and warrants for traffic control devices and practices used to regulate, warn, and guide traffic on streets and highways. NCUTCD recommends proposed revisions and interpretations of MUTCD and other accepted national standards to FHWA and other appropriate agencies. NCUTCD develops public and professional awareness of the principles of safe traffic control devices and practices and provides a forum for qualified individuals with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints to exchange professional information. Membership characteristics of NCUTCD are listed in this section. Practitioners interested in becoming active in NCUTCD can work through one of these organizations with their delegates to NCUTCD. Information about NCUTCD can be found at http://www.ncutcd.org.
Membership Characteristics of NCUTCD
Sponsoring Organizations
NCUTCD is supported by 21 sponsoring organizations, each of which appoints one or more members and associate members, who constitute the voting delegates to NCUTCD. Sponsoring organizations include the following:
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. AASHTO. American Automobile Association. American Public Transportation Association. American Public Works Association. American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association. American Road and Transportation Builders Association. American Society of Civil Engineers. American Traffic Safety Services Association. Association of American Railroads. Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals. American Highway Users Alliance. Governors Highway Safety Association. Human Factors Resources. ITE. International Association of Chiefs of Police. International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association. International Municipal Signal Association. League of American Bicyclists. National Association of County Engineers. National Safety Council.
Individual Participation
Over 200 individuals are directly involved in NCUTCD activities in the following categories
of membership:
Members are appointed by sponsors and serve as voting members of the council and as voting members of a technical committee. In total, 39 individuals serve as voting members of the council and of the technical committee. Only members are eligible to hold office. Associate members are appointed by the sponsors and serve as voting members of a technical committee. They can serve as the member's alternative on the council. Technical members are nominated by the technical committee chairperson and approved for membership on each technical committee by the executive board. They are eligible to vote in technical committee proceedings, to serve as secretary of a technical committee, and to be appointed as chair of a working group or task force.(2)
|
