U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
REPORT |
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
|
![]() |
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-13-098 Date: January 2014 |
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-13-098 Date: January 2014 |
In all three phases of this study, pedestrian crossing behaviors were examined. Although phase 1 and phase 2 used video capture and phase 3 used in-person observations, the same pedestrian crossing coding guidelines were used in each phase. As a result, crossings are compared across the 20 different locations here. In addition, for ease of reading, data from all three phases are combined and presented again in this section.
The relationship between pedestrian crossings and various environmental factors was examined. A summary of continuous variables can be found in table 44. A summary of categorical variables can be found in table 45. The environmental variables are as follows:
· Distance (in ft) between marked crossings. This is the distance between the two marked pedestrian crosswalks at each location.
· AADT. Average annual daily traffic expressed in thousands and rounded to the nearest 100.
· Trip originators. A scale from 1 (very few) to 5 (a lot) that quantifies the attractions in the area that might generate pedestrian traffic.
· Walk phase. The length (in s) that the walk sign is illuminated (this includes the flashing portion of the walk phase that warns pedestrians not to start crossing).
· Don’t walk phase. The length (in s) that the don’t walk is illuminated (steady state stable sign only).
· Width of crossing. The distance (in ft) pedestrians are required to travel in the roadway to cross in the marked intersection at each location.
· Travel pace. The rate (in ft/s) at which pedestrians are required to travel to complete a crossing in the marked intersection entirely during the walk phase.
· Traffic direction. Indicator of one-way or two-way vehicular traffic 1 = one way and 2 = two way.
· Barriers. Indicator of barrier blocking all or part of the sidewalk from the roadway; 0 = none, 1 = partial block, and 2 = mostly blocked.
· Bus stops. Indicator of the location of bus stops; 0 = no bus stop, 1 = enter/exit bus at crosswalk, and 2 = enter/exit bus at non-intersection.
· Parking present. Indicator whether parking was present on either side of the street (yes or no).
· Center turn lane. Indicator whether a center (non-through traffic) lane was present (yes or no).
· Dedicated right turn. Indicator whether a right turn (non-through traffic) lane was present (yes or no).
· Median. Indicator of the type of median if it was present; 0 = no median, 1 = hard, raised above traffic level median, and 2 = soft, not raised median (i.e., paint only).
· Cross streets. Indicator of a cross street that met with the main travel road between the two marked intersections; 0 = no cross street, 1 = vehicle traffic was light controlled at the cross street, 2 = vehicle traffic was not light controlled at the cross street.
· Far intersection light controlled. Indicator whether the far intersection (i.e., the next marked crosswalk) was light controlled (yes or no).
Table 44. Summary of pedestrian crossing locations and their associated environmental factors that were assessed on a continuous scale.
Location |
Distance Between Marked Crossings (ft) |
AADT |
Trip Originators |
Walk Phase (s) |
Don’t Walk (s) |
Width of Crossing (ft) |
Travel Pace (ft/s) |
1 |
352 |
15.8 |
1 |
20 |
69 |
61 |
3.1 |
2 |
530 |
24.2 |
1 |
46 |
55 |
81.25 |
1.8 |
3 |
550 |
26.3 |
1 |
46 |
71 |
48.25 |
1.0 |
4 |
656 |
11.3 |
2 |
32 |
45 |
54.42 |
1.7 |
5 |
391 |
15.1 |
3 |
53 |
50 |
61 |
1.2 |
6 |
294 |
31.5 |
3 |
31 |
56 |
83 |
2.7 |
7 |
145 |
11.9 |
1 |
44 |
52 |
43 |
1.0 |
8 |
433 |
24.2 |
1 |
19 |
79 |
70 |
3.7 |
9 |
551 |
34 |
4 |
30 |
68 |
109 |
3.6 |
10 |
361 |
41.8 |
3 |
24 |
75 |
72.5 |
3.0 |
11 |
193 |
22.9 |
1 |
19 |
80 |
68.3 |
3.6 |
12 |
277 |
19.8 |
3.5 |
20 |
78 |
64.5 |
3.2 |
13 |
316 |
15.1 |
1 |
10 |
89 |
50 |
5.0 |
14 |
338 |
34.7 |
1 |
30 |
67 |
68.25 |
2.3 |
15 |
297.5 |
18.3 |
1 |
39 |
60 |
45.5 |
1.2 |
16 |
361 |
28 |
4 |
58 |
73 |
75 |
1.3 |
17 |
266.5 |
8.1 |
5 |
64 |
63 |
43.25 |
0.7 |
18 |
511.25 |
7.9 |
4.5 |
60 |
40 |
30 |
0.5 |
19 |
342 |
23.2 |
2 |
30 |
70 |
80 |
2.7 |
20 |
339.5 |
13 |
3.5 |
20 |
63 |
44.5 |
2.2 |
Table 45. Summary of pedestrian crossing locations and their associated environmental factors that were assessed on a categorical scale.
Location |
Traffic Direction |
Barriers |
Bus Stops |
Parking Present |
Center Turn Lane |
Dedicated Right Turn |
Median |
Cross Streets |
Far Intersection Light Controlled |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
2 |
0 |
Yes |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
No |
Yes |
No |
1 |
1 |
Yes |
4 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
Yes |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Yes |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
No |
8 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
No |
2 |
2 |
No |
9 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
1 |
2 |
Yes |
10 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
11 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
No |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
No |
12 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Yes |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
13 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
Yes |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
14 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
15 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
No |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
16 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Yes |
No |
No |
1 |
0 |
Yes |
17 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
18 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
No |
No |
No |
0 |
0 |
No |
19 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
No |
No |
No |
1 |
0 |
Yes |
20 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
The data were analyzed in two different ways. First, data were examined as the full raw dataset, which includes more than 60,000 pedestrian crossings. Second, to handle different levels of pedestrian traffic, data were analyzed in terms of the proportion of crossings within each location.